66 An Unjust Attack — Fiazer. 
recognized geologists to the same series of important questions is a more 
valuable one than twice the amount of writing from the pen of any one, 
were he even the Nestor of American geology. Some such thought must 
have actuated Prof. J. D. Dana himself when he warmly complimented 
the writer and expressed his satisfaction at the writer's report during that 
session at New Haven of which he speaks. 
All the reporters have largely quoted the opinions of others in their re- 
ports, on "controverted points" especially. No idea of adopting a side in 
a controverted question was ever entertained by the committee, of which 
the aim was "to represent," not to manufacture American opinions. The 
picture Prof. Dana suggests of these "opinions" being crystallizable into 
"final views" by any free discussion which the Committee could have 
brought about is extraordinary. How much free discussion for instance 
would have been required to transform his own and Mr. Marcou's 
"opinions" into "final views," and in what would the "final views" have 
differed from the "opinions," and by how much would these have been 
brought into harmony? 
The alleged tendency to suppress discussion in or out of the sub-com- 
mittee is diametrically opposite to the fact. After the sub-committees 
were appointed by Prof. Hall in New York, May 22nd, 1886, and they 
failed to report at Philadelphia December 2Sth, '86, and again in Albany 
April 6th, '87, (although all reports had been ordered to be prepared before 
May) on motion of Prof . Stevenson, the plan of the English Committee was 
adopted and "lieporters" were appointed, each cliarged with the duty of 
preparing as perfect a report as he could. These reports were to be sub- 
mitted to the whole Committee at the subsequent meeting in Spring Lake 
N. J. and after thorough discussion there in the light of the contributions 
from all geologists which weie invited were to be submitted to the judg- 
ment of Section E at the immediately following meeting of the A. A. A. S. 
in New York; and with the emendations there made, were to be finally 
printed and sent to England. 
The fullest discussion was invited and was had during this time:] through 
private letters, cards in the scientific journals and lists of questions every 
effort was made to reach the ear and enlist the interest of every geologist 
in the country. It was therefore with astonishment and the disapproval 
(in some cases unexpressed) of a majority of his fellow members that at 
Spring Lake major Pow^ell's proposition to interdict the expression by the 
Committee of formal approval of the reports, as reports, was heard. The 
only restrictions to free discussion, alteration, and amendment, up to the 
hour that the reports were going through the press, were proposed by him 
and those in the committee who followed him. After the Spring Lake 
meeting and the submission of the reports to and their formal approval 
by Section E in New York the time for discussion and alteration should 
have terminated, yet so anxious were the reporters to embody in their 
reports the latest results, that from August to December 29th, at which 
latter date a meeting in New Haven was held, as many duplicate galley 
proofs of his report as he desired were furnished to each reporter, and 
tliese were sent by him among his scientific colleagues for corrections and 
