[PENHALLOW] DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN MARSH LANDS 21 
the movement is quite limited, the whole range being comprised within 
twenty feet. 
The proof of these facts as stated, is important, and is based upon 
the wear of the shores; the rise of the tide waters on the upland without 
wear; the occurrence of dead trees and stumps in their places of growth 
and altogether below the present tide level, and from finding the works 
of the early settlers in locations where they are now quite out of place 
on account of the water. Further evidence of an important character, 
is also obtained from the fact that in most of the New Jersey marsh- 
land near the upland, which is shallow, fallen timber is found buried ; 
and the stumps of trees are still standing with their roots in the solid 
ground where they grew. When they are of pine, cedar or other durable 
wood, their broken and weather worn trunks are seen projecting above 
the marsh which has overrun the place of their growth (op. cit. 350). 
Further evidence on this subject, tending to the same conclusions, 
is also given by Dr. Cook in his report for 1885 (2), and it is impor- 
tant to note that all of these observations were sufficiently ample and 
satisfying to permit of ascertaining the rate of subsidence, since Dr. 
Cook distinctly states (1, 362) that, “'These measurements agree in 
giving the rate of subsidence as about two feet in a century, or one 
quarter of an inch a year. The whole amount of this subsidence is not 
known; it must, at least, equal the whole depth from high water mark 
to the lowest point at which stumps and roots of trees have been found 
in their place of growth. This, from the evidence previously given, is 
seventeen feet, and it may be more. It should be pointed out here, 
that this rate of depression appears to be in operation at the present 
time, or at least there is no satisfactory proof to the contrary.” 
Although all of the evidence thus far cited is generally accepted 
as conclusive, we must not neglect the observations of reliable investi- 
gators whose conclusions seem to suggest a somewhat different interpre- 
tation. Through the courtesy of Dr. C. W. Hayes of the United States 
Geological Survey, it has been possible to avail myself of recent, but as 
yet unpublished results, obtained by Mr. Fuller, and as his presentation 
is important, it is given in full:— 
“The evidences of submergence presented by GE Lewis, Shaler 
and others are unreliable in some ways because of the confusion of the 
recent: deposits with certain lower deposits shown by late investigations 
to be interglacial, probably Yarmouth age (of the same age as the fossil- 
. bearing Sankaty beds of Nantucket). This is notably true of the 
remains of fresh water vegetation reported by Cook and Lewis at depths - 
of fifty feet or more in New Jersey and on Long Island. Recent 
observations have, moreover, developed the fact that many of the sub- 
