Committee on a Plan for Surveying and Mapping the Territories of the United States

The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on a Plan for Surveying and Mapping the Territories of the United States, 1878

In the decade following the close of the Civil War the recurring discussion of the relative merits of military and civil control of public enterprises centered around the management of the surveys of the public domain. We learn that as early as 1869, at the meeting of the National Academy, “one of the most eminent geologists and geographers in the country made a sharp attack upon the system of army explorations and its fruits; and he was met by the military members of the Academy with the plea that army officers had done all that, under the circumstances, and considering their education to another business, could fairly be expected of them, and that for this they deserved gratitude rather than blame.” [The Nation, May 21, 1874, p. 328.]

By 1874 the discussion as regards the surveys had become more animated and more widespread. It intruded itself upon the attention of Congress and found its way into the columns of various magazines and reviews. At this time there were in existence six distinct surveys or systems of surveys of western portions of the United States. The United States Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, nominally under the direction of the Engineer Corps of the Army, but conducted by a civilian, Clarence King; the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories under the direction of the Department of the Interior and conducted by Dr. F. V. Hayden; the Geographical and Geological Explorations and Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian, commonly called “Wheeler’s Survey,” under the Engineer Corps of the Army and conducted by Lieut. Wheeler; the U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, under the Department of the Interior and conducted by Major J. W. Powell; the land-parcelling survey carried on by the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior; and finally, the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, under the Treasury Department.

These various surveys differed in their history, their objects, and their methods. Their work was not coordinated and to a certain extent the territories in which they operated overlapped. Referring to the rivalry between civil and military directors of these surveys the Nation, in the article from which quotation has already been made, remarked in 1874:

“It appears that the War Department looks with something of jealousy—a natural jealousy, perhaps, at which we ought not to be surprised—at this interference of civilians with what had once been its exclusive province; and its dissatisfaction, long expressed freely in private, has now taken shape in a demand brought recently before Congress and strongly urged, that all national scientific surveys be placed under the control of the Engineering Bureau of that Department and directed by army officers. It is in view of this demand that we have undertaken a general review of the merits of the case, if perchance we may contribute something toward its settlement. To the educated science of the country, the movement seems a most unreasonable one. The feeling and opinion of scientific men are, we venture to say, well-nigh or altogether unanimous against it. A strong remonstrance has been sent to Washington from some of the leading educational institutions—Yale, Harvard, and others—signed by all their scientific professors; and more and stronger will be likely to follow, if there shall seem to be any danger that so invidious a selection of the graduates of one school, and that a military one, to take charge of the public scientific interests of the country, will be decreed by Congress.” [Loc. cit., p. 328.]

The subject was discussed in the first session of the 43^rd Congress (1874) but led to no immediate results. The House Committee on Public Lands in their report on the resolution of April 15, 1874, inquiring whether it was not practicable to consolidate the surveys under one department, remarked as follows:

“The committee believe that at present it would not be of public benefit to place the whole of the surveys under one Department.

“The time is approaching, however, when it may be proper so to consolidate them, with a view to the making of a grand geographical, geological, and topographical map of the Territories worthy of the nation because of its accuracy and minuteness of detail; and the committee believe that they would be conducted most to the public interest by being placed under the control and guidance of the Interior Department…

“In thus keeping separate, for the present, the surveys now making under the War and Interior Departments, a generous rivalry will be maintained among the good men therein, and a stimulus will be given to each to do the best work possible, and a resulting benefit will ensue in more accurate surveys and more extensive and valuable maps and reports…

“The conclusions, therefore, to which the committee have come are, that the surveys under the War Department, so far as the same are necessary for military purposes, should be continued; that all other surveys for geographical, geological, topographic, and scientific purposes should be continued under the direction of the Department of the Interior, and that suitable appropriations should be made by Congress to accomplish these results.” [House Report no. 612, 43^rd Congress, 1^st Session, 1874, pp. 16-18.]

