40 Editors’ Table. [January, 
plated by the reports in question, is matter of every day occur- 
rence. The United States geologist, in proposing such a scheme, 
has entered upon a sea of difficulties, of which he must but too 
soon becomeaware. We maintain that retention as a mining expert 
should be regarded as a disqualification for the position of United 
States geologist. The tremendous pressure of the mining inter- 
ests of the country upon the occupant of that important position 
must be too great for any but a man exclusively devoted to purely 
scientific interests, to properly resist. The men for the place are 
devotees of science like Hayden, or engineer officers like Wheeler; 
men who do not know enough of the relations of fees to ‘‘ expert 
reports,” or of stock jobbing operations, ever to risk the sacrifice 
of their professional independence by alliance with any interest of 
the country whatsoever. 
Mr. King’s scheme represents a new departure in government 
scientific work, and one which we regret. It may indeed be said, 
that the titles of his proposed volumes are purely ad captandum, 
but from the previous history of this gentleman, we cannot ac- 
cept this as a valid explanation. Hayden and Wheeler never 
thought it necessary in the past to suppress the claims of pure 
science, and they cannot complain that Congress was not liberal 
in its appropriations. Congressmen are indeed aware that 
the only function of government in the matter is to develop 
knowledge for the sake of all interests, and not for the 
sake of any particular interest. It is not necessary for the scien- 
tific men of the country to change their attitude after the suc- 
cesses of the past decade. But Mr. King is essentially a mining 
geologist, which may partly explain the various serious scien- 
tific blunders to be found in the palzontological and mineralogical 
portions of his report on the geology of the fortieth parallel. 
That the new United States Geological Survey would run into 
this channel, is no more than we anticipated at the time of the 
abolition of the old surveys, and formed one of the grounds of 
our opposition to the change at that time. 
The proposition to extend the United States Survey over the 
old States is one that depends for its merit on the manner in 
which it is carried into effect. To relieve the several States of 
the responsibility of making geological surveys of their own ter- 
ritory would be a positive injury to the scientific interests of the 
country. The aggregate appropriations made by the States for 
this purpose must, in the end, exceed the amount which the 
National Government could devote to the same object. The 
State Legislatures ought not for a moment tobe allowed to suppose — 
that the General Government will relieve them of the necessity of 
looking after their own interests. But a United States Survey 
should undoubtedly have general supervisory powers over the 
entire country. It should collate the results of the State surveys 
