THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



MAJOR POWELL ON "ARE THERE EVI- 

 DENCES OF MAN IN THE GLACIAL 

 GRAVELS ? " 



Editor Popular Science Monthly. 



SIR : The article by Major Powell, which 

 appeared in your July number, calls 

 for a few words of comment. It was written 

 apparently as an indirect reply to our own 

 paper in the April issue. But it contains 

 little more than a restatement of some ele- 

 mentary truths in geology, which, however 

 new they may be made to appear by the art 

 of the writer, are really somewhat ancient, 

 and form a part of the stock of every tyro 

 in the science. 



To this, however, no one can properly 

 object. Major Powell is entitled to write 

 whatever he chooses. But bad logic and 

 misrepresentation of authorities are not 

 legitimate argument, and in a few points 

 where the distinguished head of the United 

 States Geological Survey touches upon topics 

 which we referred to in the former article we 

 may be allowed to criticise his statements. 



In the first place, the major is in error in 

 misconstruing our words into an attack on 

 the United States Geological Survey. No 

 fair construction of the language will sup- 

 port this charge. Our chief purpose was to 

 expose and condemn the tone and spirit of 

 the reviewers whose assaults we criticised, 

 and especially the language in which one of 

 them had seen fit to express his opinions. 

 For this latter words too strong could hardly 

 be found. What sentiments have been awak- 

 ened by it in the minds of geologists, both in 

 America and abroad, we can imagine. They 

 must be both amused and amazed to see a 

 member of the Geological Survey of a great 

 and enlightened country so far forgetting 

 the dignity and responsibility of his office as to 

 indulge in invective and vituperation against 

 a fellow-worker in the scientific field.* 



Major Powell's paper is in striking con- 

 trast to that of his subordinate in being per- 

 fectly courteous. We could expect nothing 

 else from him. Had all the critics of Prof. 

 Wright been equally dignified and gentle- 

 manly there would have been no ground for 

 objection. 



We confess, however, to a feeling of re- 

 gret that the director stopped short of any 



* It is deeply to be regretted that this same 

 official has seen fit to repeat and thus to exagger- 

 ate his offense by putting out, since our article was 

 written, a second paper of similar tenor. Though 

 a copy of this was in our possession at the time of 

 writing, we could not justly refer to it, as it had 

 not then appeared. We also hoped that the 

 author's good sense would lead him to acquiesce 

 in its suppression for the sake of American sci- 

 ence and his own reputation. This hope was, 

 however, disappointed. 



remark indicating disapproval of the lan- 

 guage that had been used by a member of 

 riis staff. We can not bring ourselves to be- 

 iieve that he sanctions it, but his silence 

 lends it at least an indirect support. We 

 think that a word of this kind would have 

 done the Survey a greater service than any 

 attempt to defend it where it was not at- 

 tacked, or any discourse on the harmony and 

 courtesy which have, he tells us, character- 

 ized its discussions up to date. 



Major Powell makes but little direct allu- 

 sion to us, though his paper was evidently 

 called out by our article. He contents him- 

 self with the general assertion, or rather im- 

 plication, that " every paragraph is based on 

 error." Such sweeping charges are easily 

 made, and are often as erroneous as easy. 

 Not a single error is adduced, and the infer- 

 ence from this omission is not difficult. At 

 all events, it will be soon enough to defend 

 the paragraphs when they are definitely at- 

 tacked. 



Meanwhile, we propose to investigate a 

 few passages of Major Powell's article, in 

 order to see if the critic is himself above re- 

 proach, and to discover if any erroneousness 

 lurks concealed within his own paragraphs. 

 Space will not allow more than this. But 

 unless his arguments are better than those 

 of his comrades and subordinates, he will be 

 but a poor ally to aid them in their cause. 



Major Powell refers to the Nampa image. 

 Now, it was and is no part of our plan to de- 

 fend this " find." It is no bantling of ours. 

 We leave it to the tender mercies of others 

 more competent. We merely pointed out in 

 the former paper the fallacy of the argu- 

 ments used by the writer to whom we re- 

 ferred in his attack upon it and on Prof. 

 Wright. Though Major Powell has failed, 

 probably for the very best of reasons, to 

 give the exact details for which we called, 

 yet his words sufficiently prove the inacuracy 

 of the story, as given in the American Archae- 

 ologist and in the Literary Northwest. It is 

 a pity also that Major Powell has allowed 

 himself to misrepresent the evidence for 

 want of reference to the original documents 

 in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of 

 Natural History. His language leads the 

 reader to infer that he was not even aware 

 of their existence, inasmuch as he says that 

 his greatest surprise on reading Prof. Wright's 

 second book was to find that the image had 

 fallen into his hands and was used as an ar- 

 gument in favor of the antiquity of man. 

 This was two years after the original publi- 

 cation by Prof. Wright, and his arguments 

 were by this time familiar to all students of 

 American archaeology. 



