An Unjust Attack — Frazer. 
69 
Powell stated that he considered the abstract prepared for Section E, A. 
A. A. S., last summer his report. It was accordingly read and ordered 
to be printed like the others. 
Dr. Frazer was unanimously elected editor of the reports; and major 1 
Powell and Dr. Newberry each subscribed $20.00 towards the publication 
of the reports. This latter circumstance is of interest as showing major 
Powell s feeling at the time of the last meeting he attended in person or 
by proxy (although in fact he never paid his subscription.) If Prof. Dana 
was not aware that the above votes had been passed, it was because he 
did not remain in the room either while they were passed or when the 
minutes were read. 
“Finally at the April meeting it was voted that no copies of the report 
should be delivered before September 17th, or in other words that the 
printed report with its final additions should be kept from the members 
of the Committee until the day of meeting of the Congress in London.” 
In the minutes of the April meeting it is recorded that “It was moved 
that the Committee declare it to be their opinion that the report of the 
Committee should not be made public until the meeting of the Congress 
on Sept. 17th, 1888, and that the copies remain in the meantime in the 
custody of the Secretary until he can transmit the edition intended for 
the Congress to the Executive Committe thereof. Providing that each 
Reporter shall receive a copy of his own report, and that the chairman 
receive a copy of the volume containing all the reports. Carried.” 
It is scarcely necessary to italicize the two words above to exhibit the 
discrepancy between Prof. Dana’s allegation and the actual state of things, 
nor is it worth while to defend the propriety of so obvious a proceeding 
as guarding the report to the Congress from the public until the Congress 
had received it. Every member of the committee was asked and expect¬ 
ed to be familiar with every report and to contribute his best efforts toward 
perfecting it. So that when Prof. Dana continues: “Under such partisan 
management the conclusions in the printed reports of several sub-com¬ 
mittees were not likely to represent fairly American geological opinions;” 
he makes a wanton and unfounded charge against the committee the 
vehicle for an illogical conclusion as to the fidelity with which it has rep¬ 
resented the opinions of American geologists. Fortunately many letters 
from these geologists have been introduced into the volume, and (in the 
case of at least one Reporter) so introduced just to prevent a charge of this 
nature, which it was never thought would proceed from him, however. 
“It is true that in connection with each of them (the reports) a large 
display is made of the names of the members of the sub-committees, and 
of all of them in each case as if they were alike responsible for the con¬ 
tents, and as if they had met, at least once, and consulted together, read 
the last emendations and signed the document.” No man’s name was 
attached to the reports without his consent or in spite of his objection. 
The writer believes that every member of every sub-committee received a 
galley proof of every report to which his name was attached which he 
was free to amend or alter as he liked and forward with his remarks to 
the Reporter. Whenever this was done it is believed that the reporter' 
