REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR I916 139 



geologist who is asked to certify to some doctrine in the conserva- 

 tion creed, it may be, or to testify in support of some contestant 

 in a court of law. Professional demands of this type may cause 

 our scientific ideals to tremble, if indeed they do not suffer a tumble. 

 It is for this reason that a geologist's ideals are safer in the field 

 than in the court room; Mother Nature is a better associate than 

 the goddess w^ho goes blindfold. 



Yet the problem faces us and we must answer our own question : 

 What are the professional obligations of the geologist? Possibly 

 the official geologist is less exposed to temptations of this type : he 

 is allowed to make his testimony follow the evidence. At least I 

 remember that the Survey geologist published, uncensored, his 

 estimates of coal reserves, even though his statement did not fit in 

 with the popular argument for conservation ; nor was the official 

 opinion required by the statute as to the influence of forests on 

 stream flow given until field examinations by geologists and engi- 

 neers furnished a basis of fact ; nor again do I believe that the 

 federal geologists who testified as to the mineral character of 

 petroleum were in any degree influenced in their opinion by the 

 chance circumstance that this was the Government's contention. On 

 another occasion the federal geologist whose duty it was to defend 

 the official classification of land in a western state had definite 

 instructions to reverse the Geological Survey's position in the matter 

 if new evidence should indicate an error of judgment, even though 

 such action would have enabled the railroad claimant to win the 

 land. Nor should a Government geologist hesitate to file notice of a 

 correction in some a-ssays earlier introduced as evidence, even 

 though he thereby strengthened the land claimant's contention. 

 Here, of course, the issue was plain : the duty of the pubHc servant 

 was to see that truth prevailed, even though the Government might 

 seem to lose its case. In two other of the instances I have men- 

 tioned some degree of temporary popular favor and freedom from 

 current newspaper criticism could have been gained by a dififerent 

 course, but I believe that in the end the good name of science would 

 have been besmirched. 



Yet in courts of law we now see geologists testifying as experts 

 on both sides of the case, and too often as experts on subjects on 

 which they would not be regarded as specialists by their fellow 

 geologists, or at least on specialized phases of geolog}' which they 

 themselves might hesitate to discuss before this society. But even 

 when such opposing witnesses are both eminently well qualified, 



