1855.] 



A REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE JUNE NUMBER OF THE CANADIAN JOURNAL. 



289 



which enters so largely into the composition of this oil, is perh.ips 

 the most inert of chemical compounds : it is quite indifferent to other 

 chemical agents, eTen of the most powerful kind, and cannot be made 

 to form any combinations with them ; hence its name (parum affinis.) 

 As these oils are thus chemically e.'cempt, then, from the influeuce of 

 the agencies to which they are exposed, they are not only preserved 

 from any change which may cause them to act injuriously upon the 

 metals with which they are in contact, but are likewise incapable of 

 experiencing those changes which cause the common oils to thicken 

 and dry. The consequence of this is, that they physically remain un- 

 altered as lubricants dui-ing any length of time, as they appear, from 

 some experiments made in connexion with this part of the subject, to 

 be quite insusceptible of drying when exposed upon a non-absorbent 

 surface. The following results were obtained in testing this mineral 

 oil against other oleaginous matters and their mixtures with the min- 

 eral oil itself. The trials were made with the Glasgow oil-testing 

 apparatus (M'Naught's). 



Sperm oil, taken as a standard = 100 



Mineral oil, the thinnest kind = 18 



Do. do. containing more parafifine = 30 



Olive oil and mineral oil, equalparts = 48 



Lard oil and mineral oil, equalparts = 54 



Do. do. do. 2 parts to 1 = 63 ♦ 



Refined rape oil and mineral oil, equal parts ... = 5(j 



A Reply to an Ai-ticlje in the June ^'umber of the 

 Cauatlian tToiirual^ 



AND ENTITLED 



" Report of i/if Select Committee on the Geological Sarvey of Canada. 

 Minutes of Eridence.^' 



BY E. J. CHAP.IIAN, PBOFKSSOR. OF MINEKALOaY AND QEOLOOT IX 

 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, TORONTO. 



[We should have been glad to have afforded the following communi- 

 cation from Professor Chapman a more prominent place in this number 

 of the Journal ; having, however, received the MS. after the first two 

 sheets were struck off, no alternative remained but to submit it in its 

 present place. We allow the "reply" to pass without any allusion to 

 the admission into these pages of the offending parts of the review ; 

 the argument which Professor Chapman has preferred to adopt in his 

 defence, rendering any reference to it altogether unnecessary. AVe 

 have merely to remind Professor Chapman and his so-called "anony- 

 mous assailant," that no renewal of the discussion can take place in the 

 pages of this Journal.'\ — Ed. 



In the last number of the Canadian Journal there appeared an 

 anonymous article, purporting to be a review of the " Minutes of Evi- 

 dence" in the case of the late inquiry respecting the Geological Survey 

 question, at Quebec. This article, it must be evident to every unpre- 

 judiced reader, is little else than a direct attack upon my professional 

 reputation and character. The quotations from my evidences, disjointed, 

 partially given, and taken out of place ; the italics and notes of admi- 

 ration ; and above all, the gratuitous and most unwarrantable assump- 

 tions, so largely indulged in by the anonymous writer — are sufficient 

 proofs of the justness of my assertion. It is to be regretted for the 

 sake of truthfulness and fair play, that an opportunity was not afforded 

 me to print my answer simultaneously with the attack, as the latter 

 may be read by many parsons before whom the reply may never come. 



The matters commented upon by my anonymous assailant, belong, I 

 believe, almost entirely to Questions 44, 6-5, 47, and 54, of the Minutes 

 of Evidence. I will take up these separately, and in the order adopted 

 in the Journal. 



" Question 44. Have you ever been practically engaged in any Geo- 

 logical Surveys? — Answer. Yes, in several: principally for Railway 

 and Water Companies. I have also taken p.art in Mining surveys; and 

 I may mention, as lending more weight to my evidence on this occasion, 

 that I am the author of several works on Mineralogy, and of a con- 

 siderable numberof published papcrson Jlineralogy, Mineral Chemistry, 

 and Geology, many of whicli have been translated into foreign scientific 

 Journals. For three years, likewise, I was a Professor in University 

 College, London." 



