Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas, 1845–1909 9781477300817

Citation preview

G e o lo g y a n d P o li t ic s in F r o n t ie r T e x a s

1845-1909

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

GEOLOGY AND POLITICS IN FRONTIER TEXAS 1845-1909

By Walter Keene Ferguson

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS AUSTIN

Copyright 1967 by Keene Ferguson Copyright © 1969 by Keene Ferguson First paperback printing 2014 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to:  Permissions   University of Texas Press   P.O. Box 7819   Austin, TX 78713-7819  http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/rp-form

Library of Congress Catalog Number 76-93762 isbn 978-1-4773-0080-0, paperback isbn 978-1-4773-0081-7, library e-book isbn 978-1-4773-0082-4, individual e-book

To H allie

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PREFACE

This analysis presents an institutional approach to the study of Texas politics in relation to science and conservation during a criti­ cal period of the state’s development—the first half-century of state­ hood. The descriptions and evaluations of public attitudes toward governmental geological surveys in Texas during this period afford a means of assessing trends on both the national and state levels. At the same time an understanding of these attitudes brings into sharp focus the more general question of the appropriateness of govern­ mental aid in the development of an underdeveloped frontier region. Geological surveys were chosen as the primary object of study for several reasons. First, geology was the major scientific activity in Texas during the period of study. Secondly, the geological survey was most clearly related to the search for exploitable mineral and agricultural resources. Finally, federal and state agencies most fre­ quently came into intimate contact in conducting geological surveys. Although my conclusions demonstrate general political trends, several factors make this case study of nineteenth-century political and economic attitudes in some ways atypical. The foremost factor is geography. Because of its unique location, Texas was successively a Spanish and Mexican border province, an Indian-plagued frontier, and a Confederate state. Thus, both national and state governments had to deal with frontier military and transportation problems until the eighteen-seventies, and the state had to cope with both political and economic reconstruction. No other state had such complex gov­ ernmental and economic problems during the nineteenth century. A second factor determining Texas’ unique position is the state’s

viii

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

history. While Texas was a Western or Trans-Mississippi state, it had not grown out of a territory and at no time did it contain federal public lands. In this respect, it was similar to some of the older states east of the Mississippi River. Although Texas shared its frontier ex­ perience with many other areas, it could not count on federal aid in the form of land grants because the state government controlled the destiny of the public domain at all times. A third important factor is the wide divergence in climate be­ tween eastern and western portions of the state. Whereas the west­ ern two-thirds of Texas has a semiarid climate, the eastern third has ample rainfall. The eastern area has always been the most heavily populated and, therefore, has dominated the legislatures. Whereas droughts were always a paramount concern to the frontier farmers and ranchers in West Texas, fellow agriculturalists and urbanites in eastern Texas paid little attention to the question of water resources. This geographic and population pattern is markedly similar to con­ temporary national patterns. A final factor that affected public thinking in Texas with regard to a state geological survey was the myth that the state had surface mineral deposits of vast potential. This unwarranted optimism con­ tinued until the discovery of oil at Spindletop in 1901 seemed to vindicate its proponents. Exaggerated legends of Spanish gold and silver mines initiated this myth, and superficial accounts of the rich­ ness and extent of coal, lignite, copper, and iron ore deposits falsely increased its credibility. If, indeed, the Spanish did operate mines in Texas, subsequent exploration has failed to uncover them. Further­ more, the solid fossil fuels and sedimentary metallic ore deposits were very low-grade, and their extraction was seldom economically feasible. The scientific narrative of this study (included in the résumé chap­ ters ) illustrates the typical stages in the accumulation of geological information about the natural resources of the Trans-Mississippi West. The existence of unique features of North American geology in Texas adds significance to this study of geological exploring in the American West because in Texas geologists were forced to con­ sider problems that could be encountered nowhere else in North America. These geologists also worked over a vast and varied area equal in size to one-twelfth of the United States. Finally, this narrative, both political and scientific, provides an

ix

Preface

opportunity to assess various approaches to the urgent problem of evaluating the natural resources of an underdeveloped region—in this case Texas, now considered a fabulously rich land, but once not so fortunate. The term “classical geology" as used throughout this study refers to geological studies based on European structural and lithological models, which were often carried over into the work of many aca­ demically trained United States geologists in the nineteenth century. In the Trans-Mississippi lands these American geologists, who had been trained to recognize European-type features, were inclined to equate Western American geological features to European or East­ ern American models. They usually tried to extend previously de­ scribed geological trends into the West. Later, they tried to equate Texas geological features with their “classical” Trans-Mississippi patterns. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. William H. Goetzmann, who patiently taught me how to bring order to a chaos of facts. His extensive critical labors were responsible for any degree of organization and readability this narrative may have. I also wish to express my thanks to Dr. Joe B. Frantz, Dr. John E. Sunder, and Dr. Keith Young for their constructive criticisms. Dr. Young and Dr. John A. Wilson of the Geology Department of The University of Texas at Austin, Mr. Ed Owen, and Mr. Charles Laurence Baker all provided invaluable assistance with regard to geological matters. Dr. Chester Kielman of The University of Texas Archives, Dr. Llerena Friend of the Barker Texas History Center Library, Mrs. Thelma Guion of the Geology Library of The University of Texas, and Dr. James Day of the Texas State Archives, and their respective staffs deserve special thanks for their gracious assistance. Finally, the patience and forbearance of my wife, Hallie, and my children, during the months of research and writing were above and beyond the call of duty. I hope that my work in some measure repays my immense debt to my father, Harry W. Ferguson, whose encouragement and financial support made my study possible. Walter Keene Ferguson Austin, Texas

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CONTENTS

P r e f a c e ....................................................................................... vii 1. Scientific and Political Preludes to State Geological S u r v e y s ............................................................ 3 2. The Shumard Survey: Texas Begins to Develop Its Resources................................................................... ...... 21 3. The Gilded Age: Expectant Capitalism in Frontier T e x a s ................................................................... 35 4. Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists Discover the “Individualities” of Texas Geology . . . 49 5. The Dumble Survey: Texas Initiates Land R eform s................................................................................ 74 6. The Dumble Survey and the Diffusion of Public R e s o u r c e s ..........................................................................98 7. The Phillips Survey: A Classical Resource Study of Undeveloped Public L a n d s ........................................ 114 8. Geological Résumé: Stratigraphers Interpret the ‘Individualities” of Texas G eo lo g y ..................................132 9. The Bureau of Economic Geology: Geological Research Leaves the Political A rena..................................157 A p p en d ices................................................................................ 165 A. The Geological and Agricultural Survey Act of 1858 ................................................................................. 167 B. The Resolution Suspending the Geological and Agricultural Survey in 1 8 6 1 ........................................ 169

fW W 7'

'''' *0) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''*0, '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

*1)

* 2 ) * ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''*1.

6 W P Z W ] U ` O ^ V g ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' *2* = \ R S f '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''++*

following page 1

G e o lo g y a n d P o li t ic s in F r o n t ie r T e x a s

1845-1909

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ONE

Scientific and Political Preludes to State Geological Surveys

I n 1841 William Kennedy, a British diplomatic secretary, pub­ lished a two-volume work on the Republic of Texas in which he described the geographical diversity of the region for the prospec­ tive Anglo-American immigrant. Most Texans lived east of longitude 97°30' in the coastal plain region. According to Kennedy this settled part of Texas appeared quite inhospitable to the approaching traveler: “If by sea, a low sandy beach, backed by wet and level prairies. If by the Rio Grande, it wears an aspect of aridity; and if by Louisiana and the Red River, it breaks upon the observer as a poor upland district overrun by woods.”1 Kennedy added, however, that “after traversing the borders and advancing towards the in­ terior, the scene is entirely changed . . . and this beautiful country exhibits its beauties and develops its resources.”2 Kennedy was unable to gather much information about the other two gently sloping plains that dominate the semiarid western two-thirds of Texas, although he compared these Indian-infested regions to the “arid steppes of Tartary." 1 William Kennedy, Texas, The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas, p. 18. 2 Ibid.

4

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

In Kennedy's day men only had a working knowledge of the physical nature of the settled Gulf Coastal Plain. Monotonous, un­ consolidated sands and clays in the humid northeastern part of this plain support extensive tall pine forests that shelter bayou-like rivers. In the fifteen-forties, Hernando de Soto's ill-fated exploring party penetrated inland along these bayous and reached the forested headwaters of the Trinity River. A few years before, the delirious Cabeza de Vaca had wandered over the semiarid southern part of the coastal plain which supports a savannah landscape of short grasses and stunted mesquites. The central or “beautiful” part of the plain lies along the Colorado and Brazos rivers and was so similar to the fertile lands of the Mississippi Valley that Stephen F. Austin chose it as the site of the first Anglo-American settlement in Spanish Texas. The wooded hills of the Balcones Escarpment, which stretches from north of Waco southward to San Antonio and thence westward to Del Rio on the Rio Grande, set off the coastal plain from the liveoak- and cedar-covered hill country of the central interior. The lands west and north of this topographic rise—the Trans-Balcones lands —comprise the southernmost portion of the Great Plains. The northsouth arm of this arcuate escarpment coincides with the ninetyeighth meridian, west of which aridity and plains Indians hindered settlement until years after the Civil War. The rugged Edwards Plateau country, which lies in the westward curve of the escarpment, marks the southern border of the Great Plains. In this area Nicolás de la Fora, captain of the Spanish Royal Engineers, conducted the first scientific investigation of Texas lands in 1767. Many descriptions of the picturesque limestone tableland with its innumerable springs and narrow valleys appear in the Cap­ tain s journal of his expedition.3 Another upland extends northward from the Colorado River to the Red River. Erosion has been more severe in this northern region, the Grand Prairie, and low, round, limestone hills, separated by broad valleys, dominate the terrain. The rolling granitic hills of the Central Mineral Region interrupt the continuity of the broad limestone highlands described above. It was in these rugged, thin-soiled, live-oak-covered hills of the Llano3 Lawrence Kinnaird, trans., The Frontiers of New Spain: Nicolás de la Foms Description, 1766-1768.

Scientific and Political Preludes

5

San Saba River basins that the Spanish were alleged to have begun the exploitation of Texas minerals by mining silver. Wind and water have removed the limestones that once covered the Osage Plains, which lie between the limestone and granite hill country on the east and south and the Panhandle High Plains on the west.4 Slightly rolling hills covered with short grasses and mesquite shrubs characterize this landscape, which was once the home of the buffalo and the warlike Comanche Indians. North-south-trending limestone ridges with scattered coal seams occur in the eastern por­ tion of the plains, whereas red beds and gypsum ridges are dominant in the west. A bold escarpment with relief up to 100 feet separates the Osage Plains from the great mesa-like highland to the west—the Llano Estacado.5 In 1540 Francisco de Coronado searched for cities of gold on this plain, which he described as a region so flat that "if a man lay down on his back he lost sight of the ground.”6 The cap rock, a highly mineralized and indurated subsoil layer, covers the surface of this mesa, and its resistance to erosion caused the abrupt eastern scarp to develop. In the Panhandle, the Canadian River has slashed a deep groove into the Llano Estacado, and further south the headwater tributaries of the Red, Brazos, and Colorado rivers have also etched deep canyons, the most spectacular of which is Palo Duro Canyon, some 120 miles long, whose walls rise up nearly 1,000 feet in places. The basin and range country west of the Pecos River—south of the Llano Estacado and west of the Edwards Plateau—has always been a distinctive area, historically and economically as well as physically. Its fault-block mountains and extensive igneous rocks are more typical of New Mexico and the arid Southwest than of the rest of Texas. The striking topographic contrasts in this Trans4 Elias H. Sellards and Charles L. Baker, "Structural and Economic Geology,” II: “The Geology of Texas,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 3401 (Jan­ uary 1, 1934), p. 91. 5 A thorough discussion of the history of the name Llano Estacado is found in William F. Cummins, “Report on the Geography, Topography, and Geology of the Llano Estacado or Staked Plains,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Third An­ nual Report of the Texas Geological and Mineralegical Survey, 1891, pp. 12913°.

6 David Donaghue, “Route of the Coronado Expedition in Texas,” The South­ western Historical Quarterly, XXXII (January 1929), 186.

6

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Pecos region—from the highest mountain east of the Rockies (Guadalupe Peak with an elevation of 8,751 feet) to the deepwalled, wild canyons of the Big Bend of the Rio Grande—make it one of the most spectacular physiographic provinces in the state. This region is the meeting place of three distinct provinces of geologic growth. Edwin Theodore Dumble, head of the third and most productive Texas Geological and Mineralogical Survey in the closing years of the nineteenth century, lucidly described the geolog­ ical framework of the state in 1915, and in the process he developed a most significant point: “While there is a general uniformity in the deposits of the eastern and southern portions of the State with the coastal deposits of the other Gulf States, a similar uniformity of those of the northern portion with the great Central Basin Region, and of the Western portion with those of Mexico, New Mexico, and Ari­ zona, there are also differences which, in their way, are as marked as the resemblances.,,7 The history of the recognition and description of these “individualities” of Texas geology, or distinctive North American geological features, is the principal scientific theme of this study. The earliest trained geologists to examine the strata of Texas did not recognize any of the unique features of Texas geology, but in their examinations of the geology of this frontier region they did discern evidence that prompted them to challenge some accepted geological concepts. As William H. Goetzmann has described in Exploration and Empire, explorers are programmed by the knowl­ edge and objectives of the civilized centers from which they depart.8 Most of the early geologists who studied the geology of the Ainerican West sought evidence that would enable them to extend known geological patterns into the scientific frontier. However, two of the first geologists to enter the Texas region found geological informa­ tion that made them skeptical of the classic Wernerian theory that the Noachian deluge had deposited one standard world-wide sequence of rock types.9 7 Edwin Theodore Dumble, “The Geology of Texas,” The Rice Institute Pam­ phlet, III, no. 2 (April 1916), 152. 8 William H. Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and Scientist in the Winning of the American West, p. 199. 9 For a concise history of the development of the science of geology see Mor-

Scientific and Political Preludes

7

Edwin James, who had studied at the prestigious Albany Academy in New York, published the first record of the geology of Texas in 1823.10 In 1820 James had accompanied an expedition commanded by Major Stephen H. Long which President Monroe sent to explore the frontier between the Louisiana Territory and the northern Span­ ish province of Texas. Since Monroe reasoned that the Louisiana Territory included the entire western drainage basin of the Missis­ sippi River, he felt that it was most important to explore the head­ waters of the Red River, the major southern tributary of the Mississippi. James was the official chronicler of the Long expedition and also served as its surgeon and geologist. The party traveled down the North Fork of the Canadian River, which was mistaken for the Red River, through the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma. On the geographical map that Long compiled, James sketched the limits of the characteristic rock types or lithologies that he encountered be­ tween the Rocky and Ozark mountains. He also composed geologi­ cal cross sections along the forty-first and thirty-fifth parallels, which extended the sections that the Scottish geologist, William Maclure, had drawn to illustrate the geology between the Atlantic Ocean and the Missouri Territory. These sections had accompanied Maclure’s pioneer geologic map of the United States in 1809.11 As mentioned above, most contemporary geologists recognized a standard, world-wide rock section. The sequence of rock types that radiated from the primeval granite-cored mountain ranges was al­ ways the same. However, James discovered that the strata he encountered in the Texas region contradicted the accepted pattern and suggested that perhaps there was not one standard world-wide rock sequence.

ris M. Leighton, “Natural Resources and Geological Surveys,” Journal of Eco­ nomic Geologyy XLVI, no. 6 ( September-October 1951), 563-577. Leighton also discusses briefly the growth of governmental geological surveys in the United States and presents an excellent chart illustrating the duration of various state surveys up through 1950. 10 Edwin James, Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, first published in Philadelphia in 1823. 11 George P. Merrill reviews the geological contributions of Maclure in The First One Hundred Years of American Geology, pp. 31-37.

8

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

The organized remains . . . observed in the secondary aggregates along the base of [the Rocky Mountains] are mostly of animals supposed to have inhabited the depths of the ocean. But if the growth of the Rocky Moun­ tains has been forced u p at a recent period, where are the traces of all those older secondary rocks which should have intervened between it and the horizontal sandstone? If the mountains had formed the shores of that [Noachian] ocean, in which the greater part of our continent was so long emersed, after the elevation of the older world, w e should have expected to find along their base the remains of littoral animals, and not those which inhabit the depths of the ocean. It would be proper, however, before w e refer to the character of the Rocky Mountains, as invalidating or confirm­ ing any system of opinions, to ascertain that their east and w est sides are in all respects similar.12

In 1837 George W. Featherstonhaugh, an Englishman who had become active in the same sophisticated scientific circles of New York, also discovered geological relations on the scientific frontier in the Texas region which led him to suspect variation between the new- and the old-world geology. He led a federal scientific expedi­ tion organized to evaluate the natural resources of federal lands in the Ozark region. On this survey the Englishman ventured into extreme northeastern Texas and made the first contribution to the knowledge of the geology there.13 As a result of his investigations, he concluded that it was necessary “for the future advancement of science, to have a comparison instituted between the geological features of this western world and [Europe] . . . in order to de­ termine how far the phenomena common to both belong to causes which have been contemporaneous, or of the same class; whether the principles which determine the structure of one have been the governing cause in the other.”14 Geological conditions along the Trans-Mississippi scientific fron­ tier, which James and Featherstonhaugh followed into the Texas region, encouraged these explorers to suspect, therefore, that the “classical” Wernerian precepts did not hold true in the field.15 This 12 James, Account of an Expedition, p. 200. 13 George W. Featherstonhaugh, Geological Report of an Examination Made in 1834 of the Elevated Country between the Missouri and Red Rivers, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., House Exec. Doc. 151. Ihid., p. 11. 15 While the United States was actively exploring its borders, a concern with defense of its empire prompted the Mexican government to launch its last seien-

Scientific and Political Preludes

9

reasoning heralded a revolution in geological thinking which cul­ minated in the publication of Charles Lyells three-volume Principles of Geology, brought out between 1830 and 1833. LyelFs brilliant synthesis finally gained popular acceptance for the principles of uniformitarianism and stratigraphy which dispelled the Wernerian theory and transformed geology into a true science of the history of the earth. At the end of the eighteenth century LyelFs fellow Englishman, James Hutton, had led this scientific revolution by developing the thesis that the earth had been continuously under­ going the everyday processes of erosion, deposition, igneous action, and structural adjustment. This uniformitarian doctrine saw no be­ ginning or end to the earth’s history. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, French and English geologists initiated the use of fossil faunas to establish the lateral continuity of strata and their vertical succession. These principles of stratigraphy gave geology historical perspective—an ordered se­ quence of events. The discovery of the new geological evidence on the scientific frontiers by men such as James and Featherstonhaugh accelerated the general acceptance of the modem principles of historical geology which had been developed through the study of the strata of Eng­ land and France. Thus, geologists were practicing the modem meth­ ods of geology on the scientific frontiers by the time the first geological survey was launched in Texas in 1845. The 1845 survey marks the beginning of both the political and scientific narratives of this historical study. Its objectives were typical of all geological surveys in Texas for the following three decades, and it first re-

tific expedition into the Texas region in 1828. General Mier y Terán, a member of the Paris Academy of Sciences, commanded this excursion to survey the boundary between the United States and Mexico and to “obtain knowledge on the physical and natural history of those remote regions” in the eastern provin­ cial lands of the Texas region. Jean Luis Berlandier, a student of the prominent European botanist, August-Pyrame de Condolle, accompanied the expedition as botanist-zoologist. The mineralogist was Rafael Chovel, who had studied in the College of Mines in Mexico City. In their jointly authored journal Berlandier and Chovel described their journey from Monterrey to Laredo to San Antonio ( Diario de viaje de la comisión de limites que puso el Gobiemo de la República, bajo la direcciôn del Exmo. Sr., General de División D. Manuel de Mier y Terán ).

10

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

vealed the clues to the recognition of some of the individualities of Texas geology. In his survey of the physical features of Texas, William Kennedy had described the mineral wealth of the Republic: “In addition to iron, the utilitarian sovereign of metals, Texas possesses coal—the grand auxiliary of the arts, which tends to enrich and civilize the world/"16 He reported that iron ore was distributed in profusion throughout Texas, and that both anthracite and bituminous coal deposits were abundant from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande.17 These overly optimistic announcements helped propagate the myth that Texas contained extensive and valuable surface mineral de­ posits. In reality, the state does have large quantities of iron ores and coals, but they are too low-grade to be of economic importance. However, the myth that Kennedy helped create lasted until the turn of the century.18 Even if the iron and coal deposits had been truly rich, they would have been only of long-range importance and of no value to the prospective settler in frontier Texas. What captured the attentions of the land speculators and immigrants was Kennedy’s report that he had seen specimens of gold and silver ores from the granite hill country of Central Texas.19 This rumored metallic mineral wealth provided the incentive for the launching of the first geological sur­ vey in Texas. Kennedy s report intrigued Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels, commissioner-general of the Mainzer Adelsverein, the Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas, which a group of Ger­ man noblemen had formed in 1842. The Adelsverein launched its settlement program in the New Braunfels region in 1845. Shortly 16 Kennedy, Texas, p. 113. 17 In the spring of 1839, Dr. John L. Riddell, a former student of Amos Eaton at Renssalaer Institute in New York, had investigated the lignite deposits along the Trinity River for a land speculator. He reported favorably on the economic potential of these beds in his “Observations on the Geology of the Trinity Coun­ try, Texas, Made During an Excursion There in April and May, 1839,” American Journal of Science, XXXVII ( July-October 1839), 211-217. 18 Henry Nash Smith describes similar myths that developed about the agri­ cultural potential of the American West in Virgin Land, the American West as Symbol and Myth. 19 “The particles of gold, which were small and pure, were lodged in veins disseminated in fragments of reddish quartz” (Kennedy, Texas, p. 112).

