In this way throughout the offending article, the writer persistently robs Edison to magnify Hughes, giving credit to Mr. Hughes for exactly what he has suppressed from Mr. Prescott's book. To insist as he does, that, because Mr. Edison covers his carbon button with a rigid iron plate, in his very practical telephone, therefore a vibrating diaphragm is an essential feature of Mr. Edison's invention, is a very shallow quibble in the face of Mr. Edison's and Mr. Prescott's statements that the carbon button acts precisely the same in the absence of such covering, though not so strongly. Mr. Edison's laboratory records show a great variety of experiments in which the carbon was talked against without "any intervening mechanism." In a telephone for popular use, however, to be held in the hand, turned upside down, talked into, exposed to dust and the weather, it was obviously necessary to use some means for holding the carbon in place, and to prevent its sensitiveness from being destroyed by dirt and the moisture of the breath when in use. For this purpose a rigid iron partition seemed at once convenient and durable. It is not in any sense a "vibrating diaphragm." With a persistence worthy of a better cause, the _Engineering_ writer returns to the point he seems especially anxious to enforce. Toward the end of the article he says: "In every instrument described by Mr. Edison the diaphragm is the ruling genie of the instrument. Professor Hughes, however, has through his great discovery been enabled to show that variations of resistance can be imparted to an electrical current not only without a diaphragm, but with very much better results when no such accessory is employed." The animus of all this is only too apparent. Altogether the article is the most dishonest piece of writing we have ever seen in a scientific periodical; and although the article appears in the editorial columns of _Engineering_, we prefer, for the honor of scientific journalism, to think that the management of that paper was not party to the rascally act. It is more credible that a gross imposition has been practiced by some trusted member of the _Engineering_ staff, or by some contributor whose position seemed to justify the acceptance of his utterances without any attempt at their verification. It is well known here to whom, in London, at Mr. Edison's request, Mr. Prescott sent proofs of the matter abused, together with electros of the cuts used, in _Engineering_. Accordingly the burden of dishonor lies upon or between a prominent British official on the one hand, and on the other a journal which cannot afford to leave the matter unexplained. Whoever is hurt, we sincerely hope that the fair fame of scientific journalism for candor and honesty may come off unstained. * * * * * =A More Perfect Production.=