722 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 623. 



actual beginning. Portraits of its early mem- 

 bers were exhibited and brief biographical 

 sketches presented. Out of the activity of the 

 club and of the botanical department of Co- 

 lumbia, grew the demand lor a great botanical 

 garden, which was satisfied by the establish- 

 ment of the present New York Botanical Gar- 

 den. The contemporary botanical forces at 

 work in the city were briefly described, and 

 their most important present needs outlined. 

 The complete address was published in Tor- 

 reya for June and July, and separates will 

 be furnished at ten cents each. 



The lecture was followed by an informal 

 reception in the library, and by an inspection 

 of the library, laboratories, herbaria and the 

 museum exhibits. 



C. Stuart Gager, 



Secretary. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



THE POLICY OF THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



AND ITS BEARING UPON SCIENCE AND 



EDUCATION. 



To THE Editor of Science : It is but fair to 

 Director Walcott that his reply to my letter 

 insisting upon my resignation should be laid 

 before those who have seen the earlier letters. 

 The following is a copy of it: 



U. S. Geological Survey, 

 Washington, D. C, Nov. 9, 1906. 

 Dr. J. C. Branner, 



Stanford University, California, 

 Dear Sir: Your letter of October 13 was 

 received at this office on October 22, and in 

 my absence was acknowledged by Dr. Hayes 

 on October 23. I was naturally surprised on 

 my return to find that this letter, together 

 with other correspondence on the subject of 

 surveys in the Arkansas coal field, had been 

 published in Science on October 26. I am at 

 a loss to understand your reasons for publish- 

 ing the correspondence, inasmuch as I do not 

 think anything is to be gained by a public 

 controversy. I have sent a brief communica- 

 tion to Science (copy enclosed) explaining the 

 principles which govern the United States 

 Geological Survey in its relations with other 

 geological surveys and working geologists. 



In your letter, on page 2, you state seven 

 reasons, deduced from my letter of March 8, 

 for the course followed in this matter, and 

 reply to them. Permit me to add a word of 

 comment to your replies. 



1. " The field work on the Arkansas coal 

 region was done 18 years ago." You recognize 

 that work done so long ago needs to be brought 

 up to date before publication. Your conten- 

 tion is that, " having originated and directed 

 the survey of the Arkansas coal fields," you 

 should be allowed to bring the work and the 

 report up to date. This, of course, is the gist 

 of the whole matter, and I shall revert to it 

 again. 



2. " It was based upon poor maps." There 

 is no difference of opinion on this point. In- 

 asmuch, however, as the scale of publication 

 proposed by this Survey is only half that in- 

 sisted upon by yourself, and as the map will 

 be published without contours, the defects in 

 the topographic base are very much less seri- 

 ous than they would have been if your proposi- 

 tion had been 'accepted and an attempt had 

 been made to publish maps on the 62,500 scale. 



3. " The work is not ' up to present stand- 

 ards ' and therefore could not be accepted for 

 publication by the Survey." You state that 

 " neither you nor any of your assistants have 

 read the report and you can not therefore 

 know anything about its relations to standards 

 of any kind." While the report has net been 

 read, you will recall that the maps were ex- 

 amined in December, 1901, by Dr. Hayes in 

 connection with the proposition to publish the 

 report at that time. These maps bor^ such 

 evidence of inaccuracy and generalization that 

 the scale proposed for their publication was 

 not regarded as suitable and the recommenda- 

 tion was made that they should be reduced, 

 preferably to one-quarter, and at least to one- 

 half, the scale proposed. He made no state- 

 ment regarding the standard of the written 

 report, but considered the maps as amply 

 justifying the statements made regarding the 

 character of the work. You will recall that 

 in the correspondence of 1901, when the 

 proposition to publish your report was being 

 considered, an essential condition to such pub- 

 lication was that additional field work should 