Professor J. D. Whitney, in an article in the North American Review, remarked:

Unpleasant altercation had between the officers and employees of the War Department on one side and of the Interior on the other…No good has been accomplished by the Congressional investigation; the work is still going on exactly as before. Instead of a careful and systematic consolidation of all the United States geographical and geological work in the Far West, under one supervision, in one department, there is just that method employed which leads to bad results and great waste of money. Congress is at this moment paying to have the same work done, on the same ground, by two if not three, different parties, and in two different departments…Liberal appropriations were made for both classes [military and civil] by Congress, this year as well as the last, and how long this condition of things will be allowed to continue no one can foresee.” [J . D. Whitney. Geographical and Geological Surveys, North American Review, vol. 121, 1875, pp. 83-84. See also House Report no. 612, and Senate Report no. 311, 43^rd Congress, 1^st Session; and House Exec. Doc. No. 240, 43^rd Congress, 1^st Session.]

The criticisms of the various surveys contained in the article just quoted were not acceptable to the War Department, General Comstock, the director of the survey of the Great Lakes, claming that since the question of cost had not been considered they were “worthless and misleading.” [Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 21, 45^th Congress, 3^rd Session, p. 10.]

The matter remained in controversy for some three years longer. Finally, in 1878, the Appropriations Committee of the House announced its determination not to recommend further appropriations for the surveys until some plan of consolidation had been determined upon. On March 8, 1878, a demand was made on the War Department and the Department of the Interior for a statement as to the cost of all the surveys carried on by those departments, and the extent to which their fields of operations overlapped.

The Sundry Civil Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, contained the following provision:

“And the National Academy of Sciences is hereby required, at their next meeting to take into consideration the methods and expenses of conducting all surveys of a scientific character under the War or Interior Department and the surveys of the Land Office, and to report to Congress, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, a plan for surveying and mapping the territories of the United States on such general system as will, in their judgment, secure the best results at the least possible cost; and also to recommend to Congress a suitable plan for the publication and distribution of the reports, maps, documents and other results of said surveys.” [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 151.]

When this Act was approved on June 20, 1878, the President of the Academy was in Europe. Upon his return in August and after consulting members of the Council and others, he appointed a special committee to consider the subject. This committee, as he stated in his annual report, consisted of “Professor James D. Dana, whose long experience as geologist and naturalist of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition, and subsequent residence in Washington, while preparing his reports, had especially fitted him to advise the Government work; Professor William B. Rogers, the Nestor of American geology, who had had long and varied experience with geographical and geological surveys; Professor J. S. Newberry, the State Geologist of Ohio, who had spent several years in the West on Government exploring expeditions under the War Department; Professor W. P. Trowbridge, a graduate of West Point, who, while a member of the Corps of Engineers, served for several years on the Coast Survey; Professor Simon Newcomb, whose knowledge of mathematics and astronomy rendered his advice most valuable; and Professor Alexander Agassiz, whose experience both in mining engineering and biology made him a fit representative of those departments.” [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 151.] As will be noted, no member of any of the Government surveys then existing was included in the committee, the President holding that it would be inappropriate to designate anyone representing those organizations whose contentions were reported to have caused Congress to consider their reorganization. This led to a protest by General Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, who asserted that “a properly constituted committee should have had among its members those officers in the Government service whose duties consisted in part or in whole in making geodetic, topographic, or other scientific surveys in the different departments of the government.” [Sen. Exec. Doc. no. 21, 45^th Congress, 3d Session, p. 3.] He considered that however proficient the members of the committee might be in their several professions, with one exception, they were not sufficiently familiar with survey work to form an opinion as to its requirements.

The committee deliberated some three months, inviting and considering the views of the directors of the surveys of the territories, the Acting Chief of Engineers and other officers of the Army, the Commissioner of the General Land Office and others interested. We learn from the documents which accompany the Academy’s report that the War Department thought that its topographic and geodetic surveys should be continued and that they might advantageously be made the basis of the land-parcelling surveys of the General Land Office, and that the scale and topography of its maps might be such that they could be used for plotting the geological data collected by the geological surveys. The General Land Office was of the opinion that “combining a geological and geographical survey with the survey of the public lands might be most beneficial and economical.” Dr. Hayden, representing the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, questioned the practicability of a comprehensive plan of surveys which should include all the scientific organizations of the Government engaged in such work. He considered that the combination of the geological and geographical surveys with the land-parcelling surveys would be fatal to both, and that the separation of topography and geology would be unwise. Major Powell representing the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, reiterated the opinion expressed in an earlier report, that such surveys “should be unified and a common system adopted”; and considered that they should embrace a geographical department, including “all methods of mensuration in latitudes, longitudes and altitudes, absolute and relative”; and a geological department, including “all purely scientific subjects relating to geological structure and distribution, and practical subjects relating to mining and agricultural industries.” He also advanced the view that the land-parceling survey should be part of the same organization. He stated that the transcontinental triangulation of the Coast Survey and the barometric observations of the Signal Service could and should be made the basis of further work, but did not indicate how this was to be done.

