Decembek 7, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



725 



to the Secretary of the Interior with recom- 

 mendation that the same be accepted. 

 Very respectfully, 



Chas. D. Walcott, 



Director. 



Some of the points mentioned in this and 

 in the letter to the editor of Science, espe- 

 cially those relating to maps, scales, qualifica- 

 tions, errors both topographic and geologic, 

 may be left to one side as being of little im- 

 portance in this connection, though I should 

 not hesitate for a moment to submit my own 

 case on every count mentioned to any jury of 

 scientific men. It is quite evident to any 

 unbiased geologist that the reasons put for- 

 ward for the survey's invading my field are 

 mere subterfuges for an inexcusable course of 

 conduct. 



It is worth while, however, to note certain 

 points in passing. Mr. Walcott does * not 

 think anything is to be gained by a public 

 controversy.' Perhaps not; but it is certain 

 that nothing is to be gained by an appeal to 

 courtesy or by a private controversy with a 

 public bureau that has the whip-hand of every 

 working geologist in this country. And 

 neither is anything to be gained by a cringing 

 submission to such a bureau. This is a mat- 

 ter of public concern, and so long as one gets 

 no hearing in private he has no remedy but 

 to bring the subject to the attention of the 

 public. 



To the charge of making mistakes my reply 

 is that I have made them and do make them. 

 Mr. Walcott says : " It appears from Dr. 

 Branner's latest letter that he still regards the 

 survey of a coal field worth many millions of 

 dollars and capable of serving several millions 

 of people as his own personal affair. This 

 bureau is directed on broader lines." This is 

 merely a bit of political dust, and the broad 

 lines on which he directs the survey do not 

 appear to preclude the use of such materials. 

 I regard the work on the area concerned as 

 my own personal affair just so far as the work 

 done on it entitled me to finish it and no 

 further. 



Leaving these minor matters, attention is 

 asked to four propositions that vitally concern 



scientific woi'k and scientific education in this 

 country as affected by the attitude of the U. S. 

 Geological Survey toward state surveys and 

 towards the geologists of the country not regu- 

 larly employed on the survey. 



■ First, it is maintained that the U. S. Geo- 

 logical Survey can and does encroach upon 

 fields that, by the rules of equity and common 

 courtesy, belong to state surveys and to local 

 individual workers in geology. 



Mr. Walcott meets the first proposition 

 squarely in his letter to me. The italics are 

 mine. He says : " The relations of this sur- 

 vey with existing state surveys are uniformly 

 cordial. * * * Cooperation is never forced 

 upon a state organization, and extreme care 

 is exercised to prevent duplication hy this sur- 

 vey of any work heing carried on by any state 

 organization." Near the end of his letter to 

 me he says : " The survey has scrupulously 

 refrained from such invasion of an already 

 occupied field." 



My own experience as state geologist of 

 Arkansas is far from bearing out these state- 

 ments; but as the survey of which I had 

 charge is no longer in existence, and as he 

 seems to wish to confine the question to those 

 that have not yet been killed, let us take one 

 that has managed to survive. One of the state 

 geologists writes me under date of October 

 29, 1906, as follows : " My own experience offi- 

 cially has been as hitter and wholly unjusti- 

 fiable as yours. By repeated and vigorous 

 personal appeal * * * and only by resort to 

 * * * our representatives in congress have I 

 been able to save this * * * state survey from 

 a most humiliating exigency. Indeed I have 

 not wholly succeeded, and am grimly con- 

 scious to-day that though I have dislodged 

 the U. S. Geological Survey corps from most 

 all parts of the state, its representatives have 

 held on to one region where we were busily 

 engaged at the time of their arrival, and 

 ignoring entirely all our worJc, have carried 

 their humiliating procedure to a finish. We 

 have spent some thousands of dollars in cor- 

 recting the unskilful and erroneous work of 

 these gentry. * * * To tell our experience 

 would be a long story, perhaps bootless to re- 

 hearse, but I join with you and many others 



