726 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 62S. 



in deprecating the present policy of the sur- 

 vey in the matter of intrusion upon states to 

 the great discredit of the state organizations 

 and the individual geologists." 



And this Mr. Walcott calls ' uniformly cor- 

 dial ' relations, ' strengthening and coopera- 

 ting with the state surveys,' and ' scrupulously 

 refraining from invasion of an already occu- 

 pied field ' ! 



But whether the relations of the state sur- 

 veys to the national survey are cordial or not 

 (and I am far from doubting that some of 

 the state surveys know that unless they keep 

 up the appearance of cordiality they will soon 

 cease to exist), I assert, without the slightest 

 fear of successful contradiction, that there is 

 not a single state geologist in this country 

 to-day who does not know that his work, his 

 field of operations, his livelihood, and his very 

 reputation are wholly at the mercy of the 

 national survey. And I ask any person who 

 has the blood of a free man in his veins if 

 this is not an intolerable state of affairs. 



Mr. Walcott says that ' cooperation is never 

 forced' on a state survey. I beg to refresh 

 his memory with the fact that when a bill 

 providing for a state geological survey was 

 lately before a certain state legislature, he 

 himself wrote to prominent members of the 

 legislature advising that unless cooperation 

 with the IJ. S. Geological Survey was provided 

 for, the bill should not pass. If that is not 

 forcing cooperation on a state then I fail to 

 understand the English language. 



So far as individuals are concerned the sur- 

 vey seldom takes them into consideration save 

 when they do something or turn up something 

 that is likely to serve the purposes of the sur- 

 vey. If the individual undertakes any special 

 bit of work, whether in field or laboratory, the 

 survey is in position to invade his territory, 

 to drive him out of it, and to discredit him. 

 Is it not a most humiliating fact that scien- 

 tific men, in this the twentieth century, should 

 be compelled by a federal bureau to hide them- 

 selves like whipped curs to gnaw their small 

 bones in obscure corners? For if an investi- 

 gator does not keep quiet about his work he 

 knows perfectly well that, upon one pretext or 

 another, he is likely to be pounced down upon 



and his work taken out of his hands — and 

 * due credit given,' of course ! It is all very 

 well for the director of the survey to say that 

 he had no intention of doing such things. 

 He has the power to do them and he does 

 them. 



The second proposition is that the national 

 survey has discredited and enfeebled the state 

 surveys, and that it prevents their normal 

 growth even when it does not entirely drive 

 them out of existence. 



The truth of this statement is so self-evi- 

 dent that it hardly admits of discussion. The 

 cases quoted above are proof enough, and in- 

 stances more or less similar can be found in 

 almost every state where state surveys still 

 exist, and in other states where the surveys 

 have been killed ofi through the influence, 

 direct or indirect, of the national survey. 

 This is the more important because the state 

 surveys are vastly more useful to the states 

 and to state industries than is the national 

 survey. The state surveys, however small 

 they may be, are in touch with the people, 

 keep alive an active local interest in geology, 

 and serve as a valuable training school for 

 young geologists. And this widespread in- 

 terest in science is not only important, but 

 above all is it important that the people of 

 this country be left to manage their own home 

 affairs even though they may not manage 

 them so well, rather than to have them directed 

 by a bureau at Washington, run as a great 

 scientific trust and paid for at the rate of 

 millions of dollars a year out of the public 

 funds. 



It is no part of the functions of a national 

 government to interfere with and to discredit 

 state and other local governments, and just as 

 little should it be a function of any national 

 scientific bureau to weaken, patronize, or in 

 any way discredit state and other local scien- 

 tific work. 



The third proposition is that a systematic 

 effort is being m.ade by the present director to 

 deprive university professors of the support of 

 the national survey to carry on work that falls 

 or should fall naturally to them. 



It is a matter of common . knowledge that 

 many of the professors of geology over the 



