« НазадПродовжити »
of Thomas Jefferson, which, with some accompanying memoranda also in their possession, they have had framed for better preservation.
It is evidently the same as that contained in Vol. iv of Randolph's Memoirs of Jefferson, and likewise from the same plates as (previous to their completion) the proof copy in a black frame now in the Library, and identified as such by Mr. Corbin, of the American Bank Note Company, by marks of the unfinished condition of one of the plates, absence of notes “Dr. Franklin's handwriting” and “Mr. Adams' handwriting” from margin, as well as by the texture of the paper.
This fac-simile now framed for preservation has at commencement the marks in ink“Draft ‘A’’; the handwriting of which is pronounced by Mr. F. J. Dreer to be that of John Vaughan, an interesting letter from whom, as to the Jefferson-Lee MS. is in Mr. Dreer's collection at the Historical Society's hall, also an alleged fac-simile of the originally signed document on quarto paper, otherwise closely resembling this Draft A, but lithograph, said to be copied from MS. in Lepartment of State at Washington; none such is known there. This framed fac-simile has also the following in leadpencil, "these leadpencil marginal entries make Draft B-this Draft B is copy sent to Lee by Jefferson.”
Mr. Dreer also identifies the marginal notes as to handwritings of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, as the fac-simile of Jefferson's handwriting, so that the latter must have anno. tated the copy used in preparing Jefferson's Memoirs by Randolph.
He also finds in his diary of May 13, 1889, as follows:
“Met Major Frank Etting, Fred. D. Stone, Simon Gratz and Mr. Philip S. P. Connor, at the Philosophical Society rooms to compare and determine who wrote the interlined and marginal notes on the proof copy of the Declaration of Independence.” This explains the attached note of F. M. E. of the same date.
A copy is also given of letters of Jefferson and R. H. Lee, the latter dated from Chantilly, his residence in Virginia, as to the Jefferson-Lee document.
Dr. Hays asked if this is the fac-simile copy which Dr. Morris took out of the Librarian's desk last autumn under the impression that it was an unknown, original, Jefferson autograph draught of the Declaration of Independence.
DR., MORRIS replied that it was the same copy.
DR. HAYS stated that this fac-simile is catalogued on page 573 of the printed catalogue of the Society's library, and had the library officials had any intimation of Dr. Morris' intention to take it he would have been informed that it was only a fac-simile of the well-known rough draught, which has been reproduced in almost every edition of Jefferson's works. It has all the appearances of having been torn out of a copy of Randolph's edition and possesses no special value.
MR. EDMUNDS asked where the original of this fac-simile is.
DR. MORRIS replied that it is in the possession of the University of Virginia.
Dr. Hays expressed surprise at this statement, as he was not aware that the University of Virginia had ever possessed it. The United States claimed to have acquired it fifty years ago, with the other Jefferson papers from the Jefferson heirs, who, by the terms of their sale to the United States, agreed to convey “all the papers and manuscripts” of Thomas Jefferson in their possession. In the Department of State at Washington there is framed under glass and kept in a fireproof safe a manuscript which is said to be this original. 1
Mr. James Douglas presented an obituary notice of Dr. Thomas Sterry Hunt.
The following communications were presented :
By Prof. Edward H. Williams, Jr., “ Notes on Kansan Drift in Pennsylvania.”
By Mr. John Van Denburgb, “ Herpetological Notes."
1 Dr. Hays has since verified the statement that this original is in the Department of State at Washington,
Jefferson Manuscript Draught of the Declaration of Independence in the Library of the Society."'.
By Mr. S. F. Peckham, “The Genesis of Bitumens, as Related to Chemical Geology."
Pending nominations Nos. 1432 and 1451 to 1457 and new nominations Nos. 1458 to 1464 were read.
The Society was adjourned by the presiding member.