On November 6, the committee submitted a unanimous report to the Academy. The report was considered at a special meeting held in New York and after three hours’ discussion was adopted with but one dissenting vote. [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 152.] The President of the Academy thereupon acquainted the principal executive officers of the Government with the recommendations contained in the report, which were favorably received by the President, the General of the Army, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Superintendent of the Coast Survey. The Chief of Engineers of the Army opposed the plan. On the opening of Congress in December the report was transmitted to both houses and by them ordered printed.

The committee in this report confined its attention to six scientific surveys of the public domain which were then in operation. These were the surveys west of the 100^th meridian, under the War Department; the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories and the U. S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, under the Department of the Interior; the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, under the Treasury Department; and the Land Office Surveys, under the Interior Department. It pointed out that the work of these organizations could be summed up under two headings, “1. Surveys of mensuration, 2. Surveys of geology and economic resources of the soil,” and its recommendation was that they be recombined to form three distinct organizations. These were to be as follows: “(1) The Coast and Interior Survey, whose function will embrace all questions of position and mensuration; (2) the United States Geological Survey, whose function will be the determination of all questions relating to the geological structure and national resources of the public domain; (3) the Land Office, controlling the disposition and sale of the public lands, including all questions of title and record. The Land Office was to get its surveys and measurements from the Coast and Interior Survey, and its information regarding the value and classification of lands from the Geological Survey. The latter organization was to call on the Coast and Interior Survey for all mensuration data, but would be “authorized to execute local topographical surveys for special purposes.” All three organizations were to be in the Department of the Interior.

The committee also recommended that a commission be formed to codify the laws relating to the survey and disposition of public lands and propose a classification and valuation of them and a system of surveys for land-parcelling. Other recommendations related to the form of publications and the disposition of collections of natural history and other specimens made during the prosecution of the surveys. [For the full report see Rep. Nat. Acad. Sci. for 1878, pp. 19-22. House Misc. Doc. no. 7, 46^th Congress, 1^st Session.]

This report, as already mentioned, was transmitted to Congress in December, 1878. It was no sooner printed than the War Department, through the Secretary of War, George W. McCrary, and the Chief of Engineers, General Humphreys, entered a protest against the adoption of its provisions. Secretary McCrary adopted the argument made before the Committee of the Academy by H. G. Wright, Acting Chief of Engineers, that in view of the fact that the War Department had been long engaged in survey work, that its experience in such work was extensive and diversified, that it had devised and perfected instruments and methods of work, and that it maintained an effective system of safeguarding expenditures, it was for the best interests of the Government that the work should continue under its direction. [Sen. Exec. Doc. no 21 45^th Congress, 3^d Session, p. 1.]

General Humphreys’ objections to the Academy’s plan were of a somewhat different character. As already mentioned, he first asserted that the committee was not properly constituted. He then pointed out that the committee had prescribed no methods of work and had made no estimate of expense, and claimed that it had exceeded its functions in taking the work of the Coast Survey into consideration. He argued that the geodetic work of that organization was not necessary to the proper surveying of the coasts of the United States and that it was not as well equipped as the War Department to do the work of mensuration for all the surveys, as proposed in the Academy’s plan, and that, in any case, the War Department could perform the necessary work at a much smaller expense. After reviewing the history of the survey of the Great Lakes, he made the claim that the kind of land survey of the United States at large recommended by the Academy was unnecessarily refined and would entail enormous expenses, and, by a very full comparison of costs, endeavored to show that if really demanded by Congress, it would be carried out at a much less expense by the War Department than by the Coast Survey.

General Humphreys appended to his letter a communication from General Comstock, the officer in charge of the survey of the Northern and Northwestern lakes and the St. Lawrence and Mississippi rivers, dated October 25, 1875, and entitled “Considerations of the objects and methods of a natural topographical survey,” in which the methods, cost and uses of different kinds of surveys are concisely summarized. General Comstock criticised Professor Whitney for omitting the question of cost from his review of the surveys, already mentioned, and remarks that on this account “his conclusions as to the value of the results derived from the funds supplied are worthless or misleading.”

