66 On the Falls of Niagara. 



be seen. However, I will still trespass further upon 

 your patience, in order to obviate every difficulty 

 which the author of the Description has started. 



He observes, in the next place, that if it were pos- 

 sible that the rock could be worn away so rapidly, it 

 would, then, necessarily have worn only at its sur- 

 face of contact with the water, and would thus have 

 effectually destroyed the Falls, by rendering the bot- 

 tom smooth, or would, at least, have reduced them 

 to the state of Rapids. But, since neither of these 

 circumstances have taken place, he thinks it demon- 

 strated, that the Falls were always where we now see 

 them. 



This, I will allow, was very accurate reasoning, 

 according to his ideas of their formation, and had not 

 these ideas been erroneous, his argument would, un- 

 questionably, have been insurmountable. But I need 

 hardly observe, that, from the explanation which I 

 have given of the nature of the strata of rocks, over 

 which the water falls, it will appear evident, that they 

 must retain their perpendicularity, for the upper por- 

 tion of stone is always projecting far beyond the un- 

 der portion. From this explanation, it will likewise 

 be evident, that but very little of the ledge of rock is 

 actually worn away, but, that in consequence of its 

 base being washed out, it falls, in huge masses, into 

 the chasm below. 



This disposition of the strata, in my opinion, very 

 readily accounts for the moving of the Falls, and also 