The writer uses the terms Kansan and Wisconsin to represent respectively the furthest ice advance and the first great moraine of recession which was delimited by Lewis and Wright, without accepting the differences in age claimed by some authorities. His work since 1893 has been a study and mapping of the Kansan deposits in this State, and papers have been published from time to time, copies of which have been deposited in the library of this Society.
At the Buffalo meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1896, the writer presented a few notes on the work of the preceding months and claimed that the ice which covered the northern part of this State originated at two centres, an eastern and a western, as tive lithological burden on either side of the apexes of both Kansan and Wisconsin deposits differed widely in character, kinds and amount of crystalline and clastic material. This claim was further substantiated by the fact, shown in the sketch accompanying this paper, that the apex of the earlier line of drift had been overridden by the latter, while, had the latter been a moraine of recession only, there should have been a continuous Kansan border.
To these claims the writer now wishes to add two more. First, that the powers of the two bodies of ice on either side of the apex were unequal, as the eastern Kansan border will average thirty miles in width, while the western averages but six. This is in accordance with the deductions of the late Prof. James D. Dana, in the last paper he wrote on glaciation, in attempting to account for the wide difference between the eastern and western deposits. It is well known that Mr. Upham began his work in the east and held to the theory of a single glacial epoch. After work in the west he accepted that of two or more periods. On his return to the east he returned to his first opinion. This is an epitome of the wide difference in appearance between the few strong moraines of the east and the multiplicity of the deposits of the west, and Prof. Dana theorized that such difference must have been caused by the abundant precipitation of the east and the scanty precipitation of the west, so that the deficit of dry seasons would bear a smaller proportion to the total precipitation in the east than in the west, and the strength and persistence of the ice at certain latitudes in the east would be balanced by the many fluctuations of the west. The strength thus predicted for the eastern glacier is shown by the wider margin found and by the variation in the position of the apex. While the western Kansan ice retreated to the position taken by the Wisconsin margin, the relaxation of the pressure was accompanied by an advance of the eastern ice across the region of the apex.
The second claim for a double origin substantiates the theory, as there was found in the summer of 1897, at East Warren, Pa., forty feet below the original surface and 100 feet above the water of the Allegheny river, a rolled piece of native copper as long and thick as the finger, in a ienticule of dense till which resisted the pick. The matrix of clay had preserved the copper from oxidation to such an extent that its surface was still smooth, and with it were found fresh rolled and glaciated crystalline pebbles and local angular clastics. This lenticule was about 120 feet above the rock surface, as shown by a neighboring well section, and the original thickness of glacial deposit was thus 160 feet. This find shows that the western ice traversed the region of the great lakes in a southeastern direction and proves that we had a meeting of two ice sheets near Salamanca, N. Y. The variations in strength and the varying number of moraines of the eastern and western glaciers are thus satisfactorily settled in a simple manner. It remains to say that the writer was unaware at the time he first made the claim for two origins that Prof. Wright had surmised the same (Ice Age, p. 443) from the symmetry of the moraine delimited by Mr. Lewis and
himself with respect to origins near Lake Superior and Labrador. It was a surmise only, as he states that these need not have been origins, and the ice may have traversed them from some more northern point. The first distinct proof of such difference of origin rests with the writer.
This glacial deposit of East Warren disposes, also, of another question which has been much debated, whether there was more than one ice age.
The writer has already disposed of the question for eastern Pennsylvania, by showing that the Lehigh and its tributaries acquired their present level in pre-Kansan times. The lenticule at East Warren was about 100 feet above the present Allegheny; but the rock floor, as shown by a well section near, was 120 feet below the lenticule, or twenty feet below the present Allegheny. Other well sections show that this foor is dipping steeply and toward the west, so that it reaches greater depths below the present river level. This lenticule was forty feet below the old surface at this point; but this surface rose on going west, so that in a distance of fifty feet it was sixty feet higher. On this old surface the various geologists have collected material and all agree that it represents the oldest glacial period. This surface is one of the alleged "rock shelves" of the region; but is instead a dump in slack water and shown by well sections to be over 250 feet thick. It is allowed by all that