December 7, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



723 



be done by some member of this survey, 

 Messrs. Taff and Adams being mentioned in 

 this connection. You are mistaken, therefore, 

 in supposing that there was any intention on 

 the part of this survey to accept your report 

 without thorough examination and additional 

 field work. 



4. " New uses for the coals have been found 

 by the fuel testing plant of the survey." This 

 has little bearing on the subject except that it 

 increases the urgency for information regard- 

 ing this coal field. 



5. " Losses have been caused by errors in 

 the map of the Arkansas coal field for which 

 I am responsible." Thig is based upon very 

 definite and emphatic statements made by 

 large coal operators in the Arkansas field. 

 They have stated that on the basis of the map 

 published in the twenty-second anniial exten- 

 sive holdings were transferred from one. re- 

 gion to another and on testing it was discov- 

 ered that productive had been exchanged for 

 unproductive territory. It was on account of 

 the representations of these coal operators, and 

 their urgent requests, that the work was un- 

 dertaken in Arkansas, and not through the 

 recommendation of any member of Congress. 



6. " The salaries of regular assistants of the 

 survey being provided for, work must be given 

 them." Three geologists whose salaries had 

 been provided for to the end of the year had 

 completed their office work and were available 

 for field assignment. If the money asked for 

 the payment of yourself and assistants for the 

 Arkansas work had been allotted, it would 

 have been impossible to send these men into 

 the field and they would practically have re- 

 mained idle until the new appropriations be- 

 came available. 



7. You say "I was anxious to obtain your 

 unpublished data, for which ample payment 

 would have been made and full credit given." 

 In reply to this you say " the reports of the 

 Arkansas Geological Survey not being my 

 personal property, I leave others to character- 

 ize your proposition to pay me for one of 

 them." You imply in this statement that 

 something dishonorable was contemplated in 

 the transaction. I must remind you that on 

 July 9, 1901, a check for $200 was sent to you 



in payment for a report on the clays of Ar- 

 kansas, which presumably was as much the 

 property of the state as the coal report. It 

 was distinctly stated at that time that this 

 payment was " for the necessary office work 

 required to put your reports into shape for 

 publication." The " adequate payment " for 

 your coal report would have been for precisely 

 the same purpose. If you had felt that you 

 were not entitled to the payment, it would 

 have been a simple matter to turn it over to 

 the state of Arkansas. 



As distinctly stated, I desired to obtain your 

 report in order, first, that the results of your 

 work might not be entirely wasted, and, sec- 

 ond, that you might receive the credit to which 

 you would have been justly entitled. However 

 inadequate a report on the geology of a region 

 may be, and whatever errors it may contain, 

 it is of some benefit to another geologist who 

 is taking up the study of the region, and I 

 considered that a reasonable expenditure 

 would be justified because of the benefit your 

 report would be to a geologist entering the 

 field. 



I am quite willing to accept your statement 

 of the seven reasons for my action which you 

 have deduced from my letter of March 8. 

 These reasons are all good and were regarded 

 as fully justifying the course pursued. You 

 are correct further in your conclusion that 

 there are other reasons which it was not con- 

 sidered necessary to state in my former letters. 

 In that correspondence I ought, perhaps, to 

 have been less careful of your feelings. The 

 additional reasons which had weight in the 

 matter are as follows: 



1. It was extremely desirable that the re- 

 port on the Arkansas coal field should be is- 

 sued at the earliest date possible. This was 

 made a point of special urgency in the requests 

 received from those most directly interested 

 in the field. In order to secure this result it 

 was deemed essential that the work should be 

 done by regular members of the survey, who 

 should bring their results to Washington and 

 work them up here. I need only refer to the 

 experience of the survey with your own re- 

 ports to indicate the grounds for fearing that 

 if the work were turned over to you prompt- 