Scientific and Political Preludes

11

thereafter, Prince Carl purchased the rights to a Republic of Texas land grant of about three million acres between the Llano and Colo­ rado rivers. The new grant lands included much of the granite hill country where the gold and silver deposits were rumored to lie, a factor largely responsible for the Prince’s land purchase.20 Later in 1845 Prince Carl retired from active leadership of the Adelsverein. However, he engineered the appointment of Baron Otfried Hans von Meusebach as his successor, in hopes that this accomplished student of the natural sciences and mining technology would direct a comprehensive investigation of the mineral resources of the newly acquired lands. The Prince also wrote the Berlin Academy of Sciences for assistance in acquiring the services of a competent young geologist to conduct a geological and mineralogical survey of the new Adelsverein lands. This, the first such survey in Texas, was precedential because it was directed toward stimulat­ ing the exploitation of minerals to encourage the settlement and development of vacant lands. In the next three decades, two Texas state geological surveys would be launched with the same objectives in mind. The Berlin Academy recommended that the Adelsverein place Ferdinand von Roemer in charge of the survey. Roemer had aban­ doned the legal career that his parents desired and had obtained his doctorate in paleontology at the University of Berlin in 1842. In Berlin Roemer had become acquainted with the leading scientists of the Academy, including Alexander von Humbolt and Leopold von Buch. Humbolt’s interest in the natural history of the American frontiers probably prompted him to encourage Roemer to accept the lead ersh ip of the Adelsvereins proposed survey; and von Buch, who had made several important geological discoveries on the scien­ tific frontiers, especially in Scandinavia, doubtless helped Roemer to master the uniformitarian concepts of historical geology and the field application of modem stratigraphie principles. 21 Bolstered by the academic and financial support of the Berlin Academy and by personal support from Humbolt and von Buch, Roemer arrived in Galveston, Texas, late in 1845. In this most cosmopolitan of Texas settlements, he encountered William Ken20 R. I. Biesele, The History of German Settlements in Texas, 1831-1861,

pp. 81- 82. 21

Samuel W. Geiser, Naturalists of the Frontier, p. 118.

12

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

nedy, who passed on the accumulated knowledge of Texas’ physical features. Shortly after his arrival, Roemer traveled inland over the coastal plain to New Braunfels. He observed that the coastal province was nearly devoid of any geological interest, for you see no solid rock in place through the whole distance, excepting irregular layers of a coarse calcareous sandstone of very modem origin.”22 However, below the Balcones Escarpment near New Braunfels, he first en­ countered the Cretaceous limestone strata that captivated his at­ tention.23 The wild nature of the Edwards Plateau west of New Braunfels prompted the twenty-seven-year-old German to comment: “It is not a very encouraging fact to the geologist in Texas that only there, where civilization ends and wilderness begins, the geological rela­ tions of the country begin to be interesting. The line which separates the settled part of the country from the hunting ground of the In­ dian, is almost exactly identical with that which divides the more modern diluvial and alluvial deposits from the secondary [Cre­ taceous] formations.”24 During 1846 Roemer explored the geology along the Balcones Escarpment between San Antonio and Waco. Then in February 1847 Roemer joined an expedition, which Commissioner-General Meusebach had led into the Llano River basin country to dispel rumors that hostile Indians controlled the Adelsverein lands there. Roemer traveled to this remote area to investigate reports of precious mineral deposits in the area and especially to search for the legend­ ary Spanish silver mines 25 While Meusebach parlayed with the Comanche Indians and negotiated a very favorable treaty, Roemer explored the rocks of the Central Mineral Region. He also accompanied the military party on a short trip to the ruins of the old San Saba mission, which was reported to have been the site of the abandoned Spanish mines. Roemer astutely surmised that it would be the metamorphic and 22 Ferdinand Roemer, “A Sketch of the Geology of Texas,” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., II (November 1846), 359. 23 Ibid., p. 360. 2* Ibid., pp. 358-359. 25 Solms-Braunfels Archives, LXIV, 155, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas.

Scientific and Political Preludes

13

igneous rocks of this province which would contain any metallic mineral deposits and not the marine limestones surrounding the old mission.26 This excursion ended his investigations in Texas. The American Journal of Science, in 1846 and 1847, published two brief geological reports by Roemer which describe his field obser­ vations. In 1849 and 1852 he wrote two books encompassing the results of his Texas labors;27 the latter was the first monograph on Texas geology. Roemer’s fellow scientists immediately acclaimed his monumental labors, and his publications circulated widely in America.28 The quality of his work, which represented the first significant geological information on the Texas region, demonstrated that frontier geologists were using modern geological field methods. Nevertheless, Roemer’s survey had failed to uncover readily ex­ ploitable mineral deposits. Precedents for both the scientific and political aspects of the pres­ ent historical study were set in the pre-statehood period of geologi­ cal surveying in Texas. Mastery of the modern principles of historical and field geology by geologists pioneering on the scientific frontiers, best illustrated by Roemer’s work in Texas, established a scientific precedent. George Featherstonhaugh, in his survey of the public lands in the Ozark region, and Roemer, in his study of the Adelsverein lands, helped create a precedent of political significance by demonstrating the use of a geological survey to promote the exploi­ tation of minerals and the development of virgin lands. In the period between Texas’ entry into the Union in 1845 and the creation of the first state geological survey in 1858, the United 26 ibid., LXIX, 111. 27 Ferdinand Roemer, "Sketch of the Geology of Texas”; "Contributions to the Geology of Texas,” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., VI (November 1848), 21-28; Texas: Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf deutsche Auswanderung, und die physiche Verhältnisse des Landes nach eigener Beobachtung geschildert von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem naturwissenschaftlichen Anhänge und einer topographisch-geognostischen Karte von Texas; Die Kreidebildungen von Texas und ihre organischen Einschlüsse, von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem die Beschreibung von Versteinerungen aus paläozoischen und tertiären Schichten enthaltenden Anhänge und mit 11 von C. Hohe nach der Natur auf Stein gezeichneten Tafeln. 28 See Frederick Adolph Wislizenus, Memoir of a Tour to Northern Mexico, Connected with Colonel Doniphan s Expedition in 1846 and 1847, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Misc. Doc. 26 (1848), p. 138. Almost all federal scientists in the eighteen-fifties referred to Roemers work.

14

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

States government increased its internal improvement programs in the state.29 When Texas gained statehood at the end of 1845, the federal government assumed the task of protecting its western frontier from marauding Indians. Furthermore, Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which terminated the Mexican War in 1848, stipulated that the United States would prevent Indian raids into the northern states of Mexico from Texas and other lands ceded by Mexico. The establishment of lines of communication and supply routes along the Mexican border and the Texas frontier was essential to the handling of these military problems. Moreover, the necessity of communication with the newly acquired Pacific terri­ tories of Oregon and California had given rise to the concept of a transcontinental railroad. To satisfy the demands of security and communication, the American government sponsored several military exploring expedi­ tions into the West, particularly into western Texas. Originally efforts were concerned solely with military logistics, but in the eighteen-fifties the state became one of the focal points in a sectional controversy over the location of the first railroad to be built with federal aid from the Mississippi to the Pacific. Therefore, during the post-Mexican War decade, federal governmental explorations, 29 With the passage of the joint resolution extending the offer of statehood to Texas in February 1845, the possibility of war with Mexico became imminent. American military leaders were aware of the lack of reliable geographical infor­ mation on the regions that might become battlefields. Therefore, the United States Army launched three Trans-Mississippi exploring expeditions in 1845, one of which entered the Republic of Texas. In the summer of 1845, Lieutenant James W. Abert surveyed the Comanche Indian country along the headwaters of the Canadian River. His expedition added greatly to the geographical knowledge of the Llano Estacado, but his report contained no significant geological infor­ mation (James W. Abert, Report of an Expedition on the Upper Arkansas and through the Country of the Comanche Indians in 1845, 29th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 438 [1846]). During the war itself, Frederick A. Wislizenus, a German from St. Louis, did make some contributions to Texas geological knowledge based on observations made on a private tour through New Mexico and into the El Paso region, and later with the military expedition led by Colonel Alexander W. Doniphan south into the Mexican state of Chihuahua. After being freed from prison there by Doniphan, Wislizenus accompanied the military force through northern Mexico into the lower Rio Grande Valley (Wislizenus, Memoir of a Tour to Northern Mexico).

Scientific and Political Preludes

15

originally undertaken in the interest of national security and mili­ tary obligations, became consciously directed toward stimulating the economic development of the American West. It was obvious to most politicians that the two objectives of frontier defense and the advancement of settlement were not mutually exclusive.30 Texas Senators Sam Houston and Thomas J. Rusk actively sup­ ported schemes for a transcontinental railroad across Texas. They were just as concerned with the Indian menace in West Texas as with advancing the development of their state, and they felt that any scheme to foster settlement would also help push back the Indian frontier. In 1849 they and other western senators petitioned for appropriations for explorations of wagon road routes along the frontier. Jefferson Davis, chairman of the Senate Committee on Mili­ tary Affairs, responded by successfully recommending that Texas be included in a series of wagon road surveys being made through­ out the West.31 These wagon-road surveys complemented the Army plans for In­ dian defense which included the construction of a line of forts along the Texas frontier; the roads would serve as avenues of supply and communication between the outpost garrisons, and the official re­ ports of some explorations would add to the geological knowledge of the state. Particularly interesting was the report of a reconnais­ sance of the entire Texas military frontier from Fort Duncan on the Rio Grande to Fort Washita on the False Washita River in Indian Territory which was led by Lieutenant William H. C. Whiting in 1850. Whiting was the first to sketch the limits of the Edwards Plateau—“the great limestone formation of the northwest prairie.”32 The Army’s concern with preventing raids by the Kiowas and Comanches prompted the launching of an expedition in 1852 to investigate the geography and natural resources along the upper reaches of the Red River. Captain Randolph B. Marcy commanded 30 William T. Jackson emphasized the chain relationship that was established between geographical exploration, wagon-road surveys, and railroad construction in the American West ( Wagon Roads West: A Survey of Federal Road Surveys in the Trans-Mississippi West, 1846-1869, p. viii). 31 William H. Goetzmann, Army Exploration in the American West, 18031863, p. 211. 32 Lieutenant William H. C. Whiting, "Report of Reconnaissances of the Western Frontier of Texas,” in Reports of the Secretary of War, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 64 (1850), p. 238.

16

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

this exploring party, which included Dr. George G. Shumard of Fort Smith, Arkansas, as surgeon and geologist. Dr. Shumard’s re­ port contained the first important information about the geology of the northern Osage Plains, from Fort Belknap on the Brazos River to the Llano Estacado in the Panhandle.33 In 1854 Shumard again journeyed into North Texas in company with Captain Marcy, whom the Army had commissioned to persuade the plains Indians to settle on reservations near the headwaters of the Brazos River. Shumard explored the strata of the drainage basins of the Clear Fork and Double Mountain tributaries of the Brazos.34 These surveys by Infantry Captain Marcy and by Whiting and other members of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers were preludes to the more extensive explorations for railroad routes through the state undertaken by the Pacific Railroad Surveys. After making the strategic reconnaissances of the area during the Mexican War, the topographical engineers had recommended that the south­ ernmost route through Texas was the most favorable one for the first railroad to the Pacific. The head of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, Colonel John J. Albert, emphasized that this road would increase the effectiveness of military operations in the Southwest and create a vast transportation network within Texas by traversing the many Gulfward-flowing, navigable rivers in the state.35 By 1853, however, it was quite evident that the question of the location of a Pacific railroad had become enmeshed in the growing rivalry between the North and the South. The national legislature passed a Pacific Railroad bill in March 1853 in an attempt to break the sectional deadlock by substituting the "impartial judgment of science for the passions of the politicos and the promoters.”36 This bill authorized the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to send out 33 George Getz Shumard, “Remarks on the General Geology of the Country Passed Over by the Exploring Expedition to the Sources of the Red River,” in Randolph B. Marcy, Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana, in the Year 1852, with Reports on the Natural History of the Country, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen Exec. Doc. 54 (1853), pp. 179-195. 34 William P. Blake, “Notice of the Geological Collections,” in Randolph B. Marcy, Report of an Expedition to the Sources of the Brazos and Big Wichita Rivers, during the Summer of 1854, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 60 (1856), pp. 46-47. 35 Goetzmann, Army Exploration, p. 210. M lbid., p. 262.

Scientific and Political Preludes

17

expeditions along six potential routes. Each of the survey parties included a team of civilian scientists, who were to gather all geo­ logical and biological data that would facilitate the final evaluation of the feasibility of the various routes.37 In June 1853 the first Pacific Railroad Survey expedition, com­ manded by Lieutenant A. W. Whipple, entered Texas along the much-traveled Canadian River near the thirty-fifth parallel. It was accompanied by the prominent French geologist, Jules Marcou. Captain John Pope led another expedition into the state, across the southern end of the Llano Estacado from El Paso to Big Spring, and northeastward to Preston on the Red River. Although this survey party had no geologist, Captain Pope arranged to have Marcou write a final geological report based on Pope’s field notes and on the rock specimens collected by Captain C. S. Taplin, acting miner­ alogist of the party. It was unfortunate that Marcou’s opportunity to compile a com­ prehensive report on the geology of the Southwest resulted only in hurried and incomplete reports. Marcou attributed his failure to the prejudices of Secretary of War Davis, who objected to Marcou’s writing the final reports in France.38 William Blake, who had served as geologist on another of the Pacific Railroad Surveys, took charge of the notes and collections Marcou was compelled to surrender and wrote the final reports for both the Whipple and Pope surveys 39 It 37 For a discussion of the selection of these scientific personnel see ibid., p. 284. 38 Marcou described the circumstances as follows: “Sickness, contracted on crossing the Isthmus of Panama [on the return trip from California] obliged me to seek a winter residence under the mild climate of France. . . . The very morn­ ing of going on board [September 5, 1854] I learned that Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, objected to my going, and overruling the leaves given me by both Lieutenants Whipple and Pope, ordered me to stay or give up my notes. . . . My baggage was already on board . . . so I sent my resignation to Lieu­ tenant Whipple and started for Europe where I delivered my notes and speci­ mens to the American legation in France” (Merrill, American Geology, pp. 680-681). 39 Jules Marcou, Geological Notes of a Survey of Country Comprised between Preston, Red River and El Paso, Rio Grande del Norte, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., House Exec. Doc. 129 (1855), XVII, pt. 4, 125-128; and William P. Blake, “Report on the Geology of the Route, Prepared from the Collection and Notes of Captain Pope,” in John Pope, “Report on the Exploration of a Route for the Pacific Railroad near the 32nd Parallel of Latitude, from the Red River to the

18

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

is noteworthy that, at the time, Blake had not personally investi­ gated the geology of Texas.40 In his final report Captain Pope had observed that the only obstacle to railroad construction along the route he traveled was the absence of water on the Llano Estacado. He contended that this difficulty could be offset by the drilling of artesian wells on the Llano, and Marcou supported this concept geologically.41 Their Rio Grande,” in Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practical and Economic Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1855), II, pt. 4, here­ after cited as Pacific Railroad Surveys. Also, Jules Marcou, “Résumé and Field Notes, pp. 121—164, and William P. Blake, “General Report upon the Geologi­ cal Collections, pp. 1-98, in A. W. Whipple, “Report of an Exploration for a Railway Route near the 35th Parallel of North Latitude from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean,” in Pacific Railroad Surveys, 33d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1856), III, pt. 4. 40 Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified that a joint MexicanAmerican commission survey the new boundary along its whole course from San Diego to the mouth of the Rio Grande. Major W. H. Emory assumed the leadership of this Boundary Survey in 1853 and guided its scientific progress. His official chief geologist, Charles Christopher Parry, who later became a prominent Rocky Mountain botanist, was the first geologist to explore the strata along the Rio Grande through the Trans-Pecos region. Another botanist, the German Arthur Schott, explored the geology from the mouth of the Pecos River to the mouth of the Rio Grande. These two men wrote descriptive geological narratives of their explorations, and James Hall, the prominent paleontologist and New York state geologist, compiled a comprehensive geological map and study for the final Boundary Survey report (see Charles C. Parry, “General Geological Features of the Country,” pp. 1-23; and “Geological Features of the Rio Grande Valley from El Paso to the Mouth of the Pecos River,” pp. 48—105; Arthur Schott, “Substance of the Sketch of the Geology of the Lower Rio Bravo del Norte,” pp. 28-48; James Hall, “Geology and Paleontology of the Boundary,” pp. 106-140; and Timothy A. Conrad, “Description of the Cre­ taceous and Tertiary Fossils/' pp. 141-174; all above m William H. Emory, Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 108 [1857], Geological Reports, hereafter cited as Boundary Survey ). 41 Actually, Marcou gave Pope bad advice. If the Captain had concentrated on finding water in the Cenozoic beds of the Llano Estacado instead of in the Carboniferous and Cretaceous rocks at the mouth of Delaware Creek he would have found water in abundance ( Robert T. Hill, On the Occurrence of Artesian and Other Underground Waters in Texas, Eastern New Mexico, and Indian Territory, W est of the Ninety-seventh Meridian, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41, IV, pt. 3 [1892], 153).

Scientific and Political Preludes

19

conclusions gave Secretary Davis occasion to launch one more expedition in a final attempt to advance the southern transcontinen­ tal rail route. Davis pushed through Congress a bill appropriating $100,000 for conducting practical tests of artesian well drilling on the southern Llano Estacado.42 Pope was placed in charge of this project.43 Like Davis, Pope realized that the tests were concerned with the vital question of whether the Great Plains could support settlement, and the Captain entered upon his unpleasant duties in dedicated fashion. He labored in vain from 1855 to 1858, when insurmountable equipment difficulties forced him to abandon the project with inconclusive results. The expedition had camped at the mouth of Delaware Creek, a tributary of the Pecos River, and drilled two wells there. Dr. George G. Shumard, by now a veteran geological explorer in Texas, had served as Pope’s geological assistant. In addition to collecting and describing the rock samples from the wells, he compiled an exten­ sive journal of observations on the geology of western Texas and southeastern New Mexico.44 These Army explorations in Texas were important for the study of Texas geological surveys in two respects. First, the official geo­ logical reports of these surveys helped fill in broad gaps in the knowledge of the geology of the state. With Roemer, the Army geologists and natural scientists established the foundations of a scientific heritage for Texas by conduGting valuable reconnaissance surveys. More important, the Western legislators who backed the appro­ priations for the Army explorations set an important political prece­ 42 Goetzmann, Army Exploration, p. 365. 43 It appears that his disagreeable temperament won him this uncoveted command (Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire, p. 274). 44 A portion of Dr. George Getz Shumard’s geological report to Pope ap­ peared in the Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Sciences in 1858 ( “Ob­ servations on the Geological Formations of the Country Between the Rio Pecos and the Rio Grande in New Mexico, near the line of the Thirty-Second Paral­ lel,” I [1858], 273-289). The rest of his manuscript was published by the state much later as A Partial Report on the Geology of Western Texas, Consisting of a General Geological Report and a Journal of Geological Observations along the Routes Traveled by the Expedition between Indianola, Texas, and the Valley of the Mimbres, New Mexico, during the Years 1855 and 1856; with an Appendix Giving a Detailed Report on the Geology of Grayson County.

20

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

dent. By emphasizing the intimate relationship between the national interest and the settlement and development of the American West, they encouraged those Texans who would use state aid to stimulate development of natural resources. The concept of using a state geological survey to stimulate im­ migration and encourage the development of a state's resources by means of soil studies and mineral investigations was well established by the eighteen-fifties.45 It is noteworthy that the states that con­ tributed the largest percentages of Texas immigrants during the first decade following statehood had all created state geological surveys by 1850: Alabama in 1848, Tennessee in 1831, and Mississippi in 1850. Furthermore, Missouri, also the home state of many Texans and a fellow frontier state, conducted perhaps the most outstanding state geological survey of the pre-Civil War decade. To many “adopted” Texans the concept of launching a state-supported geolog­ ical survey to stimulate exploitation of natural resources was a tried and proven one. 45 This information is taken from George P. Merrill, “Contributions to a His­ tory of American State Geological and Natural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Museum, CIX (1920).

TW O

The Shumard Survey: Texas Begins to Develop Its Resources

T h e political concept that a state should actively assist in the de­ velopment of the private sector of its economy was by no means new in the eighteen-fifties. Numerous state geological surveys, ac­ tive prior to the Civil War, all had the ultimate objective of assisting private enterprise. Moreover, as a frontier state, Texas had witnessed other forms of direct government assistance. For example, the Pacific Railroad Surveys hoped to determine the most feasible route to the Pacific, and the granting of government aid to private firms for the construction of a Pacific railroad would be based on their recom­ mendations. Furthermore, local private enterprise had sponsored its own ex­ plorations in frontier Texas before it became obvious that the magni­ tude of the task was too great for the private pocketbook. As early as August 1848 some San Antonio merchants had promoted a search for a wagon route to El Paso in an attempt to make their city rather than St. Louis the eastern terminus of trade routes from Chihuahua and Santa Fe.1 Even though this civilian exploring party failed to 1 William T. Jackson, Wagon Roads West: A Survey of Federal Road Surveys in the Trans-Mississippi West, 1846—1869, pp. 36-37.

22

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

find a feasible route, the commercially minded citizens of Austin prepared to attempt the same plan in the winter of 1848. However, before they could get their plan underway, the national government had assumed their burden by inaugurating the Army wagon road surveys in western Texas. Obviously quite pleased that the United States Army had taken charge of the difficult duty of opening transportation routes on the frontier, the citizens of San Antonio, then the second largest town in the state, began to pursue other schemes to increase the areas commercial importance. In 1850 Bexar County and San Antonio took the initiative in offering public aid to encourage railroad con­ struction by issuing bonds of $50,000 each to the San Antonio and Mexican Gulf Railroad Company.2 The state then demonstrated its belief that the entire economic well-being of its citizens was helped by stimulating one sector of the economy and that the government should assist private economic ventures on the basis of this principle. In 1854 the state legislature offered to grant railroad companies six­ teen sections of public land for each mile of road construction.3 In frontier Texas, therefore, politicians did not hesitate to extend government aid to those who would increase the economic wealth of the state. The essence of this public attitude toward state grantsin-aid to foster economic development is provided by the following excerpt from an unfavorable report of February 1854 in the Senate Committee on Internal Improvements. Discussing a bill to encour­ age the construction of telegraph lines by donations of state lands, the speaker claims: “They are works of great public convenience, and should be encouraged so far as to grant the necessary corporate powers and laws for their protection; but they do not draw to the county population, nor do they tend in any great degree to develop the resources of the country. These works, therefore, stand upon different footing from railroad improvements The main concern of those who initiated the move for a Texas state geological survey was the development of the state’s resources, especially the settlement of the vacant public lands. In addition to 2 Walter Prescott Webb and H. Bailey Carroll, eds., The Handbook of Texas, II, 430. 3 Texas, General Laws, 5th Leg., Chap. 5, pp. 7-13. 4 Texas, Senate Journal, 5th Leg. (February 5, 1854), p. 23.

The Shumard Survey

23

noting the potential of these lands, and thereby stimulating im­ migration, a state survey would encourage the exploitation of min­ eral deposits. Furthermore, the information gathered might entice railroad companies to construct lines into the sparsely settled areas of the state. Railroad expansion and agricultural expansion would go hand-in-hand.5 James H. Kuykendall, a Texas patriot and one-time editor, first suggested that Texas sponsor a geological survey.6 After unsuccess­ fully trying to induce some large landholders to patronize a geologi­ cal survey of the state lands in North Central Texas early in 1851, Kuykendall concluded that it was the duty of the state to undertake the extensive task of investigating the natural resources of her public domain.7 In October 1851 he informed Governor Peter H. Bell that a state geological survey would greatly enhance the value of state lands and possibly would enable the state to discover and reserve minerals on public lands that might be granted to railroad companies.8 In his message to the legislature in November 1851, Governor Bell re­ sponded by recommending that the state launch a geological and mineralogical survey. Bell observed that a survey of the resources 5 J. W. Throckmorton, chairman of the House Committee on Internal Im­ provements, illustrated the attitude of Texas Whigs in his report in support of state loans to railroads: “And thus would Texas encourage the construction of Railroads within her limits, by the investment of her school fund, and at the same time have the proud satisfaction of seeing her schools supported and upheld by an annual and certain income from her roads; and thus would the causes of Education and Internal Improvement become handmaids in advancing the prosperity and greatness of the State” (Texas, House Journal, 6th Leg. [January 16, 1856], p. 405). 6 James H. Kuykendall to Swen M. Swenson, February 27, 1851, Kuykendall Papers, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. Interest in a state survey was also kept current by the publicity for a projected scientific survey of the state by Dr. Frederick Charles Baker and others in the summer of 1848 (Samuel W. Geiser, “Men of Science in Texas, 1820-1880,” Field and Labora­ tory, XXVI [July-October 1958], 93). 7 James H. Kuykendall to William P. Hill, March 17, 1851, Kuykendall Papers. 8 James H. Kuykendall to Governor Peter H. Bell, October 18, 1851, Kuy­ kendall Papers. Bell had evidenced an interest in geological surveys by previous­ ly sending for a copy of the first report by the Alabama Geological Survey ( Peter H. Bell to H. W. Collier, July 6, 1850, Governors Correspondence, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas).

24

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

of the public domain in Trans-Balcones Texas would encourage the settlement and development of that region.9 The Governor sought Kuykendalls aid in gathering legislative support for a survey bill, which Samuel A. Maverick of San Antonio would soon introduce.10 Unfortunately, this bill never reached the floor of the House. Kuykendall attributed this failure to the legisla­ ture’s hostility toward the Governor, which prompted it to ignore every measure he recommended.11 Bell continued to express the need for a state survey, and in his final message to the legislature in January 1853, shortly before he resigned to fill a congressional vacancy, he asserted, "We should possess a knowledge of the resources of the southwest and northern portions [of our State lands, for there is a probability] that a nego­ tiation will be entered into shortly with the federal government for the purpose of setting apart a portion of the country for the location of Indians; in this event substantial benefit might be transferred and consequently lost to the State for want of a proper knowledge of their existence.”12 The Senate then reacted to the Governor’s urgent plea and passed a survey bill, but politically hostile forces in the House tabled the measure.13 While Bell was issuing his unsuccessful pleas for a state survey, railroad promoters began to stimulate interest in the need for scien­ tific exploration of Trans-Balcones Texas. Senators Rusk and Houston were continually active in supporting schemes for federal explora­ tions of potential routes of communication in the unsettled portions of Texas. Furthermore, Rusk, an ardent Southerner, became inti­ 9 House Journal, 4th Leg. (November 10, 1851), pp. 50-51. 10 Papers of James Hampton and William Kuykendall, Kuykendall Papers, II, 25. 11 Ibid. 12 House Journal, 4th Leg., Extra Sess. (January 13, 1853), pp. 32-33. 13 Senate Journal, 4th Leg., Extra Sess. (February 2, 1853), p. 195. The German Adelsverein continued to express interest in the geological examination of its lands. In September 1853 Henry F. Fischer recommended that the Execu­ tive Committee sponsor such a survey. Fischer emphasized that it would help ascertain the value of some vacant sections within the Adelsverein land grants which might soon be taken by outsiders. He also advised the committee to authorize a private company to conduct the survey if the Adelsverein was un­ willing to do so ( Solms-Braunfels Archives, LXVI, 33, The University of Texas Archives).

The Shumard Survey

25

mately involved with schemes to promote a southern transcontinen­ tal rail route through Texas, especially the proposed Texas Western Railroad.14 Rusks correspondence shows that he was quite interested in Texas exploration. He probably encouraged the president of this company, Robert Walker, the former Secretary of the Treasury, to provide for a private geological reconnaissance and engineering survey along the preferred rail route from Texarkana to El Paso.15 In the early part of 1854, Walker sponsored such a survey under the leadership of Andrew B. Gray, the former head surveyor for the American Boundary Commission. With the assistance of Walter W. Lacy, a West Point civil engineer, and Charles Schuchard, a young German artist and mining engineer from the Freiberg Academy, Gray surveyed the portion of the route from Fort Chadboume, in the southern part of the Osage Plains, across the southern Llano Estacado to El Paso.16 The officers of the Texas Western Railroad Company informed Rusk that the information Gray had gathered would convince na­ tional governmental officials that “the Texas route is perfectly easy, . . . passing through a country abounding in mineral wealth and well-adapted to agriculture.”17 Rusks circulation of Gray's report probably also helped gather support in the Texas legislature for the Texas Western Railroad Companys bid for the construction grant provided by the Mississippi and Pacific Railroad bill passed in 14 Rusk tied the future of Texas as well as of the South to the transcontinental railroad: “With our immense and valuable domain, our position as a slave hold­ ing state, the threatening aspect of the slavery question, we owe it to ourselves to do all in our power to increase our population, develop our natural resources, and add to our power to preserve the Union and our rights in it” (Thomas J. Rusk to John Marshall, May 21, 1855, Rusk Papers, The University of Texas Archives ). 15 In a letter to Secretary of War Jefferson Davis on May 8, 1853, Rusk spoke of the need for an official government survey of the entire thirty-second parallel route through Texas (see Thomas J. Rusk to Jefferson Davis, May 8, 1853, Rusk Papers). 16 Gray mentioned that the detailed results of the geological examination “will be found in their appropriate place,” but this author has not found such a report ( see Andrew B. Gray, Texas Western Survey of a Route, Its Cost and Probable Revenue, in Connection with the Pacific Railway. Nature of the Country, Climate, Mineral and Agricultural Resources, Etc., p. 55). 17 Robert J. Walker to Thomas J. Rusk, September 13, 1854, Rusk Papers.

26

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

1853.18 This act, which was obviously aimed at promoting the southern Pacific route, offered the first railway company to construct a Trans-Texas road a land grant of twenty sections for each mile of track constructed.19 Thus, through the efforts of Rusk and others, the idea that a mineralogical and agricultural survey was a necessary prerequisite to the construction of railroads and the advance of settlement into the sparsely settled Trans-Balcones region gained momentum. Gov­ ernor Elisha Pease added his official sanction in his annual message in November 1855.20 Although he opposed Rusk’s plan of rewarding railroad construction with lavish state land grants, Pease did recom­ mend having works of internal improvements, including railroads, constructed and owned by the state. Furthermore, he realized that scientific surveys must be the initial step in any organized program for the development of the Texas frontier. In his message he urged that appropriations be made to support an accurate geological sur­ vey of Texas. The next day, “a bill to provide for a geological survey and ex­ amination of the State” was introduced into the Senate and finally passed in January 1856 by a sixteen to ten margin.21 However, de­ spite the efforts of Ashbel Smith, who authored a similar bill in the House, the Senate bill failed to pass the House.22 Perhaps it was linked too closely with Pease’s radical state works program. At this point the example of a private survey of state lands added vital support to the growing demand for an official evaluation of the public lands. In February 1856 Richard B. Kimball, president of the Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad Company, contracted Jacob de Cordova to survey the premium public lands between the Brazos and Red rivers. This survey was to guide Kimball in select­ ing lands that the state might grant to his company for track con­ struction.23 18 T. Butler King to Thomas J. Rusk, August 18, 1854, Rusk Papers. and Carroll, eds., Handbook of Texas, II, 216. Also see General Laws, 5th Leg., Chap. 5, pp. 7-13 (approved December 30, 1853). 20 Senate Journal, 6th Leg. (November 6, 1855), p. 40. 21 Ibid. (November 7, 1855), p. 45, and (January 3, 1856), p. 288. 22 House Journal, 6th Leg. (November 12, 1855), p. 31. 23 James M. Day, Jacob de Cordova: Land Merchant of Texas, pp. 17-19. 19 Webb

The Shumard Survey

27

De Cordova, an important land speculator, concentrated his work in the Cooke Land District between the Wichita and Pease rivers. George Stolley, a German-born naturalist, explored the geology of the district, and compiled a final report, which praised the copper prospects of the region.24 The optimistic nature of this report and de Cordova's influence in Austin stimulated demands that the state investigate her natural resources. Both Governor Pease and Land Commissioner Stephen Crosby had followed the work closely, and de Cordova hoped that the results of his survey would “induce the members of the Texas Legislature to make a sufficient appropria­ tion for a more thorough geological examination of the [State lands] in the upper portion of Texas.”25 It was apparent by this time that the more influential state leaders—selfishly motivated railroad promoters and land speculators as well as government officials presumably interested in the well­ being of the state—recognized the need for a Texas geological survey of the public domain. However, it appears that the issue lacked the necessary popular support. The drought, which began in 1856, proved to be the catalyst that convinced the overwhelmingly agri­ cultural populace that a survey might benefit them. This severe drought was especially devastating to the farmers and ranchers in the southern and western counties, and they turned to the state for assistance. In November 1857 Governor Pease reported that “our usual pros­ perity has been interrupted by a drought unexampled in the annals of our country.”26 He then asserted that public opinion demanded the immediate creation of a state geological survey. By making sci­ entific recommendations on soil utilization and water resources, a survey would extend state assistance to the drought-stricken farmers. The day following this message by Governor Pease, Representa­ tive John Henry Brown, a Galveston newspaperman, offered a resolution that the Committee on State Affairs be instructed to in­ quire into the expediency of providing by law for a state geological survey. Hamilton P. Bee, of parched Webb County in South Texas, 24 Jacob de Cordova, The Texas Immigrant and Travelers Guide Book, pp. 49 ff. 25 Ibid., p. 27. 26 Senate Journal, 7th Leg. (November 4, 1857), p. 13.

28

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

chaired this committee, which quickly reported a mineral survey bill.27 Simultaneously, in the Senate Louis T. Wigfall, who represented the former Whig stronghold of Harrison County, introduced a similar bill. Wigfall, an active member of the Committee on Internal Improvements, introduced his bill in a lengthy speech in which he observed that a state survey would benefit all sectors of the economy. He stressed the agricultural benefits as well as the stimulation of capital investment. But by no means the least important argument in favor of a geological survey of the State is the benefit to be derived from a chemical analysis of the soils of its different sections which the geologist will be required to make, and by which the farmer may ascertain the character of his soil and the species of produce to which it is best adapted—information which can be acquired in no other way except by actual experiments, which too often cost years of profitless toil, and sometimes ends in bankruptcy or ruin. It is especially important too that this geological survey should be made as soon as practicable, in order that it may be in advance of railroads pro­ jected through our State; for if the coal, iron, and copper mines in our State are as rich as the Committee are justified in supposing them to be, it is not unreasonable to suppose that their geological locality will have an important influence upon the course of these railroads. It is said that capital seeks safe investments and upon this same principle railroads will pursue that course and penetrate that region promising the largest patronage.28 Introduced simultaneously with the Wigfall bill was a proposal to grant state lands as subsidies to those who would drill artesian wells in the arid plains between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. In introducing this bill in November 1857, Senator Forbes Britton of drought-devastated Nueces County intimated that he considered the proposed state survey a form of drought relief: “We soon will establish a Geological department, and I consider artesian wells connecting links between geology and agriculture.”29 Perhaps 27House Journal, 7th Leg. (November 5, 1857), p. 20, and (November 15, 1857), p. 121. 28 Senate Journal, 7th Leg. (November 19, 1857), p. 101. 29 Galveston Tri-Weekly News, December 29, 1857, p. 1, col. 6. At the same time, a proposal to grant direct relief to drought victims was frowned upon be­ cause it would disgrace the recipients by making them subjects of public charity (Clarksville Standard, January 2, 1858, p. 2, col. 2 ).

The Shumard Survey

29

Captain Pope’s concurrent artesian well experiments on the Llano Estacado had something to do with Britton s anticipation that a geo­ logical survey would help discover new sources of water. The Wigfall survey bill passed the Senate by a two to one margin, and the House by a comfortable margin of forty-seven to fourteen. It is noteworthy that over half of the negative votes came from East Texas districts, which were unaffected by the drought, while almost without exception the representatives of the drought-stricken coun­ ties of western and southern Texas voted for the bill. This pattern seems to indicate that at least the needy considered the survey as welcome state aid to agriculture. The Governor signed the bill into law on February 10, 1858. It authorized the Chief Executive to appoint a state geologist to con­ duct a geological survey of the state as speedily as possible, with the multiple objective of “determining accurately the quality and characteristics of its soil, and its adaptation to agricultural purposes; the species of produce to which the soil . . . is best adapted; [and evaluating] mineral resources . . . and water power.”30 The act au­ thorized the state geologist to request the cooperation of any scien­ tific corps of the United States Army and an escort of troops whenever he ventured into frontier areas. The act also stipulated that the state geologist’s annual salary be $3,000, and allocated $20,000 for annual expenses. The specification that survey personnel were prohibited from purchasing lands with a view to speculation implied that the survey would concentrate its efforts on the unde­ veloped state lands.31 A contemporary observer remarked that applications for the posi­ tion of state geologist were as “numerous as mosquitoes in the Colo­ rado bottom.”32 One of the earliest applicants was Hans von Meuse­ bach, the former commissioner-general of the Adelsverein.33 Edward 30 See Appendix A. 31 Samuel W. Geiser noted that Micajah Bonner, later associate justice of the Texas Supreme Court, drafted the resolution that eventually led to the creation of the first Texas state survey (Samuel W. Geiser, “The First Texas Academy of Science,” Field and Laboratory, XIII [January 1945], 36). This author has been unable to locate Geiser’s source, but Bonner was an ardent railroad pro­ moter and would naturally have had a keen interest in a state geological survey. 32 Geiser, “Men of Science,” p. 103. 33 John O. Meusebach to Governor H. N. Runnels, February 18, 1858, Gov­ ernor’s Correspondence.

30

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Hitchcock, the former Massachusetts state geologist, recommended Francis Moore, Jr., the editor of the Houston Telegraph and Texas Register, for the post.34 Moore, an enthusiastic amateur geologist, had a great interest in the geology of the state. As early as 1840 he had published sketches of the geography and geology of the Re­ public in his Map and Description of Texas. Unfortunately for Moore, Kennedy’s two-volume work, published the following year, overshadowed Moore’s book.35 Joseph Henry, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, was the first to bring the influence of Washington scientific bureaus to bear upon a Texas state survey. He advocated the appointment of Benjamin F. Shumard, who at the time was an assistant geologist and paleontologist for the Missouri State Geological Survey.36 Al­ though there were strong demands for the appointment of a Texan to the position, presumably Moore, Governor H. N. Runnels offered the post to Shumard in the summer of 1858.37 Runnels also suggested that his brother, the veteran George G. Shumard, serve as assistant geologist, and both Shumards happily consented.38 Runnels intro­ 34Francis Moore to Governor H. N. Runnels, February 18, 1858, Governors Correspondence. 35 Moore did much to publicize the geology and resources of Texas, and he must have been considered somewhat of an authority on Texas geology because Edward Hitchcock consulted him on some features of the state in connection with the final report of Marcy’s 1852 expedition, and Moore had informed William Blake of the presence of Eocene lignites on the Colorado River near Bastrop for the report of the Pacific Railroad Survey under Pope. In 1857, after selling the Telegraph, Moore studied geology under James Hall of the New York Geological Survey (Samuel W. Geiser, “Francis Moore, Jr. [1808-1864], Early State Geologist of Texas,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLVII [April 1944], 419-425). 36 Joseph Henry to Representative Guy Bryan, May 7, 1858, Governor's Cor­ respondence. 37 Benjamin F. Shumard to Governor H. N. Runnels, August 29, 1858, Gov­ ernor's Correspondence. The provincial distrust of outsiders is best illustrated in a quote from a House Committee on Education report in July 1856, concern­ ing state-supported institutions of higher learning. “The abundant resources, agricultural and mineral, of this State are proverbial facts; shall we depend for their discovery and beneficial use, by strangers from abroad of scientific attain­ ments, whom curiosity or the love of gain shall allure to Texas, or shall we rely on gentlemen of science reared and trained at home, and who will be emphat­ ically with us?” ( House Journal, 6th Leg., Adj. Sess. [July 18, 1856], p. 101). 38 Benjamin F. Shumard to Governor H. N. Runnels, July 21, 1858, and

The Shumard Survey

31

duced his new state geologist to the legislature with the assertion that “the eminent reputation for attainments Dr. Shumard brings to his aid in this survey, united with his assiduity and perseverance of character, offer the strongest assurance of success.”39 State Geologist Shumard went to work quickly. He spent Novem­ ber and December assembling his staff and equipment and com­ menced field work in January 1859. He surveyed the Central Texas area; his brother George worked along the Red River border; and William P. Riddell, the survey chemist, investigated the strata in some intervening counties.40 In addition to this geological recon­ naissance work, the State Geologist and his assistants examined the iron ore deposits of East Texas, the coal beds in the vicinity of Fort Belknap on the Brazos River, and the mineralized igneous rocks of the Central Mineral Region.41 In his preliminary report to the Governor in December 1859, Shumard stated that these rapid reconnaissances provided the nec­ essary basis for future work of a more detailed nature. He declared that the following year the survey would correlate the geology of these regions by constructing sections on a north-south line between Austin and the Red River, and also from Fort Belknap to Houston. In his plans, Shumard, primarily a paleontologist, indicated that a firm geological foundation should be established before attempting more practical economic studies. However, his report included su­ perficial accounts of the Fort Belknap coal deposits and the lignites and iron ores of East Texas. In January 1860 Samuel B. Buckley, a physician whom Shumard had hired as survey botanist, joined the survey. While George Shu­ mard continued his work on the Red River, Shumard, Riddell, and Buckley made surveys from Austin to Corpus Christi and into the lower San Saba River area. George Getz Shumard to Governor H. N. Runnels, August 3, 1858, Governor s Correspondence. 39House Journal, 8th Leg. (November 10, 1859), p. 33. At the time Shu­ mard was president of the prestigious Academy of Sciences of St. Louis. 40 William P. Riddell was the brother of John L. Riddell, who had explored the geology along the Trinity River in 1839. For comments on their Northern political leanings see Lois W. Burkhalter, Gideon Lincecum, 1793—1874: A Biography, p. 181 n. Perhaps Benjamin Shumard shared the same attitudes. 41 The work of the survey is reviewed by the State Geologist in the First Report of Progress of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas.

32

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Unfortunately, Shumard was not permitted to carry his ambitious and promising program to fulfillment. In the spring of 1860, the State Geologist wrote to a fellow paleontologist that Francis Moore, the unsuccessful aspirant for Shumard s job, had spent the previous winter trying to acquire a position with the state survey through his legislative influence.42 Shumard remarked that Governor Runnels had refused Moore an appointment on the grounds of incompetency, but Moore was an astute politician and the office of state geologist was the one remaining position filled by an appointee of the former Governor. At this time, Shumard felt that Governor Sam Houston "would like to remove me simply from his hatred of Runnels, and that he would like to shield himself behind testimonials in Dr. Moore s behalf.” His fears were justified. In August of 1860 Houston closed a reply to a letter sent by Moore some time before with the comment that he was inclined toward the removal of Shumard.43 The fol­ lowing November, when Shumard and his assistants returned from their field studies in the “Indian country” along the San Saba River, they discovered that Houston had installed Moore as the state geologist. According to Shumard there was general public dissatis­ faction with this move, but his main regret was that he was pre­ vented from writing a final report.44 The new State Geologist wasted no time and made a hurried December reconnaissance of South 42 This letter is quoted in George P. Merrill, The First One Hundred Years of American Geology, pp. 686-687. 43 Governor Sam Houston to Francis Moore, August 25, 1860, Letterpress, Governor’s Correspondence. 44 George P. Merrill, “Contributions to a History of American State Geologi­ cal and Natural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Mu­ seum, CIX (1920), 507. An interesting note concerning Shumard’s removal is found in a letter from Joseph G. Norwood to Fielding B. Meek, December 29, 1859, which is quoted in a University of Illinois Master’s thesis by John W. McLure, “A History of the Illinois State Geological Survey, 1851-1875” ( 1962). In discussing James Halls attempts to control the appointment of the Illinois state geologist, Norwood wrote: “[Shumard] is a little shaky on the subject of his survey . . . I wonder if Hall is after him? . . . If that should happen to be so, Shumard must look out” (p. 123). Shumard’s letter expressing his fear of removal had also been sent to Fielding B. Meek. The Galveston Tri-Weekly News commented that Shumard had done an ex­ cellent job, but it also emphasized that Moore was a fine Texan and worthy of the head post (November 22, 1860).

