419 



POSTSCRIPT, 



After 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 responsibiUty — 

 for it is stated in the plan of this Journal, prefixed to Vol. I., that 

 "the Editor will not hold himself responsible for the sentiments and 

 opinions advanced by his correspondents." 



Gen. Van Rensselaer's JVote. 



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 attending to the 

 general duties of his department. 



I am not a geologist myself, but I have received assurances from 

 many of our distinguished scientific 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 it carefully.'''' May not these 

 assurances be fairly considered as counterbalancing the assertion of 

 the correspondent referred to? 



It is to be regretted that the author of the review, whose professed 

 object was to advance the science, did not examine Prof. Eaton's 

 views with a httle better spirit, and -point out and correct the sup- 

 posed errors. Let any serious mistakes be pointed out, and fairhj 



