
          Recd [Received] & Ansd [Answered] April 22 57


 Prof. [Professor] John Torrey, N. Y. [New York]


 My dear Sir,


 Since I had the pleasure to write to you last I have received the first &
 second proofs of Durand & Hilgard's Botanical report, which have given me
 considerable trouble, Dr H. [Hilgard] having introduced alterations in the latin text, some
 of which I could not well understand and were somewhat different form
 the english Phraseology. It is with some difficulty that I obtained from the 
 printer the favor of a second revisal, and a third is out of question. 


 This my first attempt at botanical authorship, with an associate
 as unexpert as myself, is very bad indeed and, merely, from neglect in
 following a good pattern such as we could find in yours or Dr Gray's descriptions.
 But it is done, and prolix and intricate as our language is, I hope
 it will be understood and received with indulgence.


 I had informed Lt J. C. Ives, the officer who seems to have the super
 intendance of these publications, that the six drawings, not made by
 Dr Hilgard, were so inaccurate that I desired them to be omitted.
 Unless you consented to improve and correct them. To this Lt Ives replies
 that the plates (or figures rather) had been turned over by the Pac. R. R. survey
 office to the superintendant of public printing, exactly as they were
 received; and that they are now beyond the control of his office. He
 adds what you have said in your letter: And arrangement concerning
 them must now be made with Mr Seaman. I had requested also Lt Ives 
 to send me a double set of the second proofs, that I might be able to send you
 one for the explanations of the plates. He says you will be furnished with a
 copy of the report, after it is printed, and a paper explanatory of the plates
 might then be made, which he presumes Mr Seaman will not refuse to print
        