Editoi'Kil (oniinciif. 49 
tended to express no opposition to the piosecution of topogruph- 
ical mapping, and we do not think we did. On the contrary we 
argued that a better topographical survey shoukl be conducted, 
and tliat it should Ite carried on ])y the Coast and Cleodetic Sur- 
vey. 
Now we wish, xrcondlij. to show that perhaps Mr. (iannett s ac- 
quaintance with some of the relations of his own work to the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey and to some historical facts of Con- 
gressional investigation, is "lamentably at fault." 
1. Mr. (lannett states that the change in the iippropriation 
bill from *■' national donui in ' to United JSfatcs, was made to re- 
lieve the law of ambiguity, and that the law was interpreted by 
Mr. King, at the outset, as including the whole area of the coun- 
try. Whatever may have been Mr. King's view of the law it is 
plain that it was not shared by his successor and that he (Powell) 
did not feel authorized to engage in surveying in the eastern por- 
tion of the country until the change was ett'ected. The same 
view was held by Prof. .J. 1). Dnna* and b}' the entire corps of the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey.! 
The movement to transfer the activities of the (ieologiiuil Sur- 
vey to the eastern states, by making this simple change in the 
law. was antaiionized by the officers of the Coast and Geodetic 
Survey, and by others, and was defeated on several occasions 
and Maj. Powell says that the survey was not transferred till so 
authorized (in 1)^82), but that the meaning of "national domain"' 
was understood to In' i>nlilir (hiumiii. (p. '.\.) The existence of 
the law with the original phraseology effected a complete estop- 
pel from work in the eastern, or older, portion of the United 
States. This is not only admitted by Maj. Powell, but. as al- 
ready stated, was so understood by l)otli parties to the controversy. 
There was therefore no ambiguity as to tiie etl'ect of the term, 
whatever tlieri^ may have becm as to its significance. There was 
evidently no doul)t about the intent of the original hiw, and then; 
is as little doubt, in the minds of those who were atf(!cted by the 
change, that the intent of the change was not so mucli to i-emove 
ambiguity as to enlarge the scope of the survey. 
'1. The change was made "after full discussion in Congrtiss.'" 
If this statement had been, after a discnssum In. the, committee, of 
* .Vmericnn Journal of Science, (3), xviii, p. 492, iSTii. 
tTestinionv before the joint comiiiis.<ioii. etc.. p. KiT. Ti'stinionN of 
Maj. i 'owe II.' 