The last sentence is omitted in the Journal Report, and the worJs 

 "for Railway and Water Companies" are in italics. The writer then 



observes in continuation, "We may perhaps be permitted to question 

 whether the implied comparison* between a geological survey for 

 "Railway and Water Companies and the Geological Survey of Canada 

 — a vast country containing 300,000 square miles — is either philoso- 

 phical or just; a doubt which is far from being dispelled by the 

 perusal of the question and answer subjoined, &c." This question and 

 answer. No. 55, I wdl take up presently, merely remarking here, that 

 in the Journal Report only a portion of the answer is given, to the 

 obvious detriment of its value. Now, what was the object of the Com- 

 mittee in putting the above question, No. 44 ? Evidently to ascertain 

 if I were sufficiently acquainted with the practice of geological field- 

 work to enable me to form a just opinion of the general mode of 

 conducting the present survey, taking, of course, into consideration the 

 difference between an old and new country. That such was, manifestly, 

 the object of the question, is shoivn by those which immediately follow 

 in the Minutes. My anonymous assailant, so prodigal of inverted 

 commas, does not appear to have the faintest conception of the kind of 

 work involved in a geological examination for railway purposes in a 

 country, for instance, like England, where so many distinct zones of 

 rock may cross and recross a projected line, again and again, within a 

 very contracted area. I do not hesitate to say, that limited as this 

 kind of work may be, it exacts a greater degree of skill and judgment 

 for its successful execution, than is required in many an ordinary 

 survey, in which lines can be traced out and connected from distant 

 points. We have here, broken patches, often repeated upon themselves, 

 in which the exact sequence, dip, thickness, &c., have to be made out, 

 frequently, from the most imperfect data.f A geological survey for a 

 " Water Company" need not also be so small a matter as my anonymous 

 assailant would have people to suppose. When I state, that on one 

 occasion I had the getting up of a geological work of this kind extending 

 over between two and three thousand square miles, I think it may be 

 allowed that I am at least entitled to give an opinion respecting 

 geological field-work without necessarily laying myself open for so 

 doing to foolish and perverse criticisms. Surely, it must strike us also, 

 that the chairman and members of the Committee exhibited great lack 

 of judgment or great forbearance, if my answer to this, their first 

 question, were so conclusive of incompetency as this anonymous writer 

 would have us to infer, in wasting the remainder of the morning by 

 continuing my examination. The thing speaks for itself. 



Let us now revert to the second question of the Journal Report, the 

 13th question of my Evidence, No. 55. 



I was here asked if I could " give instances from my own experience 

 in geological surveys of the practical importance of results which at 

 first sight might appear to be exclusively of scientific interest." This 

 question I could only answer generally, and I will say, without fear 

 of contradiction from any honest critic, that there are many able 

 geologists constantly engaged in practical investigations, who could do 

 no more. It must be obvious, that these peculiar instances, taken in a 

 special point of view, are necessarily of rare occurrence ; more especi- 

 ally in countries like England and France, where so much is already 

 known. I gave in reply one or two cases of a practical character, 

 which suggested themselves to me at the time, somewhat bearing on 

 the question at issue ; and it is with these that the anonj'mous reviewer 

 pretends to be particularly amused. J Now, these cases certainly did 

 not appear to be so very absurd to the chairman and members of the 

 Committee, nor to Mr. Logan and Professor Hall, of Albany, who were 

 in the room whilst I gave my evidence. Indeed, at the close of this 

 evidence, and on more than one occasion since, Mr. Logan was kind 

 enough to express himself fully satisfied — not to use other terms which 



* Query — implied by whom ? certainly not by the witness. He is 

 here, be it observed, answering a straightforward question put to him 

 by the Committee, and making no comparison whatever. The manifest 

 object of the question is pointed out fui-ther on. 



f In illustration I might quote, amongst others, a complicatod piece 

 of work in Wiltshire and Somersetshire, performed by mo in the place 

 of Mr. Wm. Fjonde. No less than eight distinct geological formations 

 here came under review, in great part in a broken and much disturbed 

 country. It was on one of Mr. Brunei's lines. 



X He states — I quote from the Journal — " Afr. Chapman was asked 

 to give instances from his " own experience in such surveys of the 

 practical importance of results which at first sight might appear to bo 

 exclusively of scientific interest," and with commendable candour ho 

 limited his instances to those which had come under his independent 

 observation, &c." Why, in the name of decency, whnt would this 

 person have, with his " commeudiiblc candour !" 



