The KewecnaK'on. — Wu^cheU. 83 
is difficult to ascertain what can be relied on as to the inter- 
pretation of this shore. Chamberlin and Irving, in Bulletin 
No. 23 of the United States Geological Survey, admit that the 
Eastern sandstone in some places passes below the trap rocks 
of Keweenaw point, as first shown by M. E. Wadsworth, but 
they claim that this is illusory and only local, and that the east- 
ern sandstone is really non-conformable upon the traps. They 
explain the structural relations as understood by them by a 
hypothesis which in itself presents inherent difficulties. It 
may be that the contrariety of fact and interpretation can be 
adjusted by allowing two sandstones on the south side of Ke- 
weenaw point, one being older than the traps as represented 
by Rominger and "Wadsworth, and one younger, but both em- 
braced in the same great sandstone period, separated locally 
into two parts by the Keweenawan eruptives.* Indeed, there 
are some facts, admitted by Chamberlin and Irving, which 
seem to require this conclusion. We do not, however, consider 
it important here to decide between these opposite "views," 
since whether the Eastern sandstone be older or later than the 
traps there are four important points well established and ad- 
mitted by all observers, to which attention may be directed, 
which have bearing on this discussion. 
1. Since the Eastern sandstone was deposited there have 
been considerable, and perhaps very extended, crustal move- 
ments which have bent and broken the Eastern sandstone. 
This is but a repetition of the conclusion that has been drawn 
from occurrences in Douglas county, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. 
2. Whether the Eastern sandstone was flexed upward or 
downward by such movements, the tilting was abrupt and ac- 
complished within a few hundred yards of the contact plane. 
3. There are sandstones that pass, both abnormally because 
of overthrust, and naturally because of normal infraposition, 
below the Keweenawan traps. (Bull. 28, pp. 06, 67.) 
4. The basal beds of the Eastern sandstone are not here ex- 
posed. 
The foregoing are the localities to which Chamberlin refers 
for support for the structural relations affirmed in his sum- 
*Th()8e who desire to ascertain the facts that have been reHed on for 
the different theories of the relations of these rocks on the south side of 
Keweenaw point will find them ably jjresentod and discussed in Bulletin 
No. 2.S of the United States Geoloj^ical Survey, by Chamberlin and Irv- 
ing. See also an editorial review in the Am. Geologist, vol. i, page 47. 
