328 DAVKNPORT ACADEMY OK NAIUKAI, SCIKNCES. 



"I am in receii)t of your letter of May 31st, announcing the trans- 

 mission of a pamphlet in reply to an article by Mr. Henshaw, and 

 which I had previously read with interest. I have sent a copy of your 

 letter to Major Powell for his consideration." 



Inasmuch as Major Powell was implicated with Mr. Henshaw in the 

 commission of the wrong of which we complain, this reference of the 

 matter back to him was, to say the least, a singular disposition of my 

 inquiry. I have, however, been awaiting with curious interest the re- 

 sult. As no report thereon from Major Powell has been communicated 

 to me, it is reasonable to conclude he has no answer to make. Now, 

 my dear sir, you must pardon me the observation that, in a matter of 

 so much importance, we were entitled to a full and frank answer to 

 our inquiry. 



Here was a Bureau working under your supervision, and here was 

 its official report ushered into the world of science with your apparent 

 endorsement ; and, either by mistake or design, this publication con- 

 tained a paper in no sense an original scientific investigation, but made 

 up of newspaper and magazine gossip, and showing a deplorable ignor- 

 ance of all essential facts. Mr. Henshaw never saw the objects he 

 undertook to criticise, was wholly unacquainted with the discoverers 

 and with the members of our Academy, never made an inquiry of 

 either, and yet, with amazing audacity, he pronounces the rehcs in 

 question to be forgeries, charges the explorers with the practice of jug- 

 glery in making their pretended discoveries, and, in his endeavor to 

 fasten the stigma of fraud upon our Academy, he has the seeming sup- 

 port of the Smithsonian Institution ! 



Entertaining for the great Institution under your charge a most sin- 

 cere admiration, and for yourself, personally, the highest respect, and 

 anxious to do no injustice to any of the parties involved, I decided to 

 ascertain whether there could be any satisfactory explanation of this 

 singular publication, and hence my inquiry. Now, if Mr. Henshaw's 

 work is thoroughly scientific, and is entitled to publication at public 

 expense, then clearly he should receive your open endorsement — and 

 certainly he needs it ! If, on the contrary, his work is found to be 

 unscientific, its publication an oversight, and that thereby a great 

 wrong has been done to honest investigators, then simple justice would 

 seem to demand that this blunder should be promptly disavowed, and 

 the injury amply retrieved. The Smithsonian Institution, great as it 

 is, cannot afford to shield either wrong-doer or wrong-doing. If Mr. 

 Henshaw has perpetrated a libel under cover of a (Government pubh- 

 cation, then clearly we are entitled to have his retraction given to the 

 world in the same imposing manner. 



The questions involved, you will perceive, are of vital imi)ortance to 

 all ])ersons engaged in scientific research. In, therefore, asking of you 

 a careful reconsideration of the inquiry I have submitted, I trust you 

 will not consider me intrusive. 



We have received a large number of communications from archreolo- 

 gists in this country and Europe concerning this Henshaw paper, and, 



