NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY — ^RAKSOME. 273 
of map he desires at the time it is needed. Cooperation between 
geologists and topographers is apt to be both closer and more flexible 
than it would be if the two staffs were in separate organizations. 
Finally, the field work in topography and geology is in some respects 
alike and is carried out by similar methods and equipment. Occa- 
sionally the two kinds of work can be combined and carried on simul- 
taneously. 
The general question — whether a national geological survey shall 
do its own topographic mapping — appears to be one that can not be 
answered once for all but must be determined for each country. In 
an old country, where accurate and detailed maps have long been 
made by military and other organizations, a geological survey may 
be under no necessity of providing its own topographic base maps. 
In a new country, where exploration is still in progress, the Geologi- 
cal Survey may have to make its own topographic surveys. The main 
point, as I see it, is that the Geological Survey must have maps of 
the standard required by it with the least possible delay but should 
not undertake to make them itself if other organizations that can 
and. will provide the maps needed are already in the field. 
STATISTICS OP MINERAL PRODUCTION. 
We have seen that there is at least a very close connection between 
topographic and geologic mapping and that in this connection may 
lie a sufficient reason why both kinds of work should be undertaken 
by the same organization. Is there as good a reason why the study 
of geology and the collection of statistics of mineral production 
should be united ? 
IVhen shortly after the organization of the United States Geo- 
logical Survey the collection of statistics was begun, those geologists 
who were most influential in urging that the survey should under- 
take statistical work adduced as the principal reason that the people 
desired such figures, and if the Geological Survey did the work it 
would be able to secure larger appropriations than if the task were 
left for others. It does not appear to have been thought at that time 
that geologists were the only men who could satisfactorily do statis- 
tical work or that it was necessary to impose this task on them. 
Subsequently, however, the work was apportioned among the geolo- 
gists. The reasons for this step appear to have been, first, that the 
results of having the statistical reports prepared under contract by 
specialists who were not on the regular staff of the organization had 
proved unsatisfactory ; second, that by apportioning the work among 
the geologists already on the staff not only would the apparent cost 
in monej'^ be less than under the former arrangement, but it would, 
in a bookkeeping sense, be very much cheaper than taking on new men 
