know rocks, but are "ignorant of human nature," and that they can neither "bluff" nor "exaggerate." This rather reveals the low ideals of some young men of our day; ideals entertained by a certain class of thoughtless youths in all callings, probably no more frequently among reporters than among others. The best and most effective kind of politics is not the kind that relies on bluffs. While it is likely true that scientists as a class hate sham and exaggeration, it is not to be forgotten that the great recent progress of geology is a direct result of the really effective political talents possessed by some geologists who have held, or who now hold, official positions the world over. Many good geologists are also skillful politicians, not to say that a few have even proved to be better politicians than geologists. As to the discovery that geologists are not a wealthy class, the public was elsewhere treated to interviews with two geologists who were millionaires. Some other millionaires among them seem to have escaped this attention. The space given to the discussion of the private economics of members of the congress must be regarded as a concession, by the knights of the quill, to the vulgar taste of our age, which knows no other measure of a man than his bank account. Everything considered, the presentation to the public of what may be called the general news of the congress was quite complete. Considering that the members of the congress spoke more than twenty languages, while the reporter was limited to two or three, the items of general information gathered were as many and as varied as could be reasonably expected.
One reporter discovered that geologists rarely laugh. "As many as six or eight papers will be read without producing a single flash of wit." To one who attended the sessions and took part in some of the excursions, the fairness of this statement appears questionable, to say the least. While some of the lesser lights of the congress may wisely have avoided any attempt at small wit, there were those who rightly regarded their audiences as consisting of people capable of appreciating humor and who also knew how to indulge without falling flat. In discussing continental movements one of these men said: "It must be a source of great satisfaction to know that the earth in our part is rigid." The reporter evidently took this as a serious statement, for he soon proceeds to make the assertion that "the congress, so far, has not revealed a geological humorist." Evidently the layman is at a disadvantage in this case. He can not always appreciate the background against which the geologists's humor becomes apparent.
In all these three characterizations by the reporters, that the geologists lack humor, wealth and "bluff," there appears a robust survival of an ancient popular attitude to scientists, which is hardly warranted in our time. This attitude is clearly not based on any investigation by the reporters. It is probably the result of high pressure work in filling
