Editorial Comment. 343 
would have been as well if they had recalled before they put their 
pens to paper in their recent attacks on a fellow-geologist. He 
has no mercy for the officials who make use of their position to 
attempt to crush out a scientific rival of whom they seem to be 
either jealous or afraid. His note concludes with a sweeping 
condemnation of the United States Geological Survey on account 
of its dictatorial and inquisitorial conduct. 
While thus fully admitting that the flagellation administered by 
professor Youmans is richly deserved by the high offenders who 
have in so flagrant a manner betrayed the confidence of the 
country, we feel that the words employed are scared}^ sufficiently 
guarded to avoid striking the innocent with the guilty. Dr. Clay- 
pole's paper is strictly limited to the criticism of the actual of- 
fenders who ma}- be identified by the references given. Thus 
none are touched save those who have committed the faults. But 
in including the whole staflf of the United States Geological Survey 
within his castigation professor Youmans has, we fear, punished 
with less discrimination. It is seldom just to hold a whole 
company responsible for the faults of a few. The survey corps is 
composed of men of very different natures and qualifications, and 
we doubt not that there are among its members not a few whose 
nobility would scorn to utter the words which have been uttered 
in this controversy. The}- may not have been willing to come out 
as men should do in condemnation of an unprovoked wrong. 
Professional etiquette may have been too strong for their higher 
feelings. But we cannot for that reason hold them guilt}- on the 
main count. 
We may add yet further that we believe from personal knowledge 
that not a few of the professional members of the Survey (late and 
present) must feel the same indignation that has been expressed 
in so many quarters at the wanton assault upon professor Wright, 
whether they agree with his views or not. For these reasons we 
regret the general terms employed by professor Youmans and wish 
that he had been more discriminating in his censure which would 
then have been more effective. But for those by whom they are 
deserved, such as the writers at whom Dr. Claypole's criticisms are 
aimed, they are admirably suitable and timely, and all friends of 
fi'eedom in scientific discussion and elsewhere will thank him for 
having printed them. 
