SCIENCE. 



FEIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1885. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



If a reputation for truthfulness, where the 

 truth can be learned, and for plausibihty, where 

 things have to be guessed at, is of any value to a 

 newspaper, the attention of our joui'nahsts should 

 be caUed to their Washington news. We recently 

 alluded to a supposed report to the first auditor, 

 made by a committee wliich had been investigating 

 the geological survey, and filled with a very de- 

 tailed account of illegal proceedings in the work 

 of that bureau. A pretended abstract of this 

 report was telegTaphed to the New York Times, of 

 Wednesday, Sept. 16, to the Boston Advertiser, 

 and perhaps to many other journals. We showed 

 the report J;o be a clumsy fabrication on internal 

 evidence. It now turns out that not only the 

 report, but the committee itself, was purely un agi- 

 nary. No such committee ever existed, and, of 

 course, no such report was ever made by any respon- 

 sible authority. The latest news is that, so far as 

 Auditor Chenowith has examined the accounts of 

 the geological survey, he has found no illegality 

 in its expenditures. 



Coupled with the statements are certain alleged 

 utterances of the auditor of such a character, that 

 a suit for Ubel on his part ought to lie against the 

 newspapers which have put them into his mouth. 

 For example, that 'these gentlemen,' the scientific 

 employes of the survey, would be required by him 

 to do only such things as common people could 

 understand. Apart from the calibre of mind 

 which would be displayed by such a remark, the 

 very act of attributing it to the auditor shows an 

 ignorance of the duties of that functionary, which 

 ought not to be tolerated in a Washington cor- 

 respondent, unless, indeed, knowledge is regarded 

 in his case as a disqualification by reason of its 

 acting as a drag upon the flights of his imagination. 

 At the risk of diffusing unwelcome knowledge, 

 we will point out that the functions of an auditor 

 are only those implied in his title. It is his duty 

 to see that aU government expenditures, which he 

 is charged with auditing, are made in accordance 



with the laws governing them. If he finds that 

 an officer is spending money for any other pur- 

 pose than that stated in the law which appropri- 

 ates it, that he is paying extra salaries to em- 

 ployes, that he is employing more or other men 

 than the law allows, or is in any other way devi- 

 ating from legal requirements in his expenditures, 

 he must stop him. But it does not concern the 

 auditor whether an employe does, or does not, 

 receive pay from an institution of learning, for 

 the simple reason that there is no law against the 

 officers of such institutions being employed in the 

 government service. Nor can he inquire how an 

 officer is employed, or whether his services are 

 worth the salary paid him. All such questions 

 as these belong to the head of the department to 

 which the officer belongs, and it is for the Secre- 

 tary of the interior alone to decide whether coUege 

 professors shall be employed in the geological 

 survey, and whether they shall do anything which 

 common people cannot understand. The news- 

 papers have, therefore, represented the auditor as 

 usurping the functions of the Secretary of the 

 interior. 



Indefinite hints have now and then been given 

 out that there was something wrong with Pro- 

 fessor Baird's fish commission. Nothing has 

 officially transpired except a brief correspondence 

 with the auditor about the legality of erectiug a 

 'residence building' at Wood's HoU. Professor 

 Baird explains that this buildiug was not erected, 

 as the auditor seemed to infer, merely as a resi- 

 dence for the officers of the commission, but for 

 the general work of the commission, and was 

 called by the objectionable name because it con- 

 tained the quarters necessary for the officers 

 during the performance of their duties. One 

 feature of this case has been entirely overlooked. 

 Professor Baird's duties as fish commissioner are 

 entirely gratuitous, as he receives no salary what- 

 ever from the government proper. The salary 

 of the secretary of the Smithsonian institution is 

 paid from the income of the Smithsonian fund, of 

 which the government is the ti'ustee, not the 

 owner. We beheve it contrary to sound prin- 

 ciples that the government should ask or expect 

 this class of services to be gratuitous. So long as 