The Shumard Survey

33

Texas with his assistant, Samuel B. Buckley, the sole surviving member of the Shumard Survey. The following March Moore and Buckley explored the coal strata of the Fort Belknap region and returned to Austin in June to find that the legislature had suspended the survey due to the impending war.45 On April 8, 1861, the legislature had passed the joint resolution suspending the survey, and had stipulated that both Moore and Shumard submit the final reports of their explorations by Decem­ ber.46 However, both men left Texas a few months after the Civil War began. Moore joined a mining company in northern Michigan and died there in 1864. Benjamin Shumard returned to St. Louis and remained there until his death in 1869, at which time he was an active leader of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis. The war terminated the public geological career of George Shumard, who moved to Cincinnati, where he held the position of State Surgeon General at the time of his death in 1867. In retrospect it is obvious that even if Houston had not removed Shumard, the Civil War would have terminated the state survey he had guided to such an auspicious scientific beginning. Indeed, the fact that Shumard was a victim of spoilsmanship obscures the fact that his emphasis on “academic” rather than on practical economic geology might well have influenced Houston’s belated decision to remove him. Unfortunately, during the following two decades sub­ sequent state geologists concentrated their attentions on making 45 The information on the short-lived Moore Survey is found in Samuel B. Buckley, First Annual Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Tex­ as, pp. 11 ff. 46 See Appendix B and Senate Journal, 8th Leg. (April 8, 1861), p. 197. The later publications of Shumard and former members of his survey undoubt­ edly include much material gathered on this first state survey. Yet the location of the original survey notes is unknown. In July 1865 Shumard commented that some of his notes and books remained in Texas. Most of the manuscript records of the Shumard Survey presumably burned with the capitol in 1881. Third State Geologist Edwin Theodore Dumble could not locate them either, as indicated by a letter he wrote to M. A. Shumard of Boeme, Texas, probably a descendant of the first State Geologist: ‘There is missing the entire report of the survey of East Texas, which contains much valuable information, as well as reports of work done in the coal fields in Burnet county. From his letter to the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis and his published synopsis of work in the Texas Almanac we know he did the work” (Edwin Theodore Dumble to M. A. Shumard, October 13, 1888, Dumble Papers).

34

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

superficial investigations of mineral deposits and soils. This type of work was more in line with the objectives demanded by the legisla­ ture in the post-Civil War years of rampant economic growth, but the legislators failed to perceive that “academic” knowledge must be accumulated contemporaneously if the economic surveys are to be something other than an unguided series of “prospectings.” Inade­ quate appropriations and appointments on political grounds pre­ cluded the accomplishment of any significant work, either “academ­ ic” or economic, by state surveys in the middle eighteen-sixties and middle eighteen-seventies.

THREE

The Gilded Age: Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

f r o m the end of the Civil War until the eighteen-eighties, Texas extended many forms of aid to private enterprise in an effort to encourage the development of its resources. The prime examples of the subsidies awarded were the lavish land grants to reward railroad construction. Furthermore, an almost religious belief in the great mineral wealth of Texas led the legislature to appropriate funds for state geological surveys in 1866 and again in 1871. Observers since William Kennedy had reported that Texas had rich deposits of iron ore, coal, lignite, and copper. In truth it was not economically feasi­ ble to work these deposits at Texas* stage of industrial development in the nineteenth century. Despite the state s enthusiasm for subsidizing private economic growth and the legislature’s willingness to sponsor geological surveys toward this end, the postwar surveys were inadequately staffed and financed. The continuation of the policy of spoilsmanship, which Governor Houston initiated, meant that politics rather than scientific merit determined the appointment of the various state geologists. In addition, most of the qualified geologists were associated with Northern scientific circles, and in view of the emotional hangover and suspicions of the postwar decade, it would have been political folly to appoint such men no matter how qualified.

36

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

That the legislators appropriated inadequate sums illustrated their misguided conceptions about the nature of geological surveying. Their actions indicated that they expected these surveys merely to produce scientifically authenticated appraisals of the “known and extensive” mineral wealth of the state. They never doubted that such wealth existed. Unfortunately, the legislators understood neither that the task of making a proper geological evaluation of mineral deposits was extensive nor that some “academic” geological work was a necessary adjunct to discovering new mineral deposits. In spite of their shortsightedness, legislators did create two state surveys in the postwar years of rapid economic growth, and an ex­ amination of the thinking behind their creation is essential to the study of political attitudes toward scientific research in Texas. Before resuming the political narrative, however, it would be worthwhile to review the progress of other state geological surveys in comparable Great Plains-frontier states and in former Confederate Gulf Plains states.1 One of the few Southern state surveys to operate throughout the War was the Mississippi Geological Survey directed by Eugene W. Hilgard. Hilgard attributed the continued interest to public recog­ nition of his energetic agricultural work. He made the use of soil analyses an essential and often decisive factor in estimating the cul­ tural value of soils. He proclaimed that agricultural surveys should command the same attention of frontier populations as those inves­ tigations directed specifically to the recognition of the mineral re­ sources of the same regions. In neighboring Louisiana many organizations contributed to the build-up of interest in an official survey. In 1866 and 1867 the Smith­ sonian Institution provided funds to sponsor geological work by Hilgard. In 1869 the New Orleans Academy of Sciences, aided by funds from the state Immigration Bureau, also sponsored a recon­ naissance by Hilgard. Finally, the discovery of an extensive sulfur bed while drilling a prospective oil well along the coast in 1869 prod­ ded the state into action. The legislature appropriated funds for a 1 Most of the following material is taken from George P. Merrill, “Contribu­ tions to a History of State Geological and Natural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Museum, CIX (1920); and also from Eugene A. Smith, "Pioneers in Gulf Coastal Plain Geology,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXV (March 30, 1914), 157-178.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

37

general geological and topographical investigation of the state un­ der the direction of the superintendent of the Louisiana State Semi­ nary of Learning and Military Academy. In Missouri and Kansas the state boards of agriculture were the main advocates of a state survey. In Missouri the Academy of Sci­ ences of St. Louis added its support, and finally the legislature cre­ ated a survey, which lasted from 1868 to 1874. In Kansas there was no official state survey until 1889, but the geological department of the Board of Agriculture filled the void until that time. Finally, a report in 1885 by the president of the Kansas Academy of Sciences best illustrated the commercial temper of the postwar decades with respect to geological surveys. On the basis of answers to circulars he had sent to various states, he concluded that surveys had stimulated industrialization, thereby enhancing the taxable val­ ues within the state. The President added that the most prosperous states were those in which a state geological survey had been active.2 Samuel B. Buckley, who had served with both Shumard and Moore, had left Texas during the Civil War but returned in January 1866. Upon the request of Governor James W. Throckmorton, Buck­ ley took charge of the materials that the first survey had accumu­ lated.3 He arranged the maps, notes, and collections, which had been scattered during the War when the Confederate Army used the geo­ logical rooms for manufacturing percussion caps. Buckley then com­ piled a report summarizing the previous work of the survey.4 In September 1866 the legislature ordered the printing of one thousand copies of his report because it included "facts of great value in re­ gard to the mineral wealth of the State.”5 In addition to his official duties for the Governor, Buckley active­ ly sought to reconstitute the survey. Gideon Lincecum, an amateur geologist and close friend of Buckley’s, aided the cause by sending numerous articles to Texas newspapers.6 However, Buckley’s report probably was the most important factor in renewing interest in a sur­ 2 Robert J. Brown, “Is a Geological Survey of the State a Necessity?” Trans­ actions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences (1883-1884), IX (1885), 49-55. 3 Merrill, “History of State Geological Surveys,” p. 494. 4 Samuel B. Buckley, A Preliminary Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas. 5 Texas, House Journal, 11th Leg. (September 14, 1866), p. 297. 6 Gideon Lincecum Papers, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas.

38

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

vey, for it reasserted the highly exaggerated accounts of Texas’ min­ eral wealth. Shortly after Buckley’s report was presented to the leg­ islature in September 1866, Ashbel Smith introduced a House Joint Resolution recommending the appointment of a state geologist.7 The probusiness press quickly added its support. Willard Rich­ ardson, editor of the Galveston Tri-Weekly News, was one of the foremost advocates of the need for Texas to achieve economic selfsufficiency, and on October 5, he published a timely prosurvey edi­ torial.8 Richardson commented that he had heard many legislators complain that Texas was too much impoverished by the War to re­ vive the office of state geologist. He felt that this was all the more reason to vote appropriations for a state survey. North Carolina had undergone widespread devastation during the War and yet had the intelligence to see the necessity of resuming her survey. An article in a Raleigh newspaper had asserted that the North Carolina survey reports had prompted many geological inquiries from Northern and even foreign capitalists in search of further information on prospec­ tive factory sites and mineral deposits. Editor Richardson naively added that Texas had more mineral wealth than any other state in the Union except California. The cru­ sading editor concluded his article by advocating a tax for the sup­ port of a state survey. “If we claim to be capable of self-government [i.e., home rule] let us show that we have the wisdom to enter upon the development of our vast resources. For this purpose a moderate internal improvement tax may be . . . unavoidable, in order to meet the indispensable appropriations. Unfortunately we have always had too many ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish’ legislators for the good of Texas.” On October 19, in another prosurvey editorial, Richardson ob­ served that the annual iron production of New York was greater in value than the entire Texas cotton crop for 1860. He felt that Texas had even better resources for the production of iron than New York.9 Unfortunately, the editor based his comparison on the superficial 7 House Journal, 11th Leg. (September 17, 1866), p. 315. 8 Galveston Tri-Weekly News, October 5, 1866, p. 2, col. 2. For a discussion of Editor Richardson’s economic and political views see Sam H. Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forbears. 9 Galveston Tri-Weekly News, October 19, 1866, p. 4, cols. 2-3.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

39

and exaggerated evaluations of the insignificant iron ore deposits in Llano County, which Buckley had included in his report. Thus, support for a Texas state geological survey was varied. State leaders visualized a survey that would officially designate the rich­ est mineral-bearing state lands. Restless farmers desired information as to where the best lands lay, how they could be most profitably cultivated, and how the existing water resources could be supple­ mented. Land speculators welcomed the official state propaganda on natural resources which a survey would produce. The informa­ tion would help them entice settlers and railroad companies to develop their lands. Finally, Texan advocates of the “New South,” who felt that the former Confederate states must develop their re­ sources and industry in order to become economically self-sufficient, argued that a state survey would help attract the necessary capital for industrial development. All these groups were imbued with an unfounded but unwavering faith in the richness of the state’s re­ sources as well as in the inexhaustible supply of state lands. The demand for reestablishing the survey was so great that the House passed Ashbel Smith’s resolution by a fifty-two to twelve vote.10 The Senate quickly followed suit, and Governor Throckmor­ ton, who as a Whig had helped push through the act establishing the original survey, heartily approved the resolution. The temper of the times, and its expectant capitalism, is further evidenced by the legislature’s passage of acts incorporating some twenty railroad and fourteen mining companies. Samuel B. Buckley’s report had not only increased interest in resurrecting the state survey; it had also boosted his chances for assuming the survey’s leadership. It was not surprising when Throck­ morton appointed him to the newly created post with the assertion that Buckley “had many recommendations from the gentlemen of eminent scientific attainments.”11 Buckley called upon his friend Lincecum to assist him. In the spring of 1867 the pair commenced a field reconnaissance in the Upper Coastal Plain along the Brazos River. After Buckley returned 10House Journal, 11th Leg. (October 30, 1866), p. 759. 11 James W. Throckmorton, Final Report of the Administration of Governor Throckmorton When He Was Removed from Office with a Statement of Indian Depredations from 1865 to 1867, and His Address to the People of the State, pp. 33-34.

40

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

to Austin, Lincecum continued on to the Central Mineral Region, until Indians turned him back west of Fredericksburg late in May.12 Before the reports of these brief, superficial explorations reached the state printer, the federal authorities had removed Governor Throckmorton from office on August 8, 1867.13 Embittered by the turn of political events, the staunch Southerner Lincecum wrote Buckley that after the removal of Throckmorton, "without any just cause, [Provisional Governor A. J.] Hamilton supplanted you by putting in your place a stiff, bigoted old deadhead, an enemy to liberty and to mankind generally.” Lincecum did not identify this man, but in all probability it was C. C. (“old rotten-hearted”) Stremme, a draftsman for the Texas General Land Office at the time.14 This office assumed some of the duties performed by the defunct geological survey. Another former member of the Shumard Survey, Anton R. Roessler, also investigated the geology of Texas in the years following the Civil War. Roessler, who had remained loyal to State Geologist Benjamin F. Shumard, probably acquired many of the Shumard Survey's notes and maps during the War while he was draftsman for the Confederates in Austin. For a time after the war, Roessler was a geologist for the United States General Land Office. In that capacity he returned to Texas and explored the copper deposits of North Central Texas. In the 1869 Land Office report, he declared that the copper ores in Archer County were potentially “more profit­ able than the native copper found on Lake Superior.”15 Fortunately, 12 Samuel B. Buckley, First Annual Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas, p. 12. 13 According to Lincecum, Buckley's account of their field observations ap­ peared in the Texas Almanac for 1868. This article was a disappointing threepage description of various mineral localities. It is interesting to note other previous authors of geological sketches in the Almanac: 1860, Francis Moore, Jr.; 1861, Benjamin F. Shumard; 1867, 1868, 1869, Samuel B. Buckley. 14 Lois W. Burkhalter, Gideon Lincecum, 1793-1874: A Biography, pp. 194195. George Stolley once reported that C. C. Stremme was compiling a geologic map of Texas (Jacob de Cordova, The Texas Immigrant and Travelers Guide Book, p. 55). 15 Anton R. Roessler, Report of the General Land Office to the Secretary of State for the Year 1869, p. 50. Also see Roessler, “On the Geology of Texas," The Quarterly Journal of the Geographical Society of London, XXV, pt. 2 (1869), 5-6.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

41

his *academic” work proved more astute than this economic evalua­ tion. In the summer of 1871, Roessler again investigated the resources of northern Texas but this time as an employee of the Texas Land and Copper Company. It was probably in this capacity that Roessler compiled geological maps of sixteen counties, eleven of which lay in the Trans-Balcones region. Roessler no doubt utilized Shumard’s materials in compiling his maps, which represent some of the earliest examples of extensive small-scale geological mapping in Texas.16 However, some of the material must have been original work by Roessler. Furthermore, this Austrian's work and the publicity he received must have made him one of the most prominent of the postwar geologists in Texas. The reinstatement of the state survey and the launching of Anton Roessler s investigations indicated the general spirit of enterprise which dominated Texans until the early eighteen-eighties. Compara­ tive statistics vividly illustrate the great economic “leap forward” in the postwar decade. From 1860 to 1870, the state’s population increased only 35 per cent; but in the next decade the increase was from 818,579 to 1,591,749, or 94 per cent. During the eighteenseventies the percentage increase in improved acreage was 326, and the value of farm lands increased 254 per cent to $170,468,886.17 One of the features that most vividly revealed the prevailing atti­ tude in favor of state aid to private economic development in this period was the liberal state land policy. Land grants of over 32,000,000 acres ( one-fifth of the total area of the state) promoted an increase in railway mileage from 711 in 1870 to 3,244 in 1880, and 6,009 in 1882, when the land-grant policy was terminated.18 In these years the state also granted over 3,000,000 acres to Texas vet­ erans; it exchanged 3,050,000 acres for the construction of the state 16 For a thorough discussion of these maps see Keith Young, “The Roessler Maps,” Texas Journal of Science, XVII (March 1965), 28-45. Roessler dis­ cussed this consulting geological work in Geological Report of the Property of the Texas Land and Copper Association. 17 These figures are taken from E. T. Miller, “A Financial History of Texas,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 37 (July 1, 1916). ^W alter Prescott Webb and H. Bailey Carroll, eds., The Handbook of Texas, II, 21-22.

42

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Capitol; and it sold over 1,500,000 acres at $.50 per acre to settle the public debt.19 The end result was that tremendous quantities of land were put into circulation in the two postwar decades. Much of the land was bought by land speculation companies. The promotional efforts of these companies combined with the harsh economic conditions in most of the old South to accelerate immigration into the state, es­ pecially following the panic of 1873. Furthermore, the prevalent belief in the richness of Texas’ resources, both agricultural and min­ eral, also helped stimulate immigration; as the population increased so did the state's overall wealth.20 Republican Governor E. J. Davis, a firm believer in the need to develop the vast mineral and agricultural potential of Texas, helped usher in these years of rapid growth in 1870. He set the temper of the times by calling for state assistance to economic development in the form of a geological survey in his message to the legislature on April 28, 1870. He indicated that such a survey might be directed toward classifying public lands by stating that it should be under the control of the General Land Office, “where it can be systematized in a better and cheaper way in connection with the surveys of pub­ lic lands.”21 On May 4, 1870, the Republican Austin Daily State Journal com­ mented on the need for a common center for the deposition of geological specimens and for the interchange and recording of geological information. The Journal encouraged the legislature to act on Davis' survey recommendation22 On the same day, G. T. Ruby, Republican senator from Galveston, introduced a bill pro­ viding for a geological and mineralogical survey of the state.23 Three 10 Ibid., p. 21. 20 The Texas Grange supported state aid to economic development as in­ dicated in a quote by W. W. Lang, master of the Texas State Grange, in which he endorsed state aid to the Texas and Pacific Railroad. He felt that the rail­ road would provide protection against the Indians and help meet the needs for commercial facilities and avenues of trade in the “poverty-stricken South” ( The Press and the People on the Importance of a Southern Line of Railway to the Pacific and in Favor of Government Aid to the Texas and Pacific Railway, pp. 10- 11 ).

21 House Journal, 12th Leg., Prov. Sess. (April 28, 1870), p. 9. 22 Austin Daily State Journal, May 4, 1870, p. 1, col. 2. 23Texas, Senate Journal, 12th Leg., 0Prov. Sess. (May 4, 1870), p. 58.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

43

days later, Democratic Senator M. H. Bowers of Austin introduced a similar bill, which finally became law on August 13.24 The new survey law closely resembled the original one.25 It called for a complete mineralogical survey and “an analysis of soils and subsoils, with a classification of the same, stating their adaptation to particular crops.” The law set the state geologist’s salary at $3,000 and that of his assistants at $1,800, with an annual limit of $20,000 on salaries and expenses. All survey members were required to take an oath that they would not purchase any lands or mining interests in the state for the purpose of speculation. Like the original survey this was to be an ad hoc organization, although no limit was set on its duration. In his message to the same Republican-dominated legislature in January 1871, Governor Davis remarked that the law was unob­ jectionable, “but no appropriation of money was made to carry the act into effect.”26 The legislators rectified this situation by including a figure of $10,000 for salaries and expenses in the general appropri­ ation act of May 1871.27 At this point Davis procrastinated and failed to name a state geologist. Finally, the “redeemed” Democratic legis­ lature passed a joint resolution in March 1873, asking the Governor to explain his delay.28 This provoked him to action, and on March 26, 1873, he received the unanimous consent of the Senate to the appointment of John Glenn as state geologist. Glenn was a civil engineer who had been the acting Republican mayor of Austin in 1871 and 1872.29 Glenn and his assistant, Charles Hall, the son of the venerable 2±Ihid. (May 7, 1870), p. 73, and (August 13, 1870), p. 672. An original copy of this Senate bill is in Legislative Papers, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas. 25 Appendix C. Critics of the Davis administration declared that the survey act was just another example of the powers that the Governor had usurped ( see Charles B. Pearre, A Review of the Laws of the Twelfth Legislature of the State of Texas Enacted in the Years 1870 and 1871 and the Oppressions of Governor E. J. Davis* Administration, pp. 69-70). 26Senate Journal, 12th Leg. (January 10, 1871), p. 35. 27 Texas General Laws, 12th Leg., Chap. 102, p. 103. 28House Journal, 13th Leg. (March 13, 1873), p. 363. 29 Governor E. J. Davis to the Senate, March 26, 1873, Governors Corre­ spondence, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas. See also Austin Daãy Democratic Statesman, March 30, 1873, p. 2, col. 1.