On the publication of General Humphreys’ letter, the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, C. P. Patterson, addressed a communication on January 18, 1879, to the Secretary of the Treasury suggesting that there had been a misapprehension on the part of the former relative to the cost of the Coast Survey work. This was transmitted to General Humphreys, who thereupon prepared for the use of Congress another statement in which the estimates of cost per square mile are considerably reduced. In closing he remarked:

“To take this work from an organization like the Engineer Department, superior to all officers employed on its surveys, and exercising a careful supervision over them, and adopt the plan of the National Academy of Sciences, would, in my judgment, be in opposition to economy, and, if a general survey should be undertaken, would result in expenses amounting to scores of millions of dollars.” [Sen. Ex. Doc. no. 21, part 2, 45^th Congress, 3d Session, p. 3. “Letter from the Secretary of War, communicating further information in relation to a survey of the territory west of the Mississippi River, as proposed by the National Academy of Sciences.”]

As a reply to the contentions of the War Department, the Secretary of the Interior on February 7, 1879, sent to the House of Representatives a letter by Major J. W. Powell on the cost of the various government surveys. [House Exec. Doc. no. 72, 45^th Congress, 3d Session. “Cost of Geographical Surveys.”] This document is in reality a defence of the Academy’s plan. It enumerates the different kinds of surveys, and explains their objects, gives the cost of different surveys per square mile, states the amount of land belonging to the public domain which is unsurveyed and the cost of surveying it, shows that different systems of geodesy and topography are employed by the several existing organizations, and finally gives the reasons why the work should be consolidated under the Interior Department.

In regard to letters cited above, Major Powell’s closing paragraph contains this reference to the Academy’s report:

The report had already been commended by the Nation, which in an editorial published on January 9, 1879, after describing the conditions existing in the several surveys and the changes proposed by the Academy, remarked:

“No opposition prompted by good motives or supported by solid reasons can be offered to these admirable recommendations. Any objections from the Engineer Corps of the Army will, we are persuaded, give way on reflection to considerations of the public good. No chief of the civilian surveys will be likely to declare himself indispensable, and his pet plan the embodiment by patent right of all science.” [The Nation, vol. 28, p. 29, January 9, 1879. “The proposed reforms in our land scientific surveys” (pp. 27-29).]

The committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives incorporated the whole plan of the Academy in a bill (House Res. 6140) which was duly reported to Congress. When the matter came to issue, however, the portion of the plan relating to the establishment of a single geological survey under the Department of the Interior and the appointment of a commission to consider the codification of laws relating to the survey and disposition of the public domain and other matters was approved, while that providing for the consolidation of all mensuration work under the Coast Survey was not. The law, which forms part of the Sundry Civil Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, which was approved March 3, 1879, is as follows:

“For the salary of the Director of the Geological Survey, which office is hereby established, under the Interior Department, who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, six thousand dollars: Provided, That this officer shall have the direction of the Geological Survey, and the classification of the public lands and examination of the Geological Structure, mineral resources and products of the national domain…And the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, and the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, under the Department of the Interior, and the Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian, under the War Department, are hereby discontinued, to take effect on the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine…

“For the expenses of a commission on the codification of existing laws relating to the survey and disposition of the public domain, and for other purposes, twenty thousand dollars; Provided, That the Commission shall consist of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, and three civilians, to be appointed by the President.”…[Stat. at Large, vol. 20, p. 394, 45^th Congress, 3d Session, chap. 182, 1879. See remarks on the debate in Congress, quoted from the Philadelphia Bulletin in Amer. Nat., vol. 13, pp. 181-183. Clarence King, the first director, was nominated by the President about March 24, 1879; was confirmed by the Senate on April 3, 1879, and took the oath of office on May 24.]

Thus the earlier geological and geographical surveys were put out of existence and the new United States Geological Survey, recommended by the Academy, took their place. A provision was, however, made by Congress for the completion of the reports of the former.

This opinion has not been confirmed by any action of Congress up to the present time. The later history of the Geological Survey, especially, as regards the extension of its work to the States is one of much interest, but cannot be considered here.