A fire-engine station is located at within twelve or fifteen feet of the exhibition building.

A committee composed of competent jewelers and mineralogists has been appointed to make an appraisement of the diamonds and to indicate such as should be withheld from sale on account of their scientific, artistic, or historic interest.  The members of the committee propose to preserve the following objects: 

1.  The “Regent” (Fig. 2), by reason of its mineralogical value, the perfection of its cutting, the purity of its water, its incomparable luster, and its great size, it being the largest brilliant as yet known.

2.  The military sword of Charles the Tenth’s coronation, the hilt of which is entirely of brilliants mounted by Bapst with wonderful art.

3.  The jewel called the “Reliquary,” of the 15th century.

To these riches must be added the following interesting objects:  the Dey of Algiers’ watch; the Elephant of Denmark; the decorations, etc., of foreign orders; crowns and diadems of sapphire; rubies; pearls that afford curious specimens of French art at the beginning of our century; one of the Mazarins bequeathed by the celebrated Cardinal; and lots of colored stones destined for our national museums.

The same exhibition alluded to above contains a number of other collections of great interest that it would be unjust to pass over in silence, such as the exhibit of the French diamond mines of the Cape, where one may see all the details of this prosperous exploitation by means of photographs and specimens.  The art bronzes, the objects of jewelry, of goldsmith’s work, and of morocco work, the music boxes, Trouve’s and Aboilard’s electric jewelry, and the retrospective art collections especially attracted the attention of the public.—­La Nature.

* * * * *

A NEW MODE OF TESTING THE ECONOMY OF THE EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT IN LIFE INSURANCE.

How to determine the general ratios of the expenses of management of life insurance companies has hitherto been an unsettled question, and I think no serious attempt has been made before my own to study this question exhaustively, and reach a scientific conclusion.

Believing that, one is contained in the following statement, I respectfully submit it to the criticism of others.

It has generally been taken for granted that the measure of economy of life insurance expenses may be expressed by the single ratio of expenses to one feature of the business, such as the premium income, or the total income (premium and interest), or the mean amount of all policies outstanding.  But this is not the case.  No exhaustive reason has been shown for preferring one of these bases of ratio to another, and, indeed, no reason well supported by argument has been shown for employing either.  On the other hand, no better evidence is needed of the importance of establishing a uniform and demonstrably sound basis, than the fact that it is common for companies to refute one another’s claims to superior economy, and totally confuse the public, by opposing ratios found in one way by ratios found in another—­that one of two companies which appears the most economical according to one test being apparently the least so according to another.