APRIL 5, 1912] 
tion as to equities in water appears in the 
pronouncement that under common owner- 
ship “the general government should collect 
as a tax” on all users of water amounts 
which may be defined broadly as correspond- 
ing to the railway standard of “what the 
traffic will bear”; he ignores the fundamental 
economic principle that while common owner- 
ship implies the right to impose conditions of 
distribution and use, it involves primarily the 
obligation to minimize taxes or other costs of 
distribution in the common interest. 
In pointing his views as to the finality of 
legal relations already developed in the west, 
Professor Aldrich declares, “Every western 
state has voluminous laws on the subject, and 
ten times more voluminous legal decisions on 
those laws.” Were his familiarity and 
sympathy with the west still greater than he 
professes, he would realize that the Idaho 
water law is better than that of Wyoming 
after which it was modeled, that the later 
Oregon law is still better, and that the Cali- 
fornia water law enacted a few months ago 
is the best of all, since with each passing year 
growing knowledge as to physical facts and 
relations, increasing population and indus- 
tries, and concurrently advancing standards 
of equity fall into closer accord—indeed he 
would realize that the very principles he 
criticizes are the outcome of experience in the 
west, where the natural water supply is so 
meager that it is necessarily measured and 
apportioned and utilized more carefully than 
in any humid land, and might even learn that 
the proposition All the water belongs to all 
the People was first crystallized and expressed 
through the National Irrigation Congress (an 
essentially western organization, made up of 
western men, dominated by western ideas) at 
a meeting in Spokane wherein the preponder- 
ating representation was from Washington, 
Idaho, Montana and Oregon. 
To those unfamiliar with the situation it 
may be of interest to know that two opposing 
views concerning the administration of water 
and other resources have come up in the 
western states; the formerly prevalent but 
now minority view is that the resources shall 
SCIENCE 
537 
be exploited for the private profit of those 
who acquired possession before their value 
was realized; the later view, already held by 
the great majority, is that the resources shall 
be developed, conserved against needless de- 
struction, and utilized in the common inter- 
est, under customs and laws established pri- 
marily by communities, secondarily, by states, 
and finally, as need arises, by the federal 
government. On these opposing views Pro- 
fessor Aldrich contributes polemics, which 
may be needful pending more specific knowl- 
edge; but it is to be regretted that he does 
not contribute a fact, a figure, a principle, or 
any other iota of that definite foundation on 
which alone scientific discussion may fitly 
rest, and on which sound legislation may 
eventually be erected—unless, indeed, he is 
right in his remarkable main contention that 
the western states, commonly considered the 
most actively-growing part of the country, are 
already so bound by statutes and decisions 
that further progress is impossible. 
W J McGee 
DR. RADOSAVLJEVICH’S “ CRITIQUE” OF PROFESSOR 
BOAS 
To THe Epitor or Science: The number of 
the American Anthropologist just issued 
from the press (Vol. 13, 1911, No. 3) contains 
an article by Dr. Paul R. Radosavljevich 
entitled “ Professor Boas’s New Theory of the 
Form of the Head—a Critical Contribution 
to School Anthropology” (pp. 394-436). 
The admission of such an article into a re- 
spectable scientific journal seems to have re- 
sulted from a misapplication of the praise- 
worthy editorial principle that no student, 
however high his professional standing, shall 
be exempt from the most rigorous criticism 
on the part of the least of his fellow-workers. 
In the present instance, however, we have to 
deal not with a critique, but with a lampoon. 
The extraordinary character of Dr. Rado- 
savljevich’s paper requires an immediate 
reply, especially in view of Professor Boas’s 
protracted stay in Mexico. Without desiring 
to forestall a fuller rejoinder by those more 
