■"54 The Aiiieriean (reologixf. Jiimmry, i«f»s 
'PIkm'c were clevun States fO-<»pi'iatinu uilli the Coast and Geo- 
(U'tie Stirvov in tlu' construction of t(j))oorapliical maps in 1 SS4. 
If there are none in lsr(2, as stated by >Ii\ (itinnett. what is the 
probable reason ? 
P. 240. Prof, (rcorge Davidson testifies that U) avoid dupli- 
cation and hick of co-ordination which exists ••according to a 
conviction which has grown up in his inind." there should 1)6 
some authority, and the same authority, to control these two 
chiefs, and argues (on p. 241 ) against a '-conflict'" which he sees 
between the two surveys. 
Enough has l)een said to show, it seems to us. that we were 
justified in our remark that there were rumorsol" clashing and dup- 
lication. We might have stated, without fear of successful con- 
tradiction, that fin ri iriis cliixhliHj. and we might have adduced 
instances, hut we did iu)i presume that anyone would question 
such [talpalilc liistorical facts. 
."). Wc do not wish to go into details to show the deficiencies 
of \\\v toi)Ographical ma[)S of the V. 8. (reological Survey. We 
are (piitc willing to admit that tliey are useful and good maps, 
and that we should be sorry to see the topographical work cease. 
We might, however, instance important tests of those maps by 
-Nome of tlu' first authorities in the country, and we could point to 
several of the States of the Union which have objected to them 
:ind have either insisted on ])etter maps or have refused to make 
use of tJH'iu in their own surveys. They serve, nevertheless, 
iiianv useful [tniposes. ( )ur chief objection is against the agency • 
that i> carrying on the work. We think it should be done by a 
distincllv mensuration survey, preferal^ly the Coast and (Jeodetic 
Survey, and that the expense of it should not be burdened upon a 
■'geological survey. It would be Itetter to establish an entirely 
separate bureau charged with the i-xecution of this map than to 
allow it to proceed undei' the present organization. That would 
gi\e it (h'finiteness and recognized standing in the appropriation 
bills, and it would leave the Geological Survey to prosecute its 
legitimate work in a definite sphei-(^ which also would liave a rec- 
ognizee! positif)!! and standing. 
\\'e do not wish to be misundi'rstood. We are opposed simply 
to the execution of this work uucUm- the name of a iicoloyivdl sitr- 
II ij: as a fnpitiivn jili'ical xnrviij its work is not sutliciently exact 
foi- the demands of the closino- vears of the nineteenth centurv. 
