An Unjust Attack — Frazer. 
65 
AN UNJUST ATTACK. 
(ltEPLY TO ARTICLES CONCERNING THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF GEOLOGISTS BY PROF. J. D. DANA AND MAJ. 
,j. w. powell, in the American Journal of Science for December, 1888.*) 
In the December number of the American Journal of Science, 1888, 
appear, by a singular coincidence, two articles bearing on the report of 
the American Committee International Congress of Geologists, both of 
them calculated to produce an impression upon the mind of the reader un¬ 
favorable in proportion to his ignorance of the real facts of the case. As 
one of these articles is written by the chief editor of the journal, the 
tutelar, and the other by major Powell, the official representative of U. S. 
geology, a reply to them becomes necessary. 
Firstly, it is unfortunate that in this article of Prof. J. D. Dana there is 
not a single statement which of itself would convey a just idea of that 
with which it deals to one unfamiliar with the facts and there are many 
which would convey to such a person an entirely erroneous idea. 
To begin with it states of the report, “It contains valuable papers on 
American stratigraphical geology prepared chiefly by the chairmen or 
^reporters’ of several sub-committees, and interesting reading as the per¬ 
sonal opinions on various questions which were gathered in by the as¬ 
siduous secretary and some of the reporters through epistolary canvassing. 
But on controverted points it is a ‘majority’ report of the committee and 
•of its several sub-committees, and a minority report as regards American 
geologists.” “The canvassing gathered opinions but not final views which 
free discussion am mg the geologists of the country would have evoked. 
Moreover, the methods of the committee tended to suppress free discussion 
even in the sub-committees.” 
This statement so clouds the facts of the case that a not unnatural in¬ 
ference would be that it had been written by one who had never read the 
reports. It contains various and incongruous charges. In the beginning is 
the implied charge that the reports were written by chairmen or reporters, 
while in the end it is objected that there was “epistolary canvassing” for 
the views of American geologists. Then this epistolary canvassing only 
elicited “opinions, but not the final views which free discussion among 
the geologists of the country would have evoked.” 
The s atement about controverted points if understood is unfounded. 
Each reporter had his own way of preparing his report. Some like 
Profs. H. S. Williams and Cope wrote didactically, preserving their 
identity throughout the report. Others were content like the writer to re¬ 
flect the opinions of the leading geologists without seeking to improve 
them. And just here it is applicable to remark that in the judgment of 
many competent persons the record of the answers of some forty odd well 
*A short answer embodying the gist of this communication was sent to the 
American Journal of Science, but was refused admission to its pages. 