44

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

James Hall, explored the rocks of the Central Mineral Region from November to January 1874.30 In January Richard Coke succeeded Davis as Governor and wrote James Hall that Glenn was incapable of filling the position and would not be reappointed.31 Glenn was aware of Cokes opinion and resigned in March 1874 because of the “disorders of the time and the want of proper appreciation of the importance of geological work on the part of the public.”32 At this point, the intrepid Samuel B. Buckley reentered public service. During 1871 and 1872 he had served as agricultural and scientific editor of the State Gazette, known as a “Bourbon-Democrat” organ during the early days of Reconstruction.33 Either because his politics were akin to those of the Governor, or because he had simply been associated with the pre-Reconstruction survey, the Governor appointed Buckley to replace Glenn. It has also been reported that Buckley got the job because he agreed to give Coke’s close friend, Richard Burleson, professor of natural sciences at Waco University, a position with the survey.34 Scientific ability had little bearing on the appointment, and, as in the case of Houston’s removal of Shu­ mard, the result was incompetent leadership and work of an ama­ teurish quality. Perhaps the most competent student of Texas geology at the time was Anton R. Roessler. He had written the geological reports for the 1872 and 1873 Texas Almanac and had been very active in the Trans-Balcones country. He sought the job that went to Buckley 30 The main information on the Glenn Survey is in a letter from John Glenn to Robert T. Hill, August 7, 1886, printed in Robert T. Hill, “The Present Con­ dition of the Knowledge of the Geology of Texas,” Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey 45, pp. 39-40. Theodore B. Comstock quoted portions of re­ ports by both Glenn and Charles Hall in 1889 and noted that these were in the files of the state survey at that time ( see “Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Central Mineral Region,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Annual Report of the Texas Geological and Mineralogical Survey [1890], pp. 245-247). This author has not located these reports. 31 Governor Richard Coke to James Hall, February 24, 1874, Governor's Correspondence. 32 Hill, “Knowledge of the Geology of Texas,” p. 40. 33 Webb and Carroll, eds., Handbook of Texas, II, 663. 34 Samuel W. Geiser, “John Wright Glenn ( 1836-1892), Early State Geologist of Texas,” Field and Laboratory, XIII (July 1945), 64-69.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

45

and might have won the post if he had not been of foreign birth.85 The fact that he lost to Buckley, whom he considered a charlatan, prompted Roessler to send a letter of protest to the Governor.36 His protest rekindled the dispute initiated by the removal of Ben­ jamin F. Shumard in 1860. Because Buckley had sided with Moore against State Geologist Shumard, the very man who gave him a job with the first survey, and because Shumard considered him profes­ sionally inept, he had written a letter to Governor Throckmorton on March 11, 1866, protesting Buckleys appointment and accusing him of plagiarizing the work of the Shumard Survey.37 Perhaps at the time, because Shumard had remained in Missouri following the War, sympathy was with Buckley, and the press exonerated him.38 Again in 1873 no one heeded Roessler’s charges. The press praised both Buckley’s appointment and his choice of Burleson and Charles Hall as assistants.39 Shortly after assuming his post, Buckley proceeded to undertake his task of making “known the mineral and agricultural resources of as large a portion of the State as possible, as a guide to immi­ gration and the construction of railroads; also to the location of different branches of the manufacturing industry.”40 Perhaps this statement, as well as his inclination to extol the richness of Texas’ resources, helps explain the politicians’ attraction to Buckley. He seemed to sense the expectant capitalism of the times and assured the legislature that he would concentrate his energies on practical 35 In a letter to Texas Attorney General William Alexander, federal geologist F. W. Johnson strongly recommended Roessler for the position of state geologist (letter, June 29, 1872, Governor's Correspondence). 36 Austin Democratic Statesman, March 7, 1875, p. 2, col. 4. 37 This letter is published in Anton R. Roessler, Reply to Charges Made by S. B. Buckley, State Geologist, in His Official Report of 1874 Against Dr. B. F. Shumard and A. R. Roessler, pp. 5-6. 38 Some time after Shumard s letter had been written, Gideon Lincecum wrote to Samuel B. Buckley: “I knew Shumard was a rascal long ago, and so did you, for you told me so. The Brazenfaced villain had the audacity to call on me last winter, to write for their paper and make collections for their academy [the St. Louis Academy of Sciences]. I didn't do it. And the poor devil tried to under­ mine you by private letters” ( Gideon Lincecum to Samuel B. Buckley, Septem­ ber 11, 1867, Lincecum Papers). 39 Austin Daily Democratic Statesman, March 19, 1874, p. 2, col. 3. 40 Galveston Daily News, March 29, 1874, p. 2, col. 3.

46

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

descriptions of mineral deposits and soils. The legislature responded by contributing an annual appropriation of $7,250 in May 1874 and a like amount the following March.41 The legislature obviously felt that these sums were adequate and must have imagined that a geological survey was merely an official series of prospecting excursions. In view of the immense amount of territory Buckley and his assistants traversed in North and Cen­ tral Texas and the southern Trans-Balcones region between 1874 and 1875, Buckley seemed to concur in their appraisal.42 A famous Texas geologist later commented that in “covering such a scope of country the field work consisted of little more than a jaunt in an ambulance, rarely deviating from the main road” to gather fossil and mineral curiosities.43 The Buckley Survey produced two annual reports, one in 1874 and the second two years later. One-third of the first report con­ centrated on agriculture, and a similar portion consisted of super­ ficial discussions of mineral deposits. The observations included in the second report illustrated the same practical approach. A signifi­ cant feature of the first report was a rebuttal of the charges made by Shumard and Roessler, which included countercharges against Roessler. Coke chastened Buckley for including such highly personal mat­ 41 General Laws, 14th Leg., Chap. 171, p. 227. 42 Samuel B. Buckley ( First Annual Report [1874] and Second Annual Re­ port of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas [1876] ) summarizes the results of the field activities of the Buckley Survey. Burleson's report, which accompanied the First Annual Report for 1874, was little more than a diary, but it did convey some of the hardships of field work in those times. Prior to work­ ing west of Weatherford, Parker County, Burleson commented that the firearms he had sent for had not arrived and that they “were a necessity . . . as the Indians were threatening on the frontier.” His party finally received ten Win­ chester carbines and felt that "with caution [they] could go anywhere on the frontier” ( “Report of Assistant State Geologist,” in Buckley, First Annual Re­ port, pp. 130-131). The Professor also commented perceptively on the oil wells and springs in the vicinity of Melrose, Nacogdoches County, the site of the first extensive oil discovery in Texas, the Corsicana field of 1896: “No doubt there is an inexhaustible foundation of oil in this sector . . . [a potential] source of vast revenue to the State” (ibid., p. 125). 43 Hill, “Knowledge of the Geology of Texas,” p. 40.

Expectant Capitalism in Frontier Texas

47

ters in an official report and ordered him not to do so again.44 Roessler retaliated against Buckley in February 1875 with a pri­ vately printed pamphlet. The bitterness of this dispute is evident in the Austrian’s acid tone: In making this protest against the filing of S. B. Buckley's report in the Archives of the State of Texas, I charge him with being an ignoramus, foisted upon the people of a great commonwealth, without possessing any of the qualifications necessary to the administration of the office of State Geologist; a man of no reputation as a scientist and an individual lacking in truth, honesty, and all the qualities that belong to a pure manhood. In his hideous deformity I hold him up to the gaze of the people of Texas.45

The Austin Daily Statesman nevertheless chose to back Buckley, perhaps to save Coke from embarrassment, and printed an editorial declaring that “the people know what confidence can be placed in the present geological survey.”46 Coke himself later seemed to agree that Buckley was incapable of handling the position and that the legislature had underestimated the magnitude of a proper geological survey. In January 1875 the Governor had reported that the survey was making satisfactory progress, and he asked the legislature for continued appropriations.47 However, after the completion of survey work in 1875, Coke’s tone became more pessimistic due to the lack of significant results: The utility of the office of State Geologist, until we are in condition to make explorations of the State on a much more extensive scale than is now undertaken, is extremely questionable. The territorial extent of the State is so great, and the amount that we are able to expend is so small that I believe that it is a better policy to discontinue operations in this branch of the service until we shall be able to make them more effective . . . I therefore recommend that no further appropriations be made for the support of this office.48 44 Governor Richard Coke to A. C. Gray, December 29, 1874, Letterpress, Governors Correspondence. 45 Roessler, Reply to Charges, p. 12. 46 Austin Daily Statesman, March 7, 1875, p. 2, col. 3. 47 Senate Journal, 14th Leg. (January 12, 1875), p. 89. 48 House Journal, 15th Leg. (April 19, 1876), p. 53. Buckley appeared to be more interested in frugality than in conducting a proper survey. He saved $1,000

48

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Texas terminated its second geological survey after a three-year duration during which spoilsmanship and professional disputes combined to stifle the survey's effectiveness. Buckley, an inept geol­ ogist, had produced little of scientific value, and his superficial mineral investigations added nothing new. However, the survey reports had praised the agricultural and mineral potential of the state lands and thereby provided official scientific endorsement to the nineteenth-century myth that Texas had rich deposits of copper, coal, lignite, and iron and that the Trans-Balcones public lands were a farmers paradise. The drought of 1856 had been forgotten. These reports, the depressed agricultural conditions in other former Confederate states, and, most important, the presence of available lands all combined to increase immigration into Texas. These factors also stimulated railroad construction. Throughout the economic boom years of the eighteen-seventies, the state government had never hesitated to extend support, whether in the form of land grants or of a geological survey, to the private sector of the economy. By the turn of the decade, as the early farmers’ protest movements emerged, the public and the political leaders of Texas began to view state land subsidies with some suspicion. The Constitution of 1876 had set aside vast amounts of acreage for the benefit of the public schools of the state, but by 1880 it was evident that grants of land had exceeded the available supply. Many felt, therefore, that pre­ cautions must be taken to protect the school lands against exploita­ tion. The creation of the third state survey in 1888 was in part an attempt to evaluate these public lands and to help the school funds realize their full potential through sales or mineral prospecting. of his $7,250 appropriation during the 1874-1875 fiscal year, and $2,000 the following fiscal year ( Hill, “Knowledge of the Geology of Texas,” p. 41 ).

FO U R

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists Discover the “Individualities” of Texas Geology

(jeolo g ical exploration of Texas during the first thirty-five years of statehood was based on a practical primary objective—encour­ agement of economic development. National and state governments launched surveys to discover geological information that would facilitate transportation and general commercial growth in the undeveloped Trans-Balcones region of Texas. However, the geol­ ogists who led these expeditions did not come to frontier Texas solely because of a desire to perform a public duty. They braved the immense hardships of the hostile Trans-Balcones environment because they yearned to lead the vanguard of their profession on the scientific frontier ( a frontier that coincided with the farmers’ frontier along the ninety-eighth meridian). These scientists made the first attempts to reconstruct the geological history of Texas. They were reconnaissance geologists, interested primarily in de­ fining and delimiting geological provinces—broad structural fea­ tures characterized by distinctive geological conditions, in which the rocks share a fairly common geological history. Their grand efforts were the necessary steppingstones between the work of their pred­ ecessors—the descriptive geographical explorers, who recorded litho-

50

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

logic itineraries—and their successors—the analytical stratigraphie geologists, who attempted to discover the details and variations in geological history. Reconnaissance geologists work on the premise that geological provinces control the formation of geographical provinces, and they seek to correlate the two. Fortunately this premise is generally valid in Texas. However, in their efforts to simplify regional geological patterns as much as possible, geologists often overlooked distinctive features of Texas geology and simply extended geological patterns, described in adjoining, more thoroughly investigated areas, into the state. Certainly three broad regional geological trends do extend into Texas: the Rocky Mountain structural complex extends into the Trans-Pecos, the typical regional geology of the Great Plains ex­ tends southward to the Balcones Escarpment, and the Gulf coastal depositional plain extends around the entire Gulf coast. However, within these regional features, distinctive depositional patterns de­ veloped which are peculiar to the Texas region. The historian can best portray geological exploration in Texas by tracing the evolution of the knowledge of these “individualities” of Texas geology. In addition, it should be noted that these pioneer Texas geologists concentrated their efforts in the region west of the Balcones Escarp­ ment. One main factor accounts for this. Until the late eighteenseventies, this region was undeveloped. Before the Civil War the United States government sponsored explorations here because this region offered the most immediate military and transportation prob­ lems. Also, the state concentrated its efforts here in this reconnais­ sance period because it wanted to extend settlement, and the bulk of the vacant state lands lay west of the Balcones Escarpment. Reconnaissance geologists in Texas during the pre-Civil War years were the first to report that extensive Permian and Lower Creta­ ceous beds were present in North America. The great areal extent and faunal wealth of the Cretaceous formations of the Edwards Plateau and the equivalent rocks to the north which comprise the Grand Prairie dominated the attention of almost all pioneer recon­ naissance geologists in Texas. A Cretaceous sea advancing over Texas from the south and southeast had deposited these strata. After making its maximum penetration during Upper Cretaceous time, this sea receded and largely withdrew by the close of the era. This withdrawal was associated with the initial uplift of the eastern

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

51

front of the Rocky Mountains which caused a gentle tilting of the entire Texas region east of the Pecos River toward the present Gulf of Mexico. However, the entire Cretaceous outcrop remained lowlying. At the beginning of Miocene time the Cretaceous rocks were elevated and subjected to vigorous erosion, when the depression of the coastal plain created a great Une of dislocations or faults that tore the Cretaceous beds. These faults occurred along a line of crustal weakness formed by the buried Paleozoic mountain range that arcs through Central Texas. Along this trend of parallel earth fractures, the hard and resistant plateau-forming Lower Cretaceous limestones today stand elevated over the soft, chalky Upper Cre­ taceous beds to the east which dropped along the fractures to com­ pensate for the tension caused by the Gulfward tilting of the coastal plain. Obviously, one of the keys to understanding the unique Creta­ ceous geology of Texas is the recognition that the Balcones Escarp­ ment is the topographic expression of a faulted hinge line. Because marine Lower Cretaceous beds had not been discovered in North America prior to their recognition in Texas, the understanding of Texas Cretaceous geological relations was further impeded. The discovery that the limestones of the plateaus of the Texas region contained an extensive Lower Cretaceous marine fauna and the discernment that a trend of normal faulting set these limestones off from the coastal plain were significant and original contributions to the knowledge of North American geology. Geologists accompanying a Spanish exploration of the Texas region in the eighteen-twenties had first recorded the presence of Cretaceous rocks in the area. They identified the limestones in the hills west of San Antonio as the “Quader Sandstein of Werner.”1 However, Ferdinand Roemer was the first modem geologist to in­ vestigate these strata. In the New Braunfels locality he divided them into two groups: “The Cretaceous of the highlands”—indurated limestones with flint nodules and marl lenses characteristic of the Edwards Plateau west of New Braunfels; and “the Cretaceous at the foot of the Highlands”—chalky limestones and clays rimming the base of the plateaus. These units roughly correspond to the 1 Luis Berlandier and Rafael Chovel, Diario de viaje de la comisiôn de limites que puso el Gohiemo de la República, bap la dirección del Exmo. Sr., General de División D. Manuel de Mier y Terán, p. 5.

52

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Lower and Upper Cretaceous divisions respectively. However, in his first monograph on Texas geology written in 1852, he erroneously equated the entire Texas section with the Upper Chalk or Upper Cre­ taceous of Europe.2 His work was so prestigious that it continued to mislead subsequent workers for many years. Roemer did, however, first perceive that the topographic and litho­ logie break formed by the scarp at New Braunfels was the result of faulting. But on the other hand, the fossils of the highland rocks indicate a lower rather than a higher geological horizon and it might possibly indicate that by means of a fault not visible on the surface, the rocks near New Braun­ fels have been backed into a higher level. Such a fault would also explain the sudden steep elevation of the highlands and the striking change in the disposition of the rocks, and even the remarkable outrush of the Comal Springs at the foot of the tableland could be accounted for in this manner.3

He apparently was aware that the plateau limestones were stratigraphically lower (or older) than the topographically lower beds at the foot of the highlands. Most of his successors overlooked this perceptive observation, and even he failed to recognize that the fault zone extended northward and southward from New Braunfels. The next trained geologist to explore the Cretaceous strata was George G. Shumard.4 After studying the rocks at Fort Washita, Indian Territory, those southwest of the Cross Timbers in North 2 Ferdinand Roemer, Die Kreidebildungen von Texas und ihre organischen Einschlüsse, von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem die Beschreibung von VertSteinerungen aus paläozoischen und tertiären Schichten enthaltenden Anhänge und mit 11 von C. Hohe nach der Natur auf Stein gezeichneten Tafeln. 3 Ibid., p. 19. In 1934 E. H. Sellards and C. L. Baker reported that “Roemer, shortly before his death, stoutly protested any such faulting” in a letter to Robert T. Hill (see Sellards and Baker, “Structural and Economic Geology,” II: “The Geology of Texas,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 3401 [Jan­ uary 1, 1934], p. 51). This statement seems to contradict the published evidence, although Roemer may have been challenging the extensiveness of the faulting. * In 1850 Lieutenant William H. C. Whiting did roughly delineate the areal extent of the Cretaceous plateaus, which he traced from the Rio Grande to the “rough mountains of the Colorado” beyond the Pedemales River (the Central Mineral Region), and thence to the northern limit of the Cretaceous plateau at the divide of the Trinity and Brazos Rivers ( “Report of Reconnaissances of the Western Frontier of Texas,” in Reports of the Secretary of War, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 64 [1850], pp. 237-238).

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

53

Texas, and the strata at the southern end of the Llano Estacado, he concluded on the basis of Roemers paleontological work that all these Cretaceous beds were the equivalents of the Upper Cretaceous of Europe.5 European-trained Jules Marcou was the first geologist to report the presence of Lower Cretaceous marine limestones in Texas. Upon some hills bordering an upper tributary of the Washita River in In­ dian Territory he first discovered highly weathered limestones, which he identified as Neocomian or Lower Cretaceous. He based this age determination primarily on the basis of the fossil oyster Gryphaea pitched. Marcou wrote of his discovery: “As it is the first time the Neocomian has been recorded in North American . . . I will add that these strata are much more developed at Ft. Washita where Dr. G. G. Shumard has made a large collection of fossils.”6 The French geologist recognized that the Lower Cretaceous of the western portions of the Indian Territory had “nearly been de­ stroyed and carried away by denudations, for it is found only on the 5 George Getz Shumard, “Remarks upon the General Geology of the Country Passed over by the Exploring Expedition to the Sources of the Red River,” in Randolph B. Marcy, Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana, in the Year 1852, with Reports on the Natural History of the Country, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 54 (1853). Shumard also considered the Balcones Escarp­ ment as strictly an erosional feature. In 1854 the surgeon general's department published a “Statistical Report on Sickness and Mortality in the Army of the United States,” which had been compiled during the years 1839-1855. This compendium included a study made in 1852 by Assistant Surgeon Ebenezer Swift of Camp Joseph E. Johnston on the North Concho River. Swift traced the southern boundary of the Llano Estacado and described several typical Cretaceous outcrops within a sixty-mile radius of his camp. In 1853 Assistant Surgeon S. Wylie Crawford reported on the geology of the region surrounding Fort McKavett on the headwaters of the San Saba River. He presented a composite section of the plateau limestones he studied (see “Medical Topography and Diseases of Fort McKavett,” and “Medical Topogra­ phy and Diseases of Camp J. E. Johnston,” in Statistical Report on Sickness and Mortality in the Army of the United States Compiled from Records of the Sur­ geon General’s Office Embracing a Period of 16 Years from January, 1839— January, 1855, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 96 [1856], pp. 386-393, 378-386). 6 Jules Marcou, “Résumé and Field Notes,” in Pacific Railroad Surveys, 33d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1856), III, pt. 4, p. 167.

54

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

summits of hills, where it appears like the ruins of an ancient building.”7 He further perceptively observed that these remnants had once been part of an extensive Lower Cretaceous highland, which stretched from the Red River in Grayson and Cooke counties southward "to form the first plateaux of Texas, especially those west of New Braunfels and Fredericksburg [the Edwards Plateau].)8 On the basis of fossils collected by Captain Pope at Big Spring on the headwaters of the Colorado, Marcou identified the beds com­ prising the southern end of the Llano Estacado as Lower Cretaceous. He then asserted that these latter beds were in “continuous relation with those of the bluffs and in the environs of Austin, New Braun­ fels, Fredericksburg, and the Rios Guadalupe and Pedemales.”9 He had correctly outlined the general extent of the Lower Cretaceous outcrop in Texas. By 1856, therefore, the keys to understanding the unique features of Texas Cretaceous geology were already in the literature. Yet, it would be thirty years before geologists recognized and accepted the features to which Roemer and Marcou first alluded. The neglect of Roemers observation of faulting at New Braunfels could be at­ tributed either to translation difficulties or to the fact that Roemer and his immediate successors considered the faulting an isolated feature. Only Marcou had recognized what Roemer had discovered—that the lower or hanging wall of the fault was younger than the resistant scarp-forming beds. Unfortunately, a dispute triggered by profes­ sional jealousies discredited this observation by Marcou as well as his proper identification of the Lower Cretaceous age of the plateau limestones of the Texas region. The intrepid Marcou had initiated the dispute by publishing a geological map of North America in 1853 and a revised edition covering the United States in 1855, al­ though his only field knowledge of the Southwest was acquired on his transcontinental reconnaissance on the Whipple Pacific Railroad 7 Ibid., p. 167. 8 Ibid. 9 Jules Marcou, Geological Notes of a Survey of Country Comprised between Preston, Red River, and El Paso, Rio Grande del Norte, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., House Exec. Doc. 129 (1855), XVII, pt. 4, p. 127.

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

55

Survey.10 Furthermore, his maps of the regions he had never visited directly contradicted the field observations of others. The new edition of his map appeared just when the noted Ameri­ can paleontologist, James Hall, and the field geologist, William Blake, were preparing geologic maps of the West to accompany their respective Boundary Survey and Pacific Railroad Survey reports. Their final maps were as pretentious as Marcou’s because Hall had never visited the West and, therefore, based all his conclusions on rock and fossil specimens sent to his Albany laboratory. Blake had personally explored only the geology along a strip through the Southwest and on the Pacific Coast. Nevertheless, when Marcou won the race and published the first map to portray the geology of the American West, Hall and Blake did everything in their power to discredit his work.11 To gain support among American geologists, they charged that the Frenchman s map showed a clear disdain for the field work of Americans and was an attempt to countermine their efforts. The two Americans directed their charges against Marcou’s de­ scription of the entire Great Plains outcrop as Triassic with Jurassic tablelands. On the basis of the field observations that he made on Whipple’s Survey up the valley of the Canadian River, Marcou had concluded that the gypsum-bearing beds east of the Llano Estacado were Triassic because they closely resembled European Triassic strata in lithology. Then, on the basis of the fossils that he collected at Tucumcari Mesa on the western flank of the Llano Estacado in New Mexico Territory, the haughty Frenchman dated the beds of that tableland as Jurassic.12 He subsequently extended this plainstableland geological relationship to the entire Great Plains. Actually, the basal beds of the northwestern Llano are Lower 10 Jules Marcou, A Geological Map of the United States and the British Provinces of North America; with an Explanatory Text, Geological Sections, and Plates of the Fossils Which Characterize the Formations. 11 In comparing the geological maps that Hall, Blake, and Marcou constructed, it is evident that, with the exception of the Llano Estacado, Marcou’s map was the most accurate. Hall grossly underestimated the extent of the Carboniferous outcrop in the eastern Osage Plains and the extensiveness of the Central Mineral Region. However, Blake's strip map presented the geology of the Llano most accurately. 12 Marcou, “Résumé and Field Notes” (1856), p. 168.

56

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Cretaceous, and a thick mantle of Tertiary deposits overlies them. In the Canadian valley to the east of the Llano the gypsum-bearing beds are both Permian and Triassic. However, Marcou was more nearly correct in his conclusions than were Hall and Blake. After studying the fossils that Marcou and George G. Shumard had col­ lected in the Llano Estacado region and after comparing them with the Cretaceous fossil sequence that Ferdinand V. Hayden and Fielding B. Meek had developed for the Nebraska region, both Hall and Blake concluded that the beds of the Llano were Upper Cre­ taceous and that the lowlands on the east were Lower Cretaceous.13 It is noteworthy that Hall was aware that the Cretaceous faunas of the Llano Estacado limestones represented “a different epoch in the Cretaceous period from those beds further east [in Alabama] and in the northwest [in Nebraska].”14 However, he still erroneously attempted to correlate the Texas section with what he considered to be the classic Cretaceous section of the West. The struggle over map priority developed into a paleontological debate, which geologists did not resolve until the eighteen-nineties. Blake and Hall, playing skillfully on a vague national scientific pride, discredited Marcou and his work. Marcous contentiousness facilitated their task. Unfortunately, their attack cast doubt on Marcou’s monumental announcement of the Lower Cretaceous age of the plateau limestones of the Grand Prairie and Edwards Pla­ teau. As a result, for the next several decades geologists who ex­ amined the Cretaceous strata of these Trans-Balcones plateaus handicapped themselves by working under the false premise that these strata were Upper Cretaceous. One of the unwitting victims of this situation was the first Texas 13 The Cenozoic deposits of the Llano Estacado overlay a complex geologic foundation. The terrestrial Permian deposits of the western Osage Plains once covered the whole area. In the southern part of the Llano lithologically similar Triassic strata overlapped these Permian beds. A Cretaceous sea then trans­ gressed over the whole area and deposited a limestone cover. Subsequent ero­ sion removed this Cretaceous cover and exposed Permian beds in the northern part of the present Llano, Triassic beds in the central portion, and Lower Cretaceous limestones on the southern end. The streams flowing eastward from New Mexico deposited the Cenozoic strata upon these outcrops. 14 James Hall, “Geology and Paleontology of the Boundary,” in William H. Emory, Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. (1857), p. 127.

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

57

state geologist, Benjamin F. Shumard. His fellow scientists evi­ denced their respect for his abilities as a paleontologist by electing him to the presidency of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis in 1857-1858. Yet he failed to recognize the presence of an extensive Lower Cretaceous marine fauna in the Trans-Balcones plateau lime­ stones. In part this error could be attributed to his inadequacies as a stratigrapher. He thought that the true Upper Cretaceous of the lowlands at the foot of the Balcones Escarpment extended beneath the plateau limestones. He did not discern that faulting had lowered the Upper Cretaceous beds into a reversed stratigraphie position in Central Texas. Furthermore, his assistants, who investigated the Cretaceous rocks north of the Brazos River, where the faulting grades into simple monoclinal folding, failed to observe that the plateau limestones dipped under the chalky Upper Cretaceous lime­ stones of the inner Gulf Coastal Plain. In addition to these stratigraphie oversights, Shumard’s failure to identify the Lower Cretaceous marine fauna could be attributed to his prior training and to his predilection for the identifications of his fellow paleontologist, Ferdinand Roemer. Shumard first studied Cretaceous faunas in the Missouri drainage basin of Iowa and Ne­ braska, where Hayden and Meek had described the “classic” Great Plains Cretaceous section in which the Lower Cretaceous was not represented. His typical Humboldtean quest for order and simplicity influenced him to equate the Texas Cretaceous section with the Nebraska section as Hall had done several years before. However, Shumard was becoming aware of some discrepancies in Texas Cretaceous stratigraphy. Because of the stratigraphie over­ sights described above, Shumard considered the Comanche Peak and Edwards limestones to be uppermost Cretaceous since they capped the hills of the plateaus and thus climaxed what he felt was a normal stratigraphie section of horizontal Cretaceous beds.15 Actually they had been left in this false stratigraphie position by faulting. Shumard did not recognize this, but he did find that he could not correlate his Comanche Peak fossils with any in the Upper Cretaceous Nebraska section. He commented: “We have collected more than fifty species of fossils from these beds and not a single 15 Robert T. Hill discusses Shumard’s stratigraphie work in some detail in “The Present Condition of the Knowledge of the Geology of Texas,” Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey 45.

58

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

one has been found identical with any of the numerous Nebraska forms that have been described by Messrs. Meek, Hayden, Hall, the writer, and others. Neither have we any paleontological evidence that the beds under notice are parallel with any of the members ot the New Jersey or Alabama series/"16 He apparently was unable to identify with certainty many of the species collected, for he only reported finding "chiefly Caprina, Cytherea and Ammonites of un­ determined species.” Furthermore, in articles based upon his Texas survey work and published in 1861 and 1863, Shumard identified uppermost Creta­ ceous fossils in Navarro County south of Dallas and lowermost Up­ per Cretaceous fossils in Lamar County on the Red River.17 Had he not died before incorporating these discoveries in his Cretaceous section, he would have discovered that a complete Upper Cretaceous section overlapped the limestones of the Grand Prairie uplands. In 1862 Marcou wrote a scathing criticism of Shumard’s Texas work in which he pointed out the errors in Shumard’s stratigraphie analysis.18 Yet because of his reputation and because of his correct correlations of the true Texas Upper Cretaceous of the lowlands with that of the other Gulf states, geologists generally accepted Shumard’s work until the eighteen-eighties. In the field of Permian stratigraphy, reconnaissance geologists working in Texas made one other monumental contribution to the knowledge of the geology of North America in this first period of investigation. In Texas the Permian rocks that outcrop in the west­ ern part of the Osage Plains and in some mountains of the TransPecos represent the most typical sections of continental and marine Permian deposits in North America. In early Permian time a sea entered West Texas from Mexico and 16 Benjamin F. Shumard, “Observations on the Cretaceous Strata of Texas," Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1859), 585. 17 Benjamin F. Shumard, “Descriptions of New Cretaceous Fossils from Tex­ as,” Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, VIII (1861), 188205; and "On the Discovery of Dicotyledonous Leaves in the Cretaceous of Texas, and the Existence of an Extensive Miocene Formation, Equivalent to the Bone Beds of the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska,” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, II ( 1863), 140-141. 18 Jules Marcou, “Notes on the Cretaceous and Carboniferous Rocks of Texas,” Proceedings of the Boston Society for Natural History, VIII ( 1862), 86-97.

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

59

divided into two branches separated by a structural uplift in eastern New Mexico. One arm extended northeastward into Oklahoma and Kansas, and the other arm spread out across New Mexico and Arizona. The sea made its maximum advance at this time and deposited marine sediments throughout its extent. Then the sea retreated gradually to the south and deposited terrestrial gypsum and red beds in its wake. It remained in Trans-Pecos Texas through­ out most of the Permian period and laid down the thick marine beds that outcrop in the Glass-Apache-Guadalupe mountains. The last remnant of the Permian inland sea lay under the present southern Llano Estacado in Texas and New Mexico, and in late Permian time it became landlocked and eventually dried up after depositing thick beds of gypsum and anhydrite. Ferdinand Roemer had first reported that Upper Paleozoic strata existed in Texas.19 He identified fossils taken from dark limestones bordering the granite hill country of Central Texas on the north as Carboniferous. Later, various Army officers commented on the pres­ ence of coal in the region of Fort Belknap further north on the Brazos River, and in 1852 George G. Shumard discovered Carbon­ iferous fossils in these coal-bearing beds.20 At that time he suggested a correlation with the productive Carboniferous “Coal Measures” in the central Mississippi Valley region. However, George G. Shumard, Marcou, and most geologists who ascended the Canadian River through the Osage Plains west of these Carboniferous outcrops or explored the headwaters of the Brazos and Colorado rivers in the same area failed to discover the marine or vertebrate Permian fossils that abound in the region. American geologists did not believe that Permian strata existed in their coun­ try until 1858 when G. G. Swallow reported that he had identified as Permian some fossils collected in southern Kansas 21 Prior to this time, reconnaissance geologists examining the western Osage Plains 19 Ferdinand Roemer, “Contributions to the Geology of Texas,” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., VI (November 1848), p. 27. 20 George Getz Shumard, “General Geology of the Red River,” p. 47. 21 G. G. Swallow and F. Hawn, “The Rocks of Kansas,” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1858), 173-197. Swallow first reported the Permian fossil discovery in a letter to the Academy dated February 22, 1858 (ibid., p. 111).

60

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

considered all marine fossils found there Carboniferous and deemed the continental red beds scattered through the same area interesting only because of their gypsum content.22 However, the discovery of Permian beds in Kansas was quickly followed by Benjamin F. Shumard s announcement at a meeting of the St. Louis Academy of Sciences in March 1858 that some fossils his brother had collected in the Guadalupe Mountains were identi­ cal with Permian forms found in England and Russia, whereas some were identical with the Kansas Permian species Swallow had identified.23 George G. Shumard made his collection while on Captain Pope’s Artesian Well Survey expedition on the southern border of the Llano Estacado. In an incomplete article, which he compiled to accompany Pope s final report, Shumard announced that some thirty miles north­ west of the mouth of Delaware Creek, a tributary of the Pecos River, the Cretaceous beds characteristic of the southern Llano “suddenly disappeared and strata with fossils of the upper coal measures came into view in low hills and ridges.”24 This discovery led him to explore the nearby Guadalupe Mountains, where he collected the fossils that his brother identified as Permian. The announcement of the Shumards’ discovery of marine Permian limestone overlying Carboniferous limestones in the Guadalupe Mountains area may have prompted Anton R. Roessler to expect the same stratigraphie sequence in the Osage Plains. Roessler, a former draftsman for the Shumard Survey, conducted investigations of copper ores in North Central Texas first for the United States 22 William Blake did allude to their Permian age, but he labeled these beds the “Gypsum Formation” (see “Report on the Geology of the Route near the Thirty-second Parallel Prepared From the Collection and Notes of Captain Pope,” in John Pope, “Report on the Exploration of a Route for the Pacific Rail­ road near the 32nd Parallel of Latitude, from the Red River to the Rio Grande,” in Pacific Railroad Surveys, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 [1855], II, pt. 4, pp. 25-26). 23 Benjamin F. Shumard, “Notice of New Fossils from the Permian Strata of New Mexico and Texas,” Transactions of the St. Louis Academy of Sciences, I (1858), 290-297. 24 George Getz Shumard, “Observations on the Geological Formations of the Country between the Rio Pecos and the Rio Grande in New Mexico near the Line of the 32nd Parallel,” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1858), 273-289.

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

61

General Land Office and, after 1869, for a private company.25 How much of this subsequent work was original and how much he ac­ quired from his connection with the state survey is unknown, but in a German scientific periodical in 1873 he first reported the presence of Permian fossils in the strata of the Osage Plains.26 He compared the fossils that he had collected in limestones capping the hills of Archer and Haskell counties in North Texas to English and Russian Permian forms, and he also reported that many marine invertebrate forms taken from limestones in Kiowa Peak in northeastern Stone­ wall County were identical with Kansas Permian forms. Thus, by the mid-eighteen-seventies, reconnaissance geologists had announced the presence of marine Permian strata in the Guada­ lupe Mountains and in the central Osage Plains. It would be over a decade before thorough stratigraphie studies of these deposits would be attempted. In the meantime, Jacob Boll, a Swiss-trained entomologist and naturalist, uncovered Permian vertebrate fossils in drainage cuts along the Little Wichita River, a Red River tributary. In 1869 Boll came to Texas to make natural history collections for the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. Local inhabitants alerted him to the presence of fossil bones in the arid central Osage Plains, and in 1876, after several years of explorations, he discovered amphibian fossils in Archer County.27 His discovery first indicated the existence of a Permian vertebrate fauna in North America. In 1877 Professor Edward D. Cope of Philadelphia, the preco­ cious student of the pioneer American vertebrate paleontologist Joseph Leidy, came to Texas. Cope, one of the leading vertebrate collectors of his day, was at the time the vertebrate paleontologist 25 Anton R. Roessler, Report of the General Land Office to the Secretary of State for the Year 1869, pp. 49-53; and Geological Report on the Property of Texas Land and Copper Association. Keith Young discusses the geological maps that Roessler compiled for the New York Land and Emigration Company in tfie eighteen-seventies (see “The Roessler Maps,” Texas Journal of Science, XVII [March 1965], 28-45). These were the first extensive small-scale geologic maps of Texas. 26 Anton R. Roessler, “Erforschung des Norwesttheiles von Texas im Jahre 1872. Nach den Aufzeichungen von Dr. O. Loew and A. R. Roessler,” Mitteil­ ungen aus Justus Perthis Geographischen Anstalt über wichtige neues Erfor­ schungen (Petermanns Mitteilungen), XIX, 453-467. A map of North Central Texas accompanied this text. 27 Samuel W. Geiser, Naturalists of the Frontier, p. 31.

62

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

for Ferdinand V. Haydens United States Geographical and Geolog­ ical Survey of the Territories. He had been collecting in the West since 1870 in this capacity.28 While conducting field work in Texas in 1877, Cope encountered Boll and hired him to collect vertebrate specimens in the northcentral Osage Plains. Cope described the fossil specimens that Boll had collected in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in April 1878.29 Although Cope did not correlate the fossils with any stratigraphie horizons in this paper, he presented the first professional descriptions of the Permian vertebrate fauna of Texas. In 1880, shortly before his death, Boll followed Cope’s publication with the first competent account of the terrestrial Permian beds, which he had explored along the courses of the Little and Big Wichita rivers: “I found not only many new plants and animals, consisting of petrified ferns, fishes, and reptiles, but discovered a new extinct vegetable and animal world. . . . According to these pétrifications, the whole region . . . belongs to the Transition period and especially to the Permian formation.”30 By 1880, therefore, reconnaissance geologists had discovered an extensive area of continental Permian deposits, which contained numerous specimens of the earliest land-dwelling vertebrates.31 Although the Permian rocks of the Trans-Pecos represented one of the major individualities of North American geology found in the Texas region, this complex geological province contained several other unique features. The Permian strata were only part of an extensive Paleozoic sequence in the Trans-Pecos. Throughout Pale­ ozoic time the Trans-Pecos was a basin receiving sediments stripped 28 Henry F. Osborn, Cope: Master Naturalist: The Life and Letters of Edward Drinker Cope with a Bibliography of His Writing Classified by Subject, pp. 198, 269. 29 Edward D. Cope, “Descriptions of Extinct Batrachia and Reptilia from the Permian Formations of Texas,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical So­ ciety, XVII (April 1878), 505-530. 30 Jacob Boll, “Texas in Its Geognostic and Agricultural Aspect,” American Naturalist, XIII (June 1879), 375-384. 31 In the eighteen-eighties, John B. Hatcher collected vertebrate fossils in the Permian red beds of North Central Texas for Othaniel Charles Marsh, but Cope dominated vertebrate collecting in these deposits until the late nineties (see Charles Schuchert and Clara Mae Levene, O. C. Marsh, Pioneer in Paleontology, pp. 209-210).

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

63

from land areas south and east of the Big Bend. Especially thick Lower Paleozoic deposits accumulated in a trough-like basin or geosyncline, which bordered this Mexican highland. Carboniferous and Permian seas spread over a broader area depositing thick sequences of strata. Late Paleozoic mountain folding and faulting contorted most of the rock layers. In early Mesozoic time the Trans-Pecos remained a positive area above sea level, except when a small Jurassic sea extended into the region. However, a Cretaceous sea overlapped the entire region and mantled it with a thick limestone cover, which late Cretaceous structural disturbances gently folded. In the Tertiary period, an extensive amount of igneous material intruded into the rocks of this region and spread over its surface. The faulting and folding that accompanied this igneous and volcanic activity produced the pres­ ent mountain and basin configuration of the Trans-Pecos. The route of the Texas and Pacific Railroad roughly divides the area into two structural provinces—a northern province, characterized by normal faulting and rift valleys, and a southern province, distinguished by enormous, highly contorted, thrust fault blocks. In addition to the discovery of Permian fossils, reconnaissance geologists reported the presence of fossils belonging to the Cam­ brian, Silurian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous periods in the TransPecos. The other significant feature of the Trans-Pecos was, however, not stratigraphie but structural. Early geologists had made only elemental observations of the complex structure of the area. Charles Christopher Parry of the Mexican Boundary Survey typically re­ ported that the mountains were “characterized by the profusion of various igneous products, together with the uplift of adjacent strati­ graphie deposits.”32 It remained for later, better-trained geologists to conduct a thorough structural reconnassiance of the Trans-Pecos and to make possible the discovery of the complex structural and stratigraphie history of the region. The only other Lower Paleozoic rocks in Texas lie in the Central Mineral Region. Like their Trans-Pecos equivalents these sediments had been transported from a positive area to the southeast, which 32 Charles Christopher Parry, “Geological Features of the Rio Grande Valley from El Paso to the Mouth of the Pecos River,” in William H. Emory, Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, 32nd Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 108 (1857), p. 15.

64

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

was bounded by a continuation of the trough or geosyncline that curves through the Big Bend. The unique feature of the geology of this region is the Pre-Cambrian core, which these Paleozoic strata surround. The geological history of this Central Mineral Region or Llano uplift is very complex. Extensive erosion at the end of Pre-Cambrian time beveled the anticlinal folds in the sedimentary rocks that had made the region a positive area. Subsequently, a Lower Paleozoic sea deposited beds over the planed surface. The whole region was slightly uplifted in late Paleozoic time and remained as a positive structural feature during the deposition of the Carboniferous beds. After a period of faulting further complicated the geological rela­ tions of the area, the sea receded and erosion predominated during the early part of the Mesozoic era. Then a Cretaceous sea trans­ gressed the region and deposited strata upon the truncated margins of formations ranging in age from Pre-Cambrian to late Paleozoic. Finally, after gentle doming in the Tertiary, erosion stripped the Cretaceous cover from the central part of the uplift and exposed the Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic rocks. This striking granite hill country in the basins of the San Saba and Llano rivers had impressed the early Spanish explorers as a region of great potential mineral wealth, and in the middle of the eighteenth century Spaniards are alleged to have successfully mined silver in the Paleozoic limestones. The mines seemed to have dis­ appeared with the Spanish, but William Kennedy related rumors of rich gold and silver veins in the area. He also first intimated that early Paleozoic rocks outcropped there.33 Ferdinand Roemer was the first geologist to investigate the Llano uplift. The Adelsverein’s curiosity about the legendary Spanish mines prompted Roemer to explore the area in 1846. Although he found no mineral wealth, he discovered granites in the valley of the San Saba River surrounded by “horizontal beds of limestone of a decided Paleozoic character with numerous trilobites, and a genus 33 “Still further to the west the appearance of transition slates, and the lime­ stone with trilobite enclosed, indicates the approach of the regions of mineral wealth and vegetable sterility” (William Kennedy, Texas: Its Geography, Nat­ ural History, and Topography, p. 6).

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

65

of spirifer similar to that found in the Trenton limestone of New York.”34 Over a decade later, Benjamin F. Shumard also searched in vain for mineral deposits in the igneous and metamorphic rocks of the area. However, Shumard correctly correlated some of the strata there with the Upper Cambrian Potsdam sandstone of New York.35 He dis­ cerned that the Potsdam equivalent was at the base of an extensive Lower Paleozoic sedimentary section in the Llano uplift area. In 1873 Texas State Geologist John Glenn made some broad generali­ zations about the area but failed to contribute any new information.36 This reconnaissance work was of a very elemental nature, and it remained for subsequent workers to unravel the geological history of the region and relate it to similar geological provinces in the Indian Territory and the Trans-Pecos. Prior to the work of the third state geological survey, which began in 1888, no significant studies of the Cenozoic strata of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain had been made. Indeed, R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., a member of this survey, is cited as the pioneer Tertiary geologist of Texas. The lack of attention toward this region can be explained in both economic and scientific terms. First, with the exception of the southern portion of the coastal plain, this region was fairly well developed economically. It was the undeveloped region west of the ninety-eighth meridian—the Trans-Balcones and South Texas—that attracted the attention of the federal government because the mili­ tary and transportation problems there were greatest during the first decade of statehood. The subsequent state surveys also focused their attentions on the west because their objective was to stimulate the development of that frontier region where most of the unde­ veloped state lands lay. 34 Roemer, “Contributions to the Geology of Texas,” p. 26. Lieutenant Wil­ liam H. C. Whiting did report finding considerable quantities of silver ore in this region ( “Reconnaissances of the Western Frontier of Texas,” p. 237). 35 Benjamin F. Shumard, “The Primordial Zone of Texas with Descriptions of New Fossils,” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., XXXII (September 1861), 213-222. 36 Portions of this report appear in Theodore B. Comstock, “Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Central Mineral Region,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Annual Report of the Geological and Mineràlogicàl Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1889, pp. 245-247.

