SCIENCE. 



FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1886. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



The statements of the report and conclusions 

 of Mr. Allison's commission, winch have appeared 

 in the public prints, and were partially reproduced 

 in our last number, we learn, on good authority, 

 to be premature in several respects. The fact is, 

 that the commission has not finally formulated 

 either a bill or a report, and may not do so for a 

 week or more. What it has done is to vote on 

 certain general conclusions ; to direct its members 

 to draw up reports expressing the views of the 

 commission, or those of the individual members, 

 on points in which they were a minority ; to au- 

 thorize the members to introduce bills expressing 

 their individual views ; and to remove the seal of 

 secrecy from the proceedings. In reaching gen- 

 eral conclusions, the commission, by a vote of 

 four to two, decided to make no change in the 

 coast survey, and.it is not even believed that any 

 legislation defining its work will be formally 

 recommended. The members are unanimously of 

 opinion that the policy of the signal office should 

 be moulded with a view of erecting it, at no dis- 

 tant day, into a civil bureau, but on the question 

 of making the change immediately they are equal- 

 ly divided. They are opposed to the school of in- 

 struction at Fort Myer, as now conducted, and, it 

 is said, to what is known as the study-room in 

 Washington. In the matter of the geological 

 survey, they are of opinion that its operations 

 should be restricted by law in the direction in- 

 dicated by Mr. Herbert's bill, mentioned in our 

 last number, but are not yet agreed upon all 

 details. 



All parties will agree that this is a very lame 

 conclusion of two years of such careful investi- 

 gation as has been bestowed upon this subject by 

 the commission. The only parties that can be 

 pleased are those who, knowing how broad and 

 easy is the road to bad legislation, and how nar- 

 row the path to that which is good, will be grate- 

 ful that more harm has not been done. The most 

 curious feature of the conclusion is, that the com- 

 plaints which gave rise to the investigation appear 



No. 170. — 1886. 



to have been only lost sight of ; and the only or- 

 ganization which comes in for serious condemna- 

 tion is one against the integrity of which no 

 charge has ever been made, except to be refuted. 

 It is now conceded by all disinterested parties, 

 including the members of the commission, that 

 the geological survey has been conducted with 

 the highest ability and integrity, and in accord- 

 ance with the laws making the appropriations for 

 its support. The ground of complaint is, that it 

 has undertaken too wide a range of geological 

 and allied investigation, not pertaining to its 

 proper functions ; that it has secured political 

 support by employing a large body of scientific 

 men scattered over the country in these investi- 

 gations, and has put the government to great ex- 

 pense in printing the results of such work. Pa- 

 leontological research seems to have come in for 

 the largest share of condemnation ; mainly, we 

 suppose, on the authority of Professor Agassiz, 

 who claims that such research is not a proper 

 function of public geological survey. 



On the merits of so broad a question as this, 

 including innumerable details within its scope, 

 it would be unwise to pass a summary judgment. 

 The views expressed in Mr. Herbert's report form, 

 however, a legitimate subject of examination. If 

 correctly reported in the public prints, they are 

 not characterized by judicial impartiality and 

 fairness of statement. For example : he gives 

 what professes to be an exhibit of the cost of the 

 geological surveys in nearly a dozen different 

 countries, so widely separated as Canada, Japan, 

 and Victoria, without any statement of the con- 

 siderations which determine their selection, and 

 finds that the aggregated cost does not exceed 

 that of our own geological survey. But he gives 

 no definition of the objects and limitations of 

 these various surveys with a view of determining 

 to what extent they are identical with our own. 

 We believe, that, as a matter of fact, the geologi- 

 cal survey of England has been completed for 

 some time, and that the work now done, on the 

 small cost of which Mr. Herbert lays stress, is not 

 properly a survey at all. An advocate of the 

 other side might with equal fairness have taken 

 the cost of all the surveys now in progress in 



