AMERICAN GEOLOGY DECADE OF 1850 1859. 441 



Mississippi, which act, under the law, constituted him also as State 

 geologist, and Milling-ton, whose work is mentioned on p. 4M<>, was 

 forced to resign. 



Harper's Work in . , 



Mississippi, In 1855 Harper was relieved <>i a portion ot his 



duties as instructor in the university in order that he 

 might personally take the field, and an appropriation of $1,000 secured 

 for the employment of an assistant geologist, which place was offered 

 to Eugene W. llilgard, then fresh from studies at Heidelberg. Hilgard 

 and Harper worked together during the season of 1855, but the dual 

 position of State geologist and professor in the university proved un- 

 satisfactory to the trustees; the law was repealed in 1856, and Harper 

 also forced to resign, though Hilgard was continued as an assistant. 



At the legislative session of 1856-57 Harper succeeded in securing 

 the passage of an act providing for the printing of the second annual 

 report of the agricultural and geological survey of the State and for 

 other purposes. This resulted in a complete separation of the survey 

 from all connection with the State university, the establishment of a 

 geological survey, and the office of a State geologist at a salary of 

 $2,000 a year, with an appropriation of $1,200 for fitting up a chem- 

 ical laboratory. Three thousand live hundred dollars was appropriated 

 for the publication of Harper's report. Concerning this report, Hil- 

 gard remarks: 



It need only be said that it is a literary, linguistic, and scientific curiosity, and 

 probably unique in official publications of its kind. It was the labored effort of a 

 sciolist to show erudition, and to compass the impossible feat of interpreting and dis- 

 cussing intelligently a considerable mass of observations, mostly recorded by another, 

 working on a totally different plan from himself. 



The report contained a colored geological map of the State which, 

 though less detailed, corresponded in a general way with that pub- 

 lished later (1800) by Hilgard. Indeed, there is every reason for sup- 

 posing that the map itself was compiled largely from Hilgard's notes. 

 The work, like its predecessor, had little influence upon geological 

 thought, and was, if not ignored, unfavorably reviewed by the journals 

 of the day. The circulation of this report throughout the State 

 brought discredit upon its author to such an extent that, toward the 

 end of the year (1857), he was obliged to resign his office." 



"This Geological Report on Mississippi is very unequal in its different parts and 

 requires a careful revision before it can become good authority. Many of the sections 

 have a fantastic boxing off of layers which is quite unintelligible to us. Certain 

 rocks are pronounced to be Carboniferous, because the genus })roductus occurring in 

 them is not known to exist, the author says, in older strata. Some peculiar concen- 

 tric aggregations in clay are attributed to whirlpools in the waters. The work argues 

 against the subdivisions of the Eocene proposed by Conrad on very insufficient data 

 and an evident want of appreciation of the subject. There are errors, also, in the 

 identification of the Cretaceous, Tertiary, and post-Tertiary beds which betray insuf- 

 ficient observations and an imperfect acquaintance with the science. (Am. Jour. Sci.) 



