C 'on'exjioudciwe. 12 < 
'TirE T<)i'i)Gi:.V[>i[K'Ai. W'ouic ok the Uxiteu States Gkoi.ockai, Sii;- 
VEv. Your rejoinder to my letter on the topographical work of the 
U.S. Geological Survey, in the January number of the (Jeolooist 
leaves little occasion for reply, since either imjilicitly or explicitly it 
admits nearly all of its corrections. There remain, however, one or 
two points concerning which a little further discussion may. in my 
judgment, be had with profit. 
My statement respecting the interpretation of the law dclining the 
area of work of the Geological Survey was, that it was amended 
'■'after full discussion in Gongress." This is correctly (luoted by you 
.and amended to read "after full discussion in (' ('oinniittrr <//' tlir iroitifc." 
• If you will consult the < ■<>injir.sxin„nl h'rrnnh Vol. i.\, i)p. L>420-24'24 : 
Vol. X. pp. 4067-4L'74; Vol. M, pi). JiM. 131, 77!t. 2110. 2112, 234t) ; Vol. 
xiir. pp. 5923-5930, you will see that I wrote from full information and 
Mvill, I am sure, withdraw your correction of my statement. 
The unqualified statement that "the <^l'lst ,nnl fu.xhi;,- Sni-mj inix 
• V'lirkiiHi. lit tliaf n-ri/ flim-, mulrr a fa r-riarhiiKj srhniir trhirh hml hren 
■ ill ojiiriititiii for srrcrdi i/iiirs, iniiirr ii nthnrit ij nf Imr. mi a (jiin ral iikii' <>} 
:th< I'nih'il Sfilfrs ,,f II rluirtn-tn- 11,'iirhj iilnitlnil irilli (hilt iinn- hi iiii/ i.r,'- 
■culnl I,,/ thr I'ln'tril Sluti's Cruliiijiriil Sum ij." is inten-sting. if true, but 
I fail to find any demonstration of it in your reply. That the Goast 
• and Geodetic Survey might have been willing to undertake the work, 
may perhaps be conceded, but did it undertake it? Tru(\ it was 
engaged in geodetic triangulation in various parts of the interior. 
That is well known, but geodetic triangulation is not mai)-making, nor 
is it necessarily a prelude to map-making. The only act of the Goast 
Survey, known to me, suggesting an intention to map the interior was 
the employment of ^Ir. II. F.Walling during the years 1881-2, to com- 
pile railroad and other map material and to suppleinent this compila- 
tion where needful by surveys. In this way some 1.(500 S(iuare miles 
in northern [Maryland and West \'irginia were mapped, on a field scale 
•of one mile to one inch in one hundred foot contours. The work in 
Xorth Garolina and adjoining states to which you refer was i)urely 
a c-ompihitioii, on a scale of ten miles to one inch, in hachures. I 
gravely doubt whether the Goast Survey then regarded or now i-egards 
this as a i)art of a far-reaching scheme for mapi)ing i lie cntnitry. 
1 must rejieat my statement that there has been no duplication of 
work and no clashing by the two organizations. This, il must be 
understood, is a (jucstion of fact, not'of rumor. 
Your position, as 1 understand it. is that, though the maps of the 
U. S. (geological Survey are "useful and good" yet "Our chief objec- 
tion is against the agency that is carrying on the work." 
This brings into clear relief our chief difference, which may be 
stated as follows: Is it desirable under j)resent conditions to trans- 
fer the work from one bureau to the other? In ('on>idering this.it 
seems hardly worth while to discuss further the (juestion as to which 
'bureau had authority (o do the work ten years ago, or whether the 
'(!oast and (ieodetic Survey was engaged in a far-reaching scheme for 
going about it at that time. These matters are interesting from a 
historical standpoint , but are hardly live issues to-day. 
