10 
An TJnjnst Attack — Frazer. 
introduced a statement of the modification made into his report. In this 
case all the members of the sub committees were equally responsible for 
the contents of the report even though no meetings of the members of 
the several Sub-Committees were held. Indeed such meetings would 
have been impossible as the members were scattered widely over 
the country, and in the adoption of the ‘Reporter’ system the idea of 
meetings was abandoned. 
If major Powell has the right to complain that after his resignation 
from the committee his name was still retained on the Sub-Committees, 
he must know that this was done because the Committee decided, (in 
spite of objection on the part of some of its members) not to accept it at 
once out of courtsey to him. This is one of the penalties that he pays for 
enjoying his exalted official position. 
“My name is on two of the sub-committees but has no right to a place 
on either, although I gave assent to the request,” etc. The latter part of 
this statement answers the first. Moreover as the sub committee of which 
the writer was the Reporter is one of those two he can state that he en¬ 
joyed and profited by the advice and assistance of Prof. Dana through¬ 
out his work. Not a word was printed which was not sent to Prof. Dana 
with a request for corrections, and those suggested by him were alw T ays 
made. 
“In fact changes after the January meeting were made impossible ex¬ 
cept by the reporter.” 
Naturally so, some time limit had to be set in order to get the volume 
through the press, but up to the last page proof every effort was made to 
introduce any pertinent thing sent by any body. 
“The views of Mr. Walcott are unfairly presented with great injustice 
to him.” etc. 
This subject has been treated before. If Mr. Walcott’s views are un¬ 
fairly presented the fault is solely his or that of thos« by whom he was 
controlled. 
“It” (the report) “is now in the hands of the secretary of the Londbn 
meeting of the Congress awaiting a second publication as if the expres¬ 
sion of the views of the majority of American geologists. Its right to 
appear in the volume of the proceedings of the Congress for 1833 should 
be seriously considered if it is not already too late.” 
Its right to appear in the volume of the proceedings of the late Con¬ 
gress is unquestionable. 1st, Because it is the fruit of three years of patient 
and unremitting labor of a committee duly and legally appointed to pre¬ 
pare it for that Congress. 2nd, Because it embodies the independent views 
of ail American geologists so far as those views could be obtained by 
questioning, reading and “epistolary canvassing.” No clique of geologists 
is recognized and none is excluded from the report. It is American and 
pan-American. 3rd, It has already been distributed by direction and 
authority of the comite fondateur to the members of the Congress, and 
forms one of the most important of those documents which the Execu¬ 
tive Committee of the Congress of 1888 agreed to send with its volume to 
the absent subscribers to the Congress. 4th, Its contents have been high- 