66

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Reconnaissance geologists also had another reason for ignoring the strata of the coastal plain. They had been trained to recognize the bold lithologieal and structural features of the geology of the TransMississippi West and were not at all prepared to cope with the intricate stratigraphy of the unconsolidated, topographically monot­ onous, Cenozoic deposits of this region. The extensive vegetative cover, which was absent in the semiarid Trans-Balcones, concealed most of the outcrops and, with the rapid lithologieal variations common to the coastal plain, defied the use of superficial field meth­ ods. Ferdinand Roemer, the first modem geologist to explore in this region, expressed the typical feeling of disdain for these sediments which probably concealed his feeling of inadequacy. In describing his journey from Galveston to New Braunfels, he commented that the coastal plain was “devoid of any geological interest” because there was “no solid rock in place through the whole distance.” He added that the geology became interesting only after reaching the Cretaceous limestones at New Braunfels. The history of the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas during the Ceno­ zoic era is one of transgressions and regressions of the Gulf of Mexico. The sediments evidence a continuous struggle between the oscillating waters of the Gulf and heavily laden streams depositing their load onto the coastal margins. Formations were deposited in coastal environments similar to the present ones, and many divergent lithologies and faunas existed concurrently along the coast. How­ ever, the major transgressions of the Gulf in Cenozoic time followed by major withdrawals of marine waters developed a cyclical marineterrestrial depositional pattern, which enabled geologists to sub­ divide these beds. Periodic adjustments in the earth's crust caused the sinking of the coastal plain and created these rhythmical patterns of deposition. This downwarping of the crust has developed a trough with an axis parallel to the present coastline. Deposition and subsidence in this trough have been contemporaneous, and sea level has, therefore, remained much as it is today along the coast. The end result has been the deposition of formations that not only have rapid lateral lithologie variations, but also grade in wedge-like fashion from ter­ restrial and coastal sediments to marine sediments as they extend down into the subsurface. This Gulf coastal trough or geosyncline created several subsidiary

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

67

structural features in Texas. Axes of downwarping along the Rio Grande and the Trinity River have created Cenozoic basins. A large dome, the Sabine uplift, borders the Trinity River basin on the east. These two basins became closed seas at some time in the Mesozoic, and evaporation led to the deposition of vast beds of salt. Salt domes within the basins have risen from these “mother” beds to pierce the overlying strata, even the Cenozoic beds. Finally, this sinking of the coastal plain, which accompanied the downwarping of the geosyncline, caused breaks or faults in the beds of the coastal plain parallel to the coast. The faulting reached a maximum in Miocene time. Some of the largest faults occurred along the inner margins of the coastal province where the stretching tension was the greatest. In this manner the Balcones, Luling, Mexia, and other fault trends developed. Sea level and climatic changes that accompanied glaciation to the north further complicated depo­ sitional conditions during the Quaternary period. It is obvious that only the increased subsurface information de­ rived from drilling and geophysical explorations has made the unraveling of this Cenozoic geological history possible. Geologists could not have developed theories of geosynclinal and salt dome development in the nineteen-twenties without this information. The surface stratigraphy of the coastal plain does, however, provide some clues to the geological history of the area. Moreover, an exami­ nation of geological efforts during this reconnaissance period of ex­ ploration shows how accepted field methods often proved inadequate and how geologists had to develop a new stratigraphie methodology to cope with the intricate geology of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In the decades prior to the Civil War, Tertiary invertebrate paleontologists, such as the pioneer, Timothy Conrad, dominated geological work in the coastal province. Then, in the late eighteenfifties, Eugene W. Hilgard, who was Mississippi state geologist intermittently from 1857 to 1872, launched his pioneer studies of the broad stratigraphie features of the central Gulf region. By the seventies he had devised a rough overview of the geological history of the region.37 He based his conclusions on stratigraphie work made possible by the use of methods of investigation particularly appli­ 37 Eugene W. Hilgard, “On the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico,” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., II (December 1871), 391-404.

68

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

cable to the coastal sediments. One of his most significant methods was the association of vegetation with lithology—vegetation map­ ping, which is most useful in the absence of adequate outcrops and undeformed strata. He also began to correlate distinctive lithologieal and faunal patterns with specific depositional environments. These tools had been used in the early part of the century, but Hilgard first introduced them into the study of Cenozoic coastal plains geology. On the basis of his work in Mississippi and Louisiana, Hilgard divided the coastal Cenozoic into three units: a basal Tertiary non­ marine unit, a middle Tertiary marine unit, and an uppermost Ter­ tiary and Quaternary nonmarine unit. To explain the depositional history Hilgard theorized that periodic lowerings of the sea level had converted the Gulf into an enclosed ocean deep, bound seaward by a region of shallows stretching from the Yucatan Peninsula to Cuba and Florida. The continental drainage would have percep­ tively freshened this enclosed Gulf, “such as to render precarious the existence of either a marine or fresh water fauna, thus account­ ing for the dearth of fossil forms” in the nonmarine units.38 It is now thought that periodic adjustments in the Gulf coastal geosyncline created the cyclic depositional pattern. But given the classical structural patterns with which Hilgard had to work, his theory represented a worthy attempt to explain the sedimentary patterns he discerned in the coastal province.39 38 Eugene W. Hilgard, "The Later Tertiary of the Gulf of Mexico," Ameri­ can Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXII (July 1887), 64. 39 Earlier workers had identified Eocene and Miocene fossils collected in the Texas coastal plain. Ferdinand Roemer correlated fossils he found in the central portion of the plain with lower Eocene fossils found at Claiborne, Alabama (see “Contributions to the Geology of Texas,” p. 23). Arthur Schott of the Boundary Survey collected fossils in the upper portion of the Rio Grande embayment, which the prominent Gulf Coast Tertiary paleontologist, Timothy Conrad, also identified as Claiborne equivalents (see Timothy A. Conrad, “Description of Cretaceous and Tertiary Fossils," in William H. Emory, Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, p. 141). In Washington County, Benjamin F. Shumard collected fossil teeth that the pioneer vertebrate paleontologist, Joseph Leidy, identified as Miocene (see [On Fossil Teeth from Washington County, Texas], Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia [October 1860], p. 416). Samuel B. Buckley investigated both Eocene and Miocene outcrops and roughly traced their areal extent (see First Annual Report, pp. 58-64).

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

69

HilgarcTs former student, Dr. Robert Hill Loughridge, who later became state geologist of Georgia, first extended Hilgard’s strati­ graphie divisions into Texas in the latter part of 1880, while con­ ducting field studies preparatory to writing agricultural reports for the Tenth Census.40 However, it was eight years before the geologists of the Dumble Survey began the first sophisticated stratigraphie and paleontological studies of the coastal Cenozoic strata of Texas. Most of the reconnaissance geologists who investigated the strata of the Llano Estacado appeared to ignore the unconsolidated Ceno­ zoic alluvial deposits mantling that high plain. These beds did not contain any invertebrate fossils and were, therefore, of no interest to geologists seeking to equate them with other strata on the Great Plains. Vertebrate paleontology was just coming into its own in the decades following the Civil War, and it alone would provide the key to understanding the geological history of the Llano. The thick alluvial section that makes up the body of the Llano was deposited in late Miocene and early Pliocene time by streams flowing eastward from mountains in central New Mexico. The denudation of these highlands continued throughout the Quaternary. Climatic changes accompanying northern glaciation in the Texas region caused sharp variations in precipitation which created a cyclical pattern of deposition in the Quaternary alluvial beds that form the surface of the Llano. A similar sequence of events controlled Upper Cenozoic deposi­ tion in the coastal plain. Movement along the Balcones fault zone reached a maximum in Miocene time and increased stream gradients in the Edwards Plateau. Subsequently, these streams stripped coarse, predominantly chert, gravels from the plateau and deposited them as alluvial fans below the escarpment. Most of these gravels were spread out over the upper portion of the Rio Grande embayment. Subsequently, during the Quaternary period, alternations between valley cutting and alluviation along the major stream courses of the entire coastal plain created a complex pattern of terrace deposits. Some part of this pattern may have been affected by climatic changes caused by glaciation. 40 Robert Hill Loughridge, “Physico-geographical and Agricultural Features of the State of Texas,” Tenth Census, V (1884), 669-806. Loughridge’s work was of such high quality that Alabama and South Carolina published the reports on their respective regions as geological survey reports.

70

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Following the initial studies of the Llano Estacado by the geol­ ogists of the Pacific Railroad Surveys, no geologist explored the region for two decades. Then, in 1877, Lieutenant Ernest H. Ruffner of the Corps of Topographical Engineers investigated the strata of the northeastern portion of the Llano.41 He did not believe the sediments that outcropped there were Upper Cretaceous as reported by James Hall and William Blake. Although he did not attempt to identify these beds, which are Tertiary, he described the strata exposed in the Palo Duro canyon in considerable detail. He even collected some vertebrate fossils, which he sent to Professor Othaniel C. Marsh for identification. If Marsh had responded he would have been the discoverer of the extensive Tertiary fauna of that region. Instead, this honor went to his hated rival, Edward D. Cope, who discovered this fauna while working with the Dumble Survey in 1890. Robert H. Loughridge never visited the Llano, but he diligently researched all available data on the geology of Texas. He gleaned enough information from the reports of George G. Shumard and Ruffner to ascertain that the Cretaceous beds on the southern end of the Llano which Shumard described pinched out toward the north, where Ruffner had intimated that they were not present. “The age of the Llano Estacado has been definitely determined as Cre­ taceous from the occurrence of numerous fossils on the Pecos . . . [However,] the rotten limestone that outcrops throughout the south­ ern portion of the plains and at the headwaters of the Colorado River seems to thin out or disappear toward the north, . . . [where] no fossils are mentioned as occurring.”42 However, Loughridge, like Ruffner, did not try to identify the Cenozoic strata that covered the Cretaceous beds of the Llano. By 1880 reconnaissance geologists had only intimated that some of the strata of the Llano Estacado were terrestrial Tertiary deposits similar to those already investigated further north on the Great 41 Ernest H. Ruffner, Explorations and Surveys in the Department of Mis­ souri, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., House Exec. Doc. 1 (1878), IV, Appendix RR, pp. 1399-1438. 42 Loughridge, “Physico-geo graphical Features,” p. 677. He also reported that George Getz Shumard had found that “the northern portion of the Llano Esta­ cado is covered by a horizontal bed of drift material varying from 10 to 15 feet in thickness” (ibid., p. 680).

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

71

Plains. These pioneer scientists had dismissed as drift the superficial Quaternary alluvial beds that mantle the Llano and portions of the coastal plain. They made no attempt to trace the areal extent of such unconsolidated strata and did not search diligently for fossils in them. With the exception of Loughridge, who had studied under Hilgard and had devoted more attention to alluvial deposits or “drift” than all other scientists, none of the geologists who explored Texas during this reconnaissance period had been trained in the South. These extensive Quaternary alluvial formations are more com­ mon in the South and Southwest; they do not fit geological patterns taught in the East and were, therefore, generally ignored by recon­ naissance geologists. Michael Tuomey, state geologist of Alabama, was the first to re­ port that Northern glaciation had effected Quaternary deposition in the western Gulf states. In 1858 he theorized that the sudden melting of glaciers had caused extensive erosion and transportation of northern glacial drift and the subsequent redeposition of drift materials in the lower Mississippi embayment.43 Eugene W. Hilgard refined Tuomey’s drift theory in 1866 and emphasized that elevation and depression of the coastal regions had periodically altered the carrying power of the Mississippi River.44 Hilgard also commented that similar drift deposits extended all the way to the Llano Estacado and merged into the true glacial drift of the northern Great Plains states. In a critique of Hilgard’s conclu­ sions, J. B. Perry observed that there was no need to use structural adjustments to account for the irregular sedimentary characteristics of the drift. He argued that during a glacial period the waters trapped in glaciers would cause a decrease in the volume of sea water and a lowering of sea level. With the thawing of these glaciers the level of the oceans would return to normal. This would increase and decrease stream gradients accordingly.45 At the close of the reconnaissance era of geological surveying in 43 Michael Tuomey, Second Biennial Report on the Geology of Alabama, ed­ ited by John W. Mallet, pp. 144-147. 44 Eugene W. Hilgard, “Remarks on the Drift of the Western and Southern States, and Its Relation to the Glacier and Iceberg Theories,” American Journal of Science, 2d Ser., XLII (November 1866), 343-347. 45 J. B. Perry, “Remarks on the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico,” American Naturalist, V ( 1871), 522.

72

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Texas, geologists had just begun to analyze the Quaternary geologi­ cal history of the Llano Estacado and the coastal plain. They had recognized that Cenozoic strata did outcrop in the Llano. Further­ more, geologists working in the western Gulf states had awakened other geologists to the fact that Northern glaciation had controlled the deposition of Southern “drift” in some fashion. In the following era of more sophisticated geological surveying, the first significant contributions would be made by geologists in Texas in this difficult area of Quaternary geology. The most significant and characteristic contributions made during this era of reconnaissance geological surveying were paleontological discoveries. Marcou s discovery of marine Lower Cretaceous fossils, the Shumards’ announcement of the presence of an extensive marine Permian fauna in the Trans-Pecos, and Cope's description of the Per­ mian vertebrates that Boll had collected in the north-central Osage Plains established the presence of these fauna in North America. Although these were the only features of North American geology which reconnaissance geologists first discovered in the Texas region, there are several other distinctive geological conditions within the state. The Trans-Pecos province is unique structurally because southeast-trending mountain ranges extend into the region and are terminated by a structural complex in the Big Bend area. The broad dome with its central Pre-Cambrian outcrop, called the Llano uplift, is interesting because it is far distant from any similar geological province and because it has some subtle relationship with the buried Paleozoic mountain range that curves through the state. Finally, while the effect of Northern glaciation upon Quaternary terrestrial deposition is not a feature of geological history unique to Texas, the Quaternary alluvial beds of the Llano Estacado and the upper Gulf Coastal Plain served as laboratories wherein important investigations of this phenomenon were conducted. During the reconnaissance era, however, geologists simply noted that there were extensive moun­ tains in the Trans-Pecos, that there were Lower Paleozoic rocks in the Central Mineral Region, and that extensive alluvial deposits were found on the Llano Estacado and upper coastal plain. The methods used by these reconnaissance geologists typify the first stage in geological exploration. After discovering the presence of strata belonging to the geologic periods, these geologists attempt­ ed to establish the approximate areal extent of their outcrop and

Geological Résumé: Reconnaissance Geologists

73

its relation to geologic-geographic provinces. Usually these pioneer geologists worked with rock units at the series level and included all the strata belonging to a particular period in their study. Most of their work in mapping outcrops was done on an extremely large scale because they usually examined extensive areas. Marcou merely traced the lower Cretaceous outcrop in Texas through the Grand Prairie and the Edwards Plateau. However, Roessler mapped the marine Permian beds of North Texas on a county scale. The Shumards and Boll and Cope did not attempt to trace the limits of the Permian outcrops in which they collected their fossils. Hilgard and Loughridge sketched the limits of the Eocene and Miocene outcrops through Texas, but they did almost no paleontological work in the state. Benjamin F. Shumard s visualization of the lithologie and faunal sequences of the Cretaceous rocks of Central Texas, misguided though it was, represented a very advanced level of work for his day. Almost three decades had passed before Texas geologists pro­ duced similar, though more sophisticated, stratigraphie studies on an extensive scale. The inauguration of the third geological survey in 1888 marked the beginning of the next stage in geological sur­ veying—the era of local stratigraphie investigations and small-scale mapping of local rock units far below the series or period level. The stratigraphie geologists attempted to discover the local variations and patterns within the broad geologic provinces drawn by the re­ connaissance geologists. These pioneers carried out the necessary foundation work and provided a rough overview of the nature of the various geologic provinces which guided the direction of the subsequent stratigraphie studies. The geologists of the United States Geological Survey introduced the use of stratigraphie geological surveying techniques to Texas in the eighteen-eighties just as a political reform movement was gain­ ing momentum. Perhaps it was in part the realization that geological exploration in Texas had reached a sophisticated level that helped prompt state political leaders to urge the creation of a state survey to regulate public land distribution and inform the public.

FIVE

The Dumble Survey: Texas Initiates Land Reforms

Irofessional geologists and societies stressed the need for a geo­ logical survey in the early eighteen-eighties, but their arguments alone could not create the necessary public interest. Fortunately, two independent developments appeared simultaneously which stimu­ lated the public demand for a survey: a land reform movement and the drought of 1886. During the eighties the state finally overextended its land give­ away programs. For the biennium ending in 1880, Land Commis­ sioner William C. Walsh reported that there were nineteen million acres of public land against which there were no outstanding claims, but in 1882 he protested that there was an outstanding liability of six million acres in excess of the public domain.1 He also stressed that most of the lands the state had distributed so freely had fallen into the hands of large landholders or land corporations. The Com­ missioner described the ease with which a frontier entrepreneur could acquire up to five hundred sections of land directly from the state by exploiting loopholes in the land laws. Walsh strongly rec­ ommended that the state adjust its land distribution laws to protect the reserved school and University lands from a similar fate and to 1 Texas, Commissioner of the General Land Office (William C. Walsh), Report, 1880 and 1882.

The Dumble Survey

75

make certain that only farmers and small ranchers could purchase them in limited acreage units. The state could not recall the lands already in the hands of corpo­ rations, but politicians were conscious of popular demand for a radi­ cal change in public land policy. Indeed, the nomination of John Ireland for governor at the Democratic convention of 1882 repre­ sented a definite victory for those land reformers who would limit the size of land holdings and distribute them only to actual settlers. Ireland had strongly advocated the termination of state land grants to railroad companies, and after his nomination the legislature re­ sponded by passing a law halting the policy of subsidizing internal improvements with land grants.2 In the third month of Ireland’s administration, the legislature, which now had only the public school, asylum, and University lands left to distribute, passed a law that established a new system for the classification, sale, and lease of these reserved lands and that was meant to guide them into the hands of small ranchers and farmers.3 This Land Act of 1883 created the state Land Board to administer the provisions of the act, which included the stipulation that lands be sold only to actual settlers who were obligated to work the land for the first three years of occupation. The act also limited corpora­ tion land holdings in any one county to one section. Although the legislature had to revise this act in 1887, its passage signaled a vigor­ ous reform movement. Eighteen-eighty-two, the year in which the land reform forces were beginning to make their power felt, was also the year in which the first trans-Texas railroads were completed—the Southern Pacific, from Houston to San Antonio to El Paso, and the Texas and Pacific, from Texarkana to Dallas to El Paso. Farmers had followed in the wake of these railroads and had encroached upon the ranching country of the Trans-Balcones. The push of these settlers into the North Texas counties in 1885 began the major drive into the semiarid lands west of the ninety-eighth meridian. As early as 1875 these frontier farmers had banded together to protect themselves against foreign- and northern-owned land syndi­ cates and cattle barons, who used extralegal methods to keep the 2 Texas, General Laws, 17th Leg., Called Sess., Chap. 6, p. 3. 3 Ibid., 18th Leg., Chap. 88, pp. 85-89.

76

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

farmers out. The growth of their alliances quickened in the mid­ eighties when price disparities added to the farmers' distress. After a high postwar level, prices had steadily dropped while transpor­ tation costs and interest rates remained high. The emergent Farmers’ Alliance began cooperative schemes of buying and selling as the Patrons of Husbandry—the Grange—had done before. Furthermore, this economic distress, which the farmers attributed to railroad abuses and a moneyed conspiracy led by land speculators, prompted the Alliance to assume a strong political role. In August of 1886, at the celebrated Cleburne State Alliance Convention, the delegates made a series of “demands” for new federal and state laws, the majority of which dealt with land reforms.4 This Cleburne meet­ ing signaled the beginning of an independent political movement, which entrenched itself in all parts of the state in the next four years. The severe drought of 1886-1887 undoubtedly had a catalytic effect upon the drift of the Alliance into politics. It gripped many Trans-Balcones counties for as long as twenty-one months, made thirty thousand people destitute, and sent thousands reeling from the frontier. To alleviate the distress temporarily, the legislature, in February 1887, appropriated $100,000 in relief funds to be ex­ pended in the most severely stricken counties.5 However, the farmers sought a more positive form of government assistance. By 1886 a large portion of Texas Democrats were interested in reform, although they were not a homogeneous group. The Farmers' Alliance had an extreme radical faction and a moderate faction. The more sophisticated “progressives” of East Texas, including the future reform Governor James S. Hogg, composed an even stronger moderate reform group in the party. The proentrepreneur conserva­ tive wing of the Democratic Party stood opposed to these reformers. The nomination and election of Sul Ross, a favorite of the Grange and Alliance members, to the governors post in 1886 evidenced the strength of the reformers. They were extremely interested in dis­ tributing the reserved lands only to future homesteaders and were successful in eliminating some of the gross inadequacies in the Land 4 Ralph Smith, “The Farmers' Alliance in Texas, 1875-1900,” The Southwest­ ern Historical Quarterly, XLVIII (January 1945), 356. 5 General Laws, 20th Leg., Chap. 3, pp. 2-4.

