4L9. 
POSTSCRIPT. 
Arter the preceding page was in type, we received the following 
note from the Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer, with a request that it 
~ might appear at the end of the present number, and a compliance is © 
less an act of courtesy than of Justice, especially as many of Mr. 
Eaton’s papers have appeared in this Journal ;—always, however, 
(as in the case of other correspondents,) on his own responsibility— 
for it is stated in the plan of this Journal, prefixed to Vol. I., that 
“the Editor will not hold himself peaprpsilie for the. senilinents and 
opinions advanced by his correspondents.” P 
Gen. Van Rensselaer’s Note. 
~ It is stated on page 482 of the last number of the North American 
Review, that Prof. Amos Eaton had abused the opportunities, fur- 
nished by me, of doing good in the cause of geological science. Will 
you do me the favor to state that I am perfectly satisfied with Prof. 
Eaton’s labors? He has been diligent and faithful in standing to the 
general duties of his department. 
Tam not a geologist myself, but I have received segarancigy from 
many of our distinguished séientific men, that Prof. Eaton’s mass of 
geological facts has greatly contributed to advance the science in this 
‘country, and to awaken the spirit of inquiry on geological subjects. 
Mr. Jeffries, of Edinburgh, also informed me some time since, that 
Prof. Buckland, whom the correspondent of the N. A. Review so 
deservedly compliments, says that Prof. Eaton ‘seems both to under- 
stand his business, and to have done tt carefully. a May ‘not these’ 
assurances be fairly considered as counterbalaneing the assertion of 
the correspondent referred to? 
SI 
It is to be regretted that the author of the review, whose sede . 
object was to advance the science, did not ‘examine Prof. Eaton’s 
views with a little better spirit, and point out and correct the sup- 
posed errors. Let any serious mistakes be pointed out, and fairly 
¥ 
a 
