830 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVI. No. 412. 



vision of both, or nominal control only over 

 the one or the other. 



I doubt if the secretary is prepared to carry 

 to its logical -end the policy which he has 

 adopted for anthropological vyork. If it is 

 advantageous for anthropology to make the 

 head curator of that division of the Museum 

 director of the Anthropological Survey — for 

 that is the function of the Bureau of Ameri- 

 can Ethnology — it will be no less advanta- 

 geous to make the head cvirator of Geology di- 

 rector of the Geological Survey, and the head 

 curator of Biology director of the Biological 

 Survey. What would these great surveys be 

 if they were simply appendages of the mu- 

 seum, while in reality it is the function of 

 the museum to preserve the collections made 

 by these agencies, to administer them for 

 educational purposes, and to make them avail- 

 able for detailed study. The museiim needs 

 a policy of its own, and deals with problems 

 distinct from those of the surveys. The cor- 

 rectness of this view is borne out by the fact 

 that the recent development of the surveys 

 has taken place independently of the Smith- 

 sonian Institution. The Geological Survey 

 has grovm to its present importance as a 

 branch of the Department of the Interior, 

 the Biological Survey as a branch of the 

 Department of Agriculture. Their precedents 

 suggest that if the Anthropological Survey 

 were allowed to make itself useful to the 

 practical needs of the government, and to 

 develop in close contact with the needs of the 

 times, rather than continue in a purely aca- 

 demic atmosphere, its usefulness might be 

 greatly increased without taking away from 

 the scientific value of its researches. The 

 experience of the other surveys demonstrates 

 conclusively that we need increased independ- 

 ence for the bureau, not restriction of its 

 independence. 



It is quite evident that the work of the 

 National Museum must be carried on in co- 

 operation with all the great surveys. It would 

 seem to be one of the important duties of a 

 director of the museum to establish and main- 

 tain such cooperation. Nevertheless, the 

 work of the museum must always remain a 



unit, and dis'tinet from the surveys that are 

 important contributors to its growth. 



Another aspect of the action of Secretary 

 Langley appears to me not less objectionable 

 than the considerations mentioned heretofore. 

 Major Powell was the director of the bureau 

 from the time of its .establishment until his 

 death. Since 1893 Dr. W J McGee 

 has been ethnologist-in-charge under Major 

 Powell. For nearly ten years he has been 

 acting for Major Powell, and training to 

 become his successor. According to all prin- 

 ciples of good government, he should have 

 been advanced to the position of director. 

 The appointment of another man, no mat- 

 ter how good he may be, to the position, 

 brings about discontinuity in the work of 

 the bureau, which I consider dangerous, 

 not alone to the best interests of anthro- 

 pology, but to those of science in general. 

 If the incumbent of the position that leads 

 naturally to succession in the bureau had 

 been inefficient, it might be expected that 

 the secretary would have called attention to 

 his inefficiency, and that he would have re- 

 moved him long ago. By continuing up to 

 the present time the organization of the 

 bureau decided upon in 1893 the secretary 

 has indicated that he agrees with the views 

 of anthropologists who respect Dr. McGee 

 for the ability, straightforwardness and 

 success with which he has conducted the 

 bureau under peculiarly difficult conditions. 

 Therefore, the failure to appoint Dr. McGee 

 to the succession in the directorship is most 

 unfortunate. It introduces again a feel- 

 ing of general instability in the scientific 

 service of the government which we hoped 

 had been entirely overcome by this time. 

 Personal inclination of the appointing officer 

 has once more outweighed the principles of 

 continuity and stability, which are indis- 

 pensable for the welfare of scientific institu- 

 ■ tions. I can only view with apprehension a 

 condition of affairs that places the stability, 

 yes the existence, of a great scientific bureau 

 of the government entirely in the hands of 

 a single man, who has the power to carry into 