The Dumble Survey

77

Act of 1883. Their new Land Act of 1887 abolished the state Land Board and placed supervision of the reserved lands in the hands of the commissioner of the General Land Office.6 This new act also provided for a more careful classification of the reserved lands into agriculture, grazing, or timber lands by General Land Office agents rather than by local county agents, who were susceptible to bribery. Finally, sales to corporations were strictly prohibited. That the House passed this land reform measure by a vote of seventy-five to sixteen illustrates the strength of the reform block. The legislature appeared to have taken a stand against the interests of railroads, land speculators, cattle barons, and frontier entrepre­ neurs in general. Yet, in the extra session it passed a bill creating the third state geological survey. Heretofore, surveys had been con­ sidered forms of government aid to frontier entrepreneurs. In fact, however, national reform developments and agitation by local sci­ entists had exerted the most significant influence upon the legisla­ ture’s decision to launch a third survey. A national reform movement centered in Washington appeared concurrently with the one in Texas, and the national reformers, led by Major John Wesley Powell, sought to use the geological survey as an agency to promote the reform of federal land laws in the West. Powell had gained national prominence after leading a daring descent of the Colorado River of the West in 1869 and had subse­ quently wrangled the leadership of a federal survey of the mineral resources of the Rocky Mountain region in 1871. It was in this capacity that he developed his fundamental environmental ap­ proach to the development of the public domain of the Trans-Mississippi West. In 1878 he published his famous Report on the Lands of the Arid Regions of the United States, which was the first sophisticated dis­ cussion of federal land reform.7 He pointed out that, contrary to the harangues of Western promoters and land speculators, the West was unsuitable for settlement and cultivation under the existing federal land distribution system. His reform proposal stipulated that these semiarid lands be divided into irrigation and grazing 6 Ibid., Chap. 99, pp. 83-91. 7 John Wesley Powell, Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah, 45th Cong., 2d Sess., House Exec. Doc. 73 (1878).

78

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

districts, in which there would be restrictions on the size of the working units and all water rights would adhere in the land. This system would eliminate what he considered the greatest impediment to the development of the West—the monopoly of water rights. After his official presentation of his land reform program, Powell sought to create an agency that would place the vast resources of the national government behind this program. The result of his efforts was the creation of the United States Geological Survey in March 1879. The first director of the survey, whose appointment had been a political compromise, served only a short time, and Powell replaced him. The Major quickly launched a program of mapping and classifying the mineral, timber, pasturage, and irrigable lands of the public domain of the West as the initial step in the imple­ mentation of his arid land reform system.8 Powell also realized that he must have the authority to investigate private and state lands in order to make his program as compre­ hensive and effective as possible. He convinced his congressional backers of this need, and in 1882 they gave him the necessary au­ thorization. Shortly thereafter he arranged a series of cooperative topographic and geologic exploration programs with various states, including Texas in 1884.9 Senator John H. Reagan of Texas had opposed the creation of the United States Geological Survey as unconstitutional. Reagan, who had served as Postmaster General of the Confederacy, was a firm defender of states’ rights and opposed the survey mainly because it would create a form of federal scientific imperialism detrimental to the state surveys. Powell and his reform allies tried to allay the fears of Reagan and others like him by declaring that the work of the federal survey would only complement that of the state surveys.10 The great interest Senator Reagan later developed in the irrigation and reclamation of arid lands suggests that he was finally won over 8 Powell’s career as director is discussed in William H. Goetzmann, Explora­ tion and Empire: The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the Ameri­ can West, pp. 595-601. 9 United States, Geological Survey, Fifth Annual Report, p. vii. Also see Ap­ pendix D. 10 Reagan had also evidenced an interest in the first Texas geological survey ( see John H. Reagan to Governor H. N. Runnels, May 8, 1856, Governor’s Cor­ respondence, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas).

The Dumble Survey

79

by Powell, whose ultimate goal was an arid land reform program. In February 1889 Reagan became a member of the Senate com­ mittee that dealt with these matters.11 Although Reagan was a favorite of Texas agrarian reformers, it is hard to assess the influence that he exerted upon them in favor of a state geological survey. However, it is highly probable that Rea­ gan used “Powellian” land reform concepts to convince skeptical reformers, who were very suspicious that a survey would mainly benefit entrepreneurs and that a land classification program based on a thorough geological survey was a necessary forerunner to any reform of public land distribution laws. While Powell and his scientific cohorts were launching their land reform schemes under the auspices of the United States Geological Survey, local scientists in Texas were stimulating interest in the need for a new state geological survey. Jacob Boll, the Swiss naturalist who began collecting vertebrate fossils in Texas in 1876, was one of the main proponents of a state survey, and at the time of his death in 1880 his name had been frequently discussed in connection with the position of state geolo­ gist. The author of his obituary observed that many influential men had promoted Boll for this position and commented that Boll had always “cherished the hope that he might one day, under proper patronage, do much for the science and material development of Texas.”12 George Stolley was another local scientist who advocated a new survey. In July 1882 he mentioned a work on the paleontology and geology of Texas which he proposed writing, and in October of that year he wrote a letter to Major Powell in which he discussed this proposed work and criticized Texans for neglect of the state's re­ sources.13 He urged the creation of a state survey. The Texas State Geological and Scientific Association of Houston was also an active supporter of a third state survey. Edwin Theodore 11 Ben H. Proctor, Not Without Honor: The Life of John H. Reagan, pp. 271272. 12 Galveston Daily News, October 10, 1880, p. 2, col. 3. 13 Samuel W. Geiser, “Men of Science in Texas, 1820-1880,” Field and Lab­ oratory, XXVII (October 1959), 216; and George Stolley to Major J. W. Powell, October 29, 1882, Record Group 57, “Geological Survey Records,” National Archives, Washington, D.C.

80

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Dumble, an amateur geologist with a chemical laboratory in Hous­ ton, founded this association in 1884.14 In February 1885 Dumble’s group petitioned the legislature for permission to conduct the Texas mineral exhibit for the Worlds Industrial Exhibition to be held at New Orleans that year.15 This scientific lobby kept the demand for a state survey current, and three days after the introduction of the association s petition Speaker of the House R. C. Foster, a Democratic Party stalwart from Grayson County, introduced a bill to provide for a geological survey of the state.16 Foster was very interested in the public school and University funds, and he might have proposed his survey bill with the specific objective of evaluating and classifying the reserved lands prior to sale in order to realize their full potential. Unfortu­ nately, Foster s bill died on the table without coming up for a vote, probably because of public apathy due to prosperity. The drought of 1886, however, helped to renew interest in a sur­ vey in several ways. First, it increased agricultural distress and thereby strengthened the agrarian reform movement. One of the main objectives of this movement was reform of the land laws, and national leaders had already illustrated the relationship between land reform and geological and topographical surveys. Secondly, the drought-stricken farmer looked to the state for some form of assist­ ance other than relief, and a survey could provide soil analyses, fer­ tilizer recommendations, and water resources studies. Furthermore, historian William Curry Holden has shown that the drought created a considerable mineral craze in West Texas which stimulated state­ wide interest in mineral resources.17 By 1887 interest in a state survey had become strong and varied. Frontier entrepreneurs favored any scheme that would increase the attractiveness of lands and stimulate immigration and capital in­ 14 James R. Underwood, Jr., "Edwin Theodore Dumble,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXVIII (July 1964), 53-78. 15 Texas, Senate Journal, 19th Leg. (February 23, 1885), p. 135. 16 This bill stipulated that the governor, the commissioner of the General Land Office, and the Board of Regents of The University of Texas select the state ge­ ologist, whom the National Academy of Sciences had to certify (Texas, House Journal, 19th Leg. [February 27, 1885], p. 240). 17 William C. Holden, Alkali Trails: or Social and Economic Movements on the Texas Frontier, 1846-1900, pp. 148-149.

The Dumble Survey

81

vestment. This entrepreneurial opportunism made reformers sus­ picious of the value of a survey. However, the close tie between the arid land reform program of Powell and the United States Geologi­ cal Survey undoubtedly was instrumental in convincing skeptics that a geological survey by the state could also serve as an impartial instrument to guide and carry out reforms of Texas land distribution laws. A survey would evaluate the reserved lands prior to distribu­ tion and thus would assure sale or lease at proper prices and prevent land speculators from exploiting them. A state survey, therefore, appeared attractive to both business-oriented and reform elements for completely opposite reasons.18 Major Powell was probably responsible for initiating the active campaign that culminated in the creation of the third Texas geologi­ cal survey. Robert T. Hill, who became one of the most prominent figures in Texas geology, stated that the Major was greatly interested in stimulating state support for geological surveys and had sent Hill in 1886 to assist the Arkansas Geological Survey. Shortly thereafter, Powell ordered Hill to go to Texas to encourage the establishment of a survey there.19 18 Hamilton P. Bee, commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and his­ tory, discovered George Getz Shumard's manuscript report to Captain John Pope in the records of the state surveys which his office had received. He had this work published in 1886 (see George Getz Shumard, A Partial Report on the Geology of West Texas . . ., Journal of Geological Observations, . . . and Geol­ ogy of Grayson County). In officially describing this report he added support to the current survey movement: "This limited but interested work suggests the necessity of a complete geological survey of the State . . . It has been stated that as a result of the geological survey of Pennsylvania fifty millions of dollars has been added to the taxable wealth of that state . . . I would suggest that an ap­ propriation be made for a complete geological survey of the State by counties” (Texas, Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics, and History, Report [1887], p. 7). Bee had introduced a geological survey bill as a state representa­ tive in November 1857. 19 Robert T. Hill, "Some Geological Recollections of a Young Man,” p. 22, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. Director John Wesley Powell and W. J. McGee of the United States Geological Survey also urged Hill to accept the position of state geologist ( see McGee to R. T. Hill, n.d., Hill Papers, Fondren Library, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas; and Robert T. Hill to Edwin T. Dumble, May 25, 1888, Dumble Papers, Texas State Archives). It appears that Major Powell wanted to have as much control over the state sur­ vey as he could. For biographical information on Hill see E. Francis V. Parker, "Robert Thomas

82

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Hill, a native of Comanche County who had studied geology at Cornell, joined the United States Geological Survey in 1884 and spent his first two years developing his monumental stratigraphie studies of the Lower Cretaceous of Texas. He was already a man of significant scientific reputation when he arrived in Texas to lobby for a state survey, but because of his short physical stature he had developed a persecution complex, which had given him a grating personality that often offset his scientific accomplishments. As his first step in promoting a Texas survey, Hill circulated petitions for county constituents to send to their representatives in Austin. In its editorial of February 3, 1887, the Galveston Daily News discussed a petition the citizens of Eastland County had sent to the legislature. Eastland is in the drought district, and it is possible that its citizens are anxious to learn what land of country they have anyhow . . . The petition just in is a printed one, after the manner of other petitions that are to be generally circulated. The reasons set forth for the necessity of a geological survey are that the adaptability of land for different crops, and the mineral resources of the State should be looked into. The petitioners believe that the appointment of a qualified geologist would do away with experimental fanning, such as planting oranges in the Panhandle, and wheat on Galves­ ton Island, and besides would settle the question of whether or not the State has just grounds to build manufactories to be run by Texas coal. There should be one appointed, if for no other reason than to suppress the daily discoverers of lignite who annoy the press with their story of the discovery of coal.20 Hill lobbied in Austin for passage of the survey bill he had pre­ pared and arranged for Eidred J. Simpkins of Navarro County and C. N. Richardson of Leon County to introduce this bill to the Senate and the House on January 17.21 Temple Houston, from the droughtHill: The Dean of Texas Geologists” (Master’s thesis, The University of Texas, I960). 20 Galveston Daily News, February 3, 1887, p. 5, col. 2. Furthermore, the Texas State Geological and Scientific Association again petitioned the legisla­ ture in favor of a state survey (see House Journal, 20th Leg. [February 25, 1887], p. 470). 21 Hill, "Recollections,” p. 28; and House Journal, 20th Leg. (January 17, 1887), p. 54.

The Dumble Survey

83

stricken Panhandle, also introduced a survey bill to the Senate a week later.22 According to Hill, an exciting winter s campaign followed during which opposition to his bill was mainly provided by “the farmers’ alliance, who had made their members pledge to vote for no new appropriations.”23 These most radical of the agrarians emphasized that a survey would benefit the railroads, the land speculators, and the corporations rather than the individual farmer. The Austin Daily Statesman denounced such charges as "rather a subtle piece of demagoguery in the use of the well known railroad monopoly scare.”24 The paper commented that, since the percentage of public lands was small, the survey would necessarily benefit certain land­ holders and some railroads. However, it added that all economic growth stimulated state tax income. By the same token the farmers from the drought-devastated counties sought some form of governmental agricultural assistance and viewed a survey as a form of state subsidy. A farmer from parched Bosque County wrote the editor of the Austin Daily States­ man that because the fertility of the soil depended upon the geologi­ cal makeup of the bedrock a state survey would be most beneficial to the individual farmer.25 Director Powell of the United States Geological Survey formally supported the survey bill in a letter to Senator Richard Coke of Texas in which Powell set forth at length the principles and meth­ ods of geological surveying and extended the full cooperation of the national survey, including the compilation of topographic maps of the state. The Major also stressed that the investigations of an academic nature by the United States Geological Survey would “serve as a sufficient basis for the detailed economic and cadastral researches which it is the legitimate function for the State to prose­ cute.”26 The Austin Daily Statesman commented that the states refusal of Powell’s offer of assistance would be an act of ‘‘blinded fanaticism.”27 22 Senate Journal, 20th Leg. (January 24, 1887), p. 96. 23 Hill, “Recollections,” p. 28. 24 Austin Daily Statesman, March 26, 1887, p. 3, col. 1. 2®Ibid., March 23,1887, p. 3, col. 4. 26 Ibid., February 6, 1887, p. 3, cols. 4-5. 27 Ibid., March 23, 1887, p. 2, col. 2.

84

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

In spite of the strong and varied support for the Simpkins survey bill—support from the distressed farmers of the western and south­ ern counties, from the business-oriented faction of the Democratic Party, from the moderate progressive Democrats led by Simpkins and Hogg, and finally from the United States Geological Survey— the opposition forces defeated the bill on the third reading in the House by the narrow margin of forty-five to forty.28 The nucleus of the opposition had been the parsimonious and suspicious extremists of the Farmers' Alliance bloc.20 They fought the survey bill on the grounds that it would primarily benefit the moneyed interests. Moreover, many others were suspicious of any measure that could be construed as favoring railroads. Equally im­ portant in defeating the bill were the survey proponents who failed to emphasize the benefits that classification of the mineral-bearing reserved school lands by a geological survey would bring in in­ creased income for the reserved funds from land sales at graduated prices. They did not link the survey bill with the new land act passed on March 22, just prior to the death of the Simpkins bill. This Land Act of 1887, which placed all school and University re­ served lands under the management of the commissioner of the Gen­ eral Land Office, passed the House by the comfortable margin of seventy-five to sixteen.30 Finally, Robert T. Hills total lack of political acumen in his lobbying efforts in the House discredited the Simpkins bill. The Galveston Daily News observed that the most serious arguments against the bill had been financial and constitutional but that many had fought it with ridicule and “somewhat in the spirit of the pioneer who considers his country ruined when a railroad reaches it.” The paper then criticized Hills political blundering as being a vital factor leading to the defeat of the survey bill: A large portion of the discussions of the geological bill today was de­ voted— not to the bill, but to the gentleman from the United States geo­ logical bureau, who was here advocating it. He intimated in a communi­ 28 House Journal, 20th Leg. (March 24, 1887), p. 802. 29 The Southern Mercury, on March 21, 1887, listed the names of House mem­ bers of the Twentieth Legislature who were loyal to all of the causes of the Alliance (p. 1, col. 3). A survey of the votes of these men revealed that seven of eight voted against the bill. 30 House Journal, 20th Leg. (March 22, 1887), p. 765.

The Dumble Survey

85

cation to a morning paper that presenting a measure of such importance before the House was like casting pearls before the swine. This was an insult that could not be sufficiently rebuked. In vain did . . . others appeal for a serious consideration of the measure. It was related to a science in which unpronounceable terms were used, and was advocated by a dude, hence it should be beaten.31

Hill commented in his memoirs that "so great was the impetus that I had created that at the next session of the Legislature the bill was passed without difficulty.”32 Modesty was never one of Hills virtues, and the truth is that the efforts of men who were more in­ fluential in Texas politics secured the passage of the survey bill in the spring of 1888. The Texas State Geological and Scientific Association under the guidance of Edwin Theodore Dumble added invaluable support to the survey campaign. Dumble continued to cooperate with Hill and corresponded with Senators Coke and Reagan to gain their support. The association petitioned Governor Sul Ross to include the subject of a geological survey in his call for an extra session of the Twentieth Legislature.33 Dumble also considered the possibility of making an independent survey of the state. In a letter to Coke on March 17, Dumble set forth the intention of the association to raise a ‘Volun­ teer fund” for the initiation of geological work in Texas, and he 31 Galveston Daily News, March 26, 1887. This episode is discussed further in The University of Texas alumni magazine: "In some way this remark got to the ears of Cone Johnson, who, it seems, was opposed to the appropriation for the Survey. When the bill came up for discussion in the Senate, Johnson in a flight of oratory exclaimed: ‘The Lower Silurian! What’s that got to do with raising potatoes/ . . . But this remarkable flight of oratory was not ended there. Hill, it seems, was present when, as the narrator expressed it, 'It became too hot for him/ he got up and was walking out of the chamber. Whereupon the orator, with all the eloquence of a Demosthenes, threw his shoulders back and ex­ claimed: ‘There goes your pearl, and here (indicating his fellow members) are the swine'” (see W. T. Davidson, "From an Old Timer,” The Alcalde, IV [April 1916], 621-622). The Galveston Daily News added a final overview on the defeat of the bill. It editorialized that "it was defeated by a combination between the doodle-bug economists, who opposed it because it involved an appropriation, and some of the young lawyers and tory statesmen who knew no better” ( see Galveston Daãy News, June 28, 1887, p. 4, col. 2). 32 Hill, "Recollections,” p. 28. 33 House Journal, 20th Leg., Extra Sess. (April 24, 1888), p. 74.

86

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

expressed the desire to gain the cooperative support of the United States Geological Survey. Coke passed this letter on to Director Powell, who pledged his support to the association.34 Finally, on April 17,1888, C. N. Richardson, still a member of the Committee on Internal Improvements, again introduced a survey bill in the House. Dumble remained in close contact with Richard­ son during the progress of the bill.35 Hill wisely left the lobbying to Dumble and sent him some helpful information, including Powell’s pledge of cooperation and some papers on the relation of geology to agriculture. Hill also suggested that Dumble let the legislators know of the progress of the Arkansas survey and told him to stress the potential agricultural contributions of a geological survey so that “the farmers will be our friends/’36 Again the probusiness press eagerly added its support. The Austin Daily Statesman noted that the survey bill was almost an exact copy of the “excellent and most satisfactory law regarding geological research in Michigan,” where the state survey had uncovered tre­ mendous mineral resources. The Austin daily added that, although the bill was legislation in the interest of capital only, it would in­ crease tax revenue and create a revenue surplus, which would cause reductions of taxes for the poor. A survey would also increase the influx of capital and bring in a good class of immigrants.37 The farmers were again split over the issue. Representative T. A. Wilson of Polk County in humid East Texas spoke against the bill with typical arguments that the legislature did not have the consti­ tutional powers to create a survey, and that “the accomplishment of the objects contemplated in this bill should be left to individual labor.”38 On the other hand, Representative L. L. Shields of Llano County presented a petition from the farmers of parched Coleman County declaring that they were praying for a geological survey of the state.39 34 John W. Powell to Edwin Theodore Dumble, March 24, 1888, Dumble Pa­ pers. 35 C. N. Richardson to Edwin Theodore Dumble, April 19, 1888, Dumble Papers. 36 Robert T. Hill to Edwin Theodore Dumble, April 22, 1888, Dumble Papers. 37 Austin Daily Statesman, April 28, 1888, p. 3, col. 4. 38 House Journal, 20th Leg., Extra Sess. (May 5, 1888), p. 179. 39 Ibid. (April 23, 1888), p. 591. More often the power of prayer was brought out in opposition to a geological survey. Fundamentalism was a force in Texas,

The Dumble Survey

87

Some Alliance members continued to oppose the survey bill be­ cause it would benefit corporations. J. Ras Jones of Panola County introduced an unsuccessful amendment to the bill stipulating that no part of the appropriation for the survey be used for surveying any lands belonging to a railroad or corporation.40 A. C. Prendergrast of McLennan County was also unsuccessful in amending the bill to limit the survey's activities to the school and University lands.41 The House voted down another amendment, which declared that there should be no surveys of state lands until the legislature had had time “to protect such lands from land pirates in case they are found to be valuable for minerals.”42 The bill finally passed the House on May 5, by the vote of fortyfive to thirty-seven.43A vote analysis indicates that again the droughtdevastated counties voted overwhelmingly for the bill. Indeed, the farmers' strength appeared to be split on a meteorological basis— a humid, prosperous East versus an arid West desirous of govern­ ment aid. A sampling of Alliance votes in the House indicates that four of nine were cast in favor of the survey bill. This small but significant and one representative from Falls County quoted scripture against the bill (see Galveston Daily News, May 2, 1888, p. 1, col. 3). Also, while Robert T. Hill was on The University of Texas staff in 1888, “the faculty members warned stu­ dents against enrolling in Hills classes lest they be exposed to the ‘pernicious doctrines' of geology which were heretical” ( see Parker, “Robert Thomas Hill,” pp. 61-62). 40 House Journal, 20th Leg., Ex. Sess. (May 2, 1888), p. 126. 41Ibid. 42 R. B. Bell of Cooke County introduced this amendment. The Galveston Daily News commented that “the progressive members went for Mr. Bell of Cooke on the geological bill today.” This editorial added that the progressives felt that Bell was only trying to