Most of our organizations, in my opinion, have been a complete failure, due to this democratic idea. I was in at the beginning of the Institute of Arts and Letters. Holbrook Curtis came to me one day, telling me of the proposition and that I had been chosen as the member of the initial committee to represent painting, sculpture, and architecture. The little group who met to start the society consisted of William Dean Howells, Charles Dudley Warner, Marion Crawford, Johnson of the _Century_, Doctor Curtis, and myself. Alas! the literary element prevailed! I was asked to hand in a list of those whom I thought worthy of becoming the first members, so brought into the next meeting the names of Whistler, Sargent, and (_ex officio_) myself to represent painting; Charles McKim for architecture; and Augustus Saint-Gaudens for sculpture. To my astonishment, a list of more than a hundred writers was offered to me. I objected on the ground that to belong to this Institute was a prize, to be given for extraordinary merit; therefore, the greater the number the less the honor. There was much talking and arguing, during which I could see I was becoming exceedingly unpopular among those who believed in the “American advertisement” point of view. Finally, Marion Crawford, who had hitherto kept silent, said: “Oh, Simmons, leave these people to stew in their own juice. Our host here has some very good Scotch whisky. Come with me and we’ll sample it.” Later I was given a list of more than a hundred names of painters, to mark those of which I approved. I refused and stuck to my theory, that only a few should have the honor—and I automatically became an outcast. I never had anything more to do with them until I was invited to read a paper on the fine arts at one of their meetings. But, if asked to-day, I could not tell whether I belong to the organization or not.