THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS OF ARKANSAS. S3 I 



survey, due chiefly to the fact that the survey had declared 

 fraudulent certain so-called gold mines in the western part of the 

 state ; but, under the leadership of Mr. Rector, a bill for its con- 

 tinuation was passed. This new bill was in the form of an 

 amendment of the bill of 1887, and was so worded as to make it 

 unnecessary for subsequent assemblies to do more than vote the 

 money required for the general appropriations. This amendment 

 fixed the contingent fund at $10,000 for two years, and gave the 

 state geologist four assistants in place of the two previously 

 provided for. Under this bill J. C. Branner was re-appointed 

 state geologist. The General Assembly of 1891 made the same 

 appropriations as the previous one, and the same state geologist 

 was again appointed. When this last appropriation was made, it 

 was stipulated that it should finish the survey's work, and that 

 the survey should be brought to a close by the end of March, 

 1893. When the Assembly met, therefore, in 1893 the field- 

 work had been finished, or as nearly so as possible, and the only 

 appropriations asked for was one to be used to complete the 

 preparations of the reports. For this purpose an appropriation 

 of $4000 was made to be expended under the direction of the 

 Governor. It was understood also that the former state geolo- 

 gist should prepare the reports without expense to the state 

 beyond the assistance he might need in office and clerical work, 

 and that the printing, engraving, and binding of the reports 

 should be paid for as before out of the general appropriations 

 to pay for that work for the state. The reports of the 

 survey are now all published except the four volumes mentioned 

 below. 



Some wonder is occasionally expressed that a state geologist 

 should undertake to bring the work of a survey to a definite 

 close, instead of insisting upon the fact that a state geological 

 survey is an essential, and should be a permanent, part of every 

 state government. Whether every state should maintain a per- 

 manent geological survey depends upon circumstances and con- 

 ditions that cannot be discussed in this place. So far as the case 

 in hand is concerned, it seemed, and still seems, better that with 



