386 The American Geologist. Dc ci'mber, isg^j 
to t'tiiTV out nil lluit \v:is promised in tlu- ''Introduclorv. " Per- 
haps they will be able to approach nearer to the aehieveineiit of 
their highest hopes during the next live years. 
Five years ago, in the midst of a general feeling of disquiet 
among the geologists of the country, seven men boldly took the 
initiative in the establishment of an American journal which 
should give expression as well to the "feel)lest whispers" as the 
"loudest thunder" of geological thought in America. vSix of these 
discharged all their promises, and, except for the intervention of 
the pale messenger, six of them would still lie found steadfast in 
their places. This board conducted the (Ieologist through two 
years. Five remain of that seven, but their burdens haAX' l)een 
lightened by the addition of seven others to their ranks. 
On this accession to the editorial board, making twelve, it was 
planned, at first, that each editor should be responsible for the 
issue of one number, in alphabetical rotation. This has beei\ in 
a measure carried out, but it was found shortly that the labors of 
the respective monthly editors would have to be mixed in the 
monthly issues. The editors are scattered from the Atlantic to 
the Pacific, and from the lakes to the gulf, and with all possible 
precaution and dispatch the timely succession of contributions 
could not be kept in orderly routine. Therefore there is no way 
of indicating the amount of work done by the individual editors, 
nor of establishing the authorship of the anonymous articles, ex- 
cept that each contributor knows his own. 
It has been the practice, from the first, to maintain an anony- 
mous editorial department, and also to print all reviews anony- 
mously. The unpleasant truth must sometimes be told, and it is 
more likely to be told and told correctly under the shield of an 
anonymous journal than when its relator is compelled to carr}' 
the brunt of all its consequences. Therefore the editors have had 
equal and untramelled freedom, as individual editors, to write 
whatever they chose. Sometimes they have found themselves at 
variance on views expressed, and they have had the privilege not 
only as individuals to disown what the^' did not approve, privately, 
whenever they have been disposed, but even to criticise the 
(tEGLogist publicly in their own name, or to Avrite counter edi- 
torials in rebuttal of other views. The Geologist is therefore 
no "composite photograph" of twelve, without character and 
complexion, and destitute of all dominant traits, but is instead a 
