CORRESP ONDENCE. 



411 



yet it seems hardly worth while, for the ver- 

 dict of approval by those for whom the re- 

 port was undertaken had been given long be- 

 fore this notice appeared ; indeed, the de- 

 mand by teachers and educators for this 

 " overgrown volume " and for its predeces- 

 sor is so much greater than the supply that 

 the closing reference to " so many copies 

 going back unread to the paper vat " falls 

 rather flat to those who know the facts ; of 

 course, however, the falsehood, which is there 

 implied as a truth applicable to this particu- 

 lar publication, helps to damn book and au- 

 thor in the opinion of the ingenuous and gul- 

 lible reader. I. Edwards Clarke. 



Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

 Education, Washington, April 29, 1893. 



[We have never received a protest which 

 furnished us quite so much evidence in sup- 

 port of our own position as does this letter 

 of Mr. I. Edwards Clarke. In his first para- 

 graph he shows that we discriminated be- 

 tween the well-digested part of his second 

 volume and the gatherings of his drag-net. 

 In his second paragraph he states that his 

 purpose has been to get together " all the 

 material'''' on his subject, which involved 

 the reprinting of much " ephemeral " litera- 

 ture, such as " speeches, papers, addresses, 

 and local reports." He does not show that 

 the purposes of a " work of reference," as he 

 calls his report, necessitate the reprinting 

 of these speeches, etc., in full, nor does he 

 seem to see that the reason why such com- 

 positions are ephemeral is that they are not 

 sufficiently condensed to be suitable for per- 

 manent preservation. We are gratified to 

 learn that our reviewers of Mr. Clarke's two 

 volumes arrived independently at the same 

 opinion of his work, for we find that the 

 person who noticed the second volume did 

 not know what another writer had said of 

 the first in the Monthly seven years ago. 

 We are also gratified to find ourselves in ac- 

 cord with such an able critical authority as 

 The Nation. It is not surprising that a 

 great many teachers and educators have 

 wanted the book enough to ask for it. We 

 stated in our notices that it contains much 

 valuable material, and complained only of 

 the quantity of chaff among the wheat. Mr. 

 Clarke has evidently done his work consci- 

 entiously, but he needs the wholesome, 

 bracing atmosphere which surrounds the 

 writers of books that must pay their own 

 expenses, and which the Government book- 

 maker is protected from. Finally, if any 

 more evidence of his tendency to diffuseness 

 were needed, it would be afforded by the 

 length of the letter above. — Editor.] 



THE TRACING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA 

 GLACIAL MORAINE. 



We have received the following letter 

 from Mrs. H. Carvill Lewis, in reference to 

 some remarks recently made in The Popular 



Science Monthly concerning the work of the 

 late Prof. Lewis and Prof. G. F. Wright in trac- 

 ing the glacial moraine across Pennsylvania. 

 Having given our authority in the editorial 

 (Correspondence Department) in the April 

 number for the statements made in the arti- 

 cle Recent Glacial Discoveries in England, in 

 the December number, we publish the letter 

 without further comment : 



Hotel Lang, Heidelberg, April 16, 18 3. 

 Editor Popular Science Montldy. 



Dear Sir: In reference to your editorial 

 on Recent Glacial Researches in England, 

 Popular Science Monthly, March, 1893, and 

 to my statement that " it was only over the 

 last third of the work (i. e., in the tracing of 

 the terminal moraine across Pennsylvania 

 from June to October, 1881) that Prof. Car- 

 vill Lewis had the pleasure and benefit of 

 Prof. Wright's companionship," may I take 

 the liberty of calling your attention to the in- 

 closed letters, which will explain themselves ? 



The question as to whether Prof. Wright 

 has on one or more occasions seen the whole 

 or " three fourths " of the moraine in Penn- 

 sylvania does not seem to me the point at 

 issue. It is simply this : 



Is the statement in Mr. Warren TJpham's 

 sketch of Prof. H. Carvill Lewis's life and 

 work, as quoted by yourself, that in " the 

 following year (1881) Profs. Lewis and Wright 

 together traversed the southern border of 

 the drift from Belvidere on the Delaware,''' 

 etc., " to the line dividing Pennsylvania and 

 Ohio,' 1 '' correct? 



To this question an exact knowledge of 

 the facts of the case compels me to answer 

 " No," and in support of this opinion I in- 

 close you two letters, the latter of which was 

 published by Prof. Wright himself. 



The matter itself is of little consequence, 

 but as the accuracy of my statement is for 

 the general reader of the Monthly apparent- 

 ly controverted by the abstract you have 

 given from Mr. Upham's article, I feel it 

 best to produce proof of its correctness. 



With regard to the map of the glacia- 

 tion of England, which prefaced your arti- 

 cle in the December number of The Popular 

 Science Monthly, I regret to say that it does 

 not " represent Prof. Lewis's work as com- 

 pleted in England by Prof. Kendall." I 

 most heartily wish that it did ! 



The map in question has in its main fea- 

 tures been copied from some of the leading 

 English authorities — possibly from one of the 

 maps in Geikie's Great Ice Age, to which it 

 bears a strong resemblance. 



Over this older map, which is quite at vari- 

 ance with my husband's leading conclusions, 

 the tracks followed by Scotch and Lake Dis- 

 trict erratics, as traced by Prof. Kendall, and 

 the moraine line across England and Wales 

 only, as traced by my husband, have been 

 drawn. The moraine line is tolerably accu- 

 rate. 



