GEOLOGICAL CRITICISM 
311 
EDITORIAL 
Judicial Attitude in Geological Criticism 
In these days of reconstruction and recovery from the intellec¬ 
tual stagnation initiated by a World War Science in every branch 
is sorely tried. With so many of the ordinary avenues for the 
free diffusion of knowledge blocked or closed channels yet open 
become unduly crowded. Under these conditions it does not seem 
to meet the spirit of scientific debate to have censorship on me¬ 
moirs offered made unnecessarily rigid. If anything it should be 
widely loosened for the time being at least. 
At best organized societies constitute the conservative force in 
Science; and only too often the venerable officers in charge tend 
to become ultraconservative, much to the detriment and usefulness 
of the organization. Loss of prestige on this account is usually 
speedy and is frequently complete before it is fully realized. 
Censors on articles, and those of government bureaus particu¬ 
larly, are prone also to take themselves all too seriously. Some¬ 
thing is radically wrong in the premises when a college professor, 
acting for the moment as scientific censor reports against publica¬ 
tion of a geological paper, not for any reason of technical defect 
or shortcoming in thought, but merely because it happened to con¬ 
tain a few alleged grammatical gaucheries which elsewhere find 
countenance. In this particular instance the paper rejected proved 
to be really the most important scientific contribution of a decade. 
So effete had become “science” in one of our great universities. 
What consummate presumption must some nincompoop have to 
hold up under the guise of censorship for five years a geographical 
essay from the pen of such a high authority in his line as Prof. 
William M. Davis, as was done not so very long ago? And the 
“censor” was not left on Flanders Fields. 
