Kdlforiiil ( 'nni iiienf. 47 
or perhaps the possibility, of eiiiliracin<j; in one scheme of map- 
ping, all the essentials Avhieh may he (h-manded in any -general 
system of mapping a state or nation." Maps are made for vari- 
ous uses, and under various ausi)iees. The United States govern- 
ment would be justified in looking at this (juestion from a different 
point of view from that of a state government, and might wen 
choose a larger or smaller unit, or might ignore county and state 
boundaries. 
TllK. Tol'odK.VTHKA I, WoKK oK THE XaI'IO.VA I. ( i Ko|,0(i|('AJ. 
SlKVEV. 
The article of ]\lr. (iannett. in response to our editorial in the 
Novem})er Gkolo(;ist criticising the course of the I'nited States 
rreological survey in entering upon and prosecuting the topo- 
graphical work on which it has been engaged for ten years at the 
average rate of $215,000 per year, is intended, ostensibly, as an 
answer to our objections, but it falls short of its purpose. Our 
objections are stated near the close of the '• editoriaT" categori- 
cally, and we respectfully refer Mr. (Jannett to them, if he de- 
sires to try again. 
Instead of answering our objections directly and fully, Mr. 
Gannett's letter attributes to us some exaggerated and imaginary 
statements and opinions. Avhich he proceeds to demolish with evi- 
dent relish and success. To make this apparent we desire to 
bring to the light some of these 'men of straw ' which are so 
valiantly overthi'own, and afterwards to correct some of the as- 
sumptions and historical references which he makes. 
1. Mr. Gannett avers that we ol)jected to the extej)si<tn of the 
field work of the Geological Survey ov<'r the entire ['nit(Ml States. 
We did not mean to say that, and we do not think mc did. 
'1. Mr. Gannett attributes to us a '• misconce.i)tion " of the 
signilicance of the term •• national domain "" used in the original 
law of the surve}'. and states that to avoid -such misconcep- 
tions'' the efforts were made which linally resulted snccessfuiiy 
in substituting Ignited Stat(!S for "national domain." We did 
not intend to express any opinion on tlie signiticanci' of the origi- 
nal term, and we do not think wc did. 
?). Mr. Gannett states that our editorial advocates tlie making 
of the geological map of the United States " without a topograph- 
