PROF. G. F. WRIGHT AND HIS CRITICS. 777 



chiefly by the labors of Mr. Leverett, until the terminal moraine 

 now almost coincides, in Ohio at least, with the southern margin 

 of the drift area. 



Far be it from us to impute unworthy motives to any one of 

 these critics. We would, if we could, believe that they are all 

 impelled solely by a love of truth and a regard for the public 

 good. But we regret that they have not made this less question- 

 able. Criticism of a former colleague in terms so unsparing is 

 sure, whether justly or unjustly, to be interpreted according to its 

 obvious spirit. We unwillingly think of words so ugly as "jeal- 

 ousy," " conspiracy," " concerted attack," etc., but we warn these 

 critics that they will hear them if they have not already come to 

 their ears. They may fancy that they are the sole proprietors of 

 the field, but there are men of science in the land whose voices 

 will be heard in loud and earnest protest, and whose voices when 

 heard will carry weight with their brethren and with the public. 

 American geologists will not be silenced by official insolence or 

 warned off their fields of investigation by " notices of trespass " 

 from self-appointed owners. The whole tone of the discussion on 

 one side is far from honorable to science, and will not redound to 

 the credit of American geology. 



We have said enough. We will not touch on that part of the 

 controversy springing out of the author's connection with the 

 United States Geological Survey. It may be right to estimate a 

 man's work by the number of days for which he was paid.* This 

 is probably the official method of reckoning, but we will remind 

 the critic who dwells on this point that amateurs are in the habit 

 of spending time and money very freely without hope of recom- 

 pense and, indeed, without keeping any record. Probably this 

 fact lies at the bottom of the discrepancy on which so much stress 

 has been laid. 



There is one article which demands a few special words. It 

 comes from the pen of a much younger man than Prof. Wright, 

 and allowance should perhaps be made on this ground. We ob- 

 serve that in his reply the professor seems to be conscious of this, 

 and to have restrained his pen. But, after granting so much, we 

 can not acquit this gentleman of forgetting the courtesy due to 

 an older man and an older geologist than himself. Energy of ex- 

 pression may be forgiven in the heat of argument, especially if it 

 arises from strength of conviction. Even authoritative and dic- 

 tatorial assertion without condescending to give reasons, however 

 illogical, is not unpardonable in an opponent. Hard blows re- 

 ceived in fair fight may leave scars, but their memory does not 

 rankle ; and hard words hastily spoken, though not pleasant, 



* Dial, January 1, 1893, p. 7. 

 vol. xlii. — 53 



