]Sro^'EMBER 23, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



657 



the two days were to them a revelation of 

 how intricate and extensive the fault system 

 of the valley was, and how well it had been 

 interpreted by my maps. Mr. Smith expressed 

 the view that the faults which I had mapped 

 were only a part of those present. Mr. Hayes 

 merely remarked at last, * Well, that is very 

 convincing.' So soon, however, as the ex- 

 amination was transferred to the crystalline 

 areas of the district, I found on the part of 

 the two official reviewing authorities utter un- 

 willingness to give any attention to the new 

 methods which had been derived for locating 

 faults ; and in those cases where older methods 

 were insufficient to prove the presence of the 

 supposed fault it was assumed not to be pres- 

 ent. The manuscript of the Litchfield folio 

 was upon the basis of the conference accepted 

 after emasculation, but the geologist in charge 

 of geology would not permit the question of 

 publication of my monograph to be reopened. 



I submit to you, sir, that a geologist em- 

 ployed by a government bureau is entitled 

 not only to the small pecuniary remuneration 

 which he receives, but to the scientific fruits 

 of his labor as well. If he is incompetent or 

 insufficiently trained, he should be discharged; 

 otherwise the ripe fruit of his labors for the 

 securing of which the public money has been 

 expended, should be made available for study. 

 It is even possible that brother geologists may 

 have as much interest in the opinion of the 

 person who best knows the facts, together 

 with the evidence upon which his conclusions 

 are based, as in the opinion of the reviewing 

 authorities. 



The creation of the office of geologist in 

 charge of geology by your administration has 

 in eflect introduced a public censor for all 

 American geological work. It is to-day prac- 

 tically impossible to publish a large geological 

 monograph upon any portion of the national 

 domain without first securing the consent of 

 the authorities of the geological survey. The 

 United States Geological Survey has now 

 already become responsible for a body of offi- 

 cial dogma — largely the personal geological 

 opinions of the geologist in charge of geology. 

 The realization of this fact by European 

 geologists has latterly brought the survey into 



some ridicule and fijied upon it the name of 

 the ' Great American Trust,' a term by which 

 I heard it more than once called during the 

 past year. I maintain that such a policy is 

 unique among geological surveys and as un- 

 democratic as it is unscientific. So far as 

 my knowledge extends these ' Standard Oil ' 

 methods of which I complain are not to be 

 found in European bureaus of geology, where 

 it is the practise to assume no responsibility 

 for opinions expressed by staff members. 

 Where different views have been reached by 

 experienced workers within the same or neigh- 

 boring fields, the scientific public is there 

 given the chance to decide upon the merits 

 of the controversy. The United States Geo- 

 logical Survey alone officially decides which, 

 opinion is ' right ' and suppresses the others. 



If we grant for the sake of argument that 

 such an un-American policy is defensible, it 

 is obvious that the geological censor must be 

 a geologist not only fair minded and pro- 

 gressive, but of unusually wide experience and 

 of great familiarity with the currents of geo- 

 logical thought in other countries. The man 

 who holds the position of grand vizier to the 

 head of the geological survey unfortunately 

 possesses none of these qualifications. He 

 is a hustling business manager of the sledge- 

 hammer type who has transformed the survey 

 of Powell — ^which in a notable manner ad- 

 vanced the geological thought of the world 

 and brought golden opinions from all sorts of 

 people — into a great mining bureau with an 

 auxiliary map establishment for ' coloring in ' 

 the national domain. Notably ignorant of 

 the trend of modem European geological 

 thought — and apparently wholly oblivious to 

 it — his stubbornness in holding an opinion 

 once expressed has become a byword in the 

 survey. His replies to official communica- 

 tions are in many instances characterized by 

 brutal abruptness and often affect the re- 

 cipient like a blow in the face. I do not con- 

 sider it necessary to furnish examples, since 

 wholly characteristic ones can be found in the 

 published correspondence with a prominent 

 geologist.^ 



As I shall elsewhere attempt to show, the 



^Science, October 26, 1906. 



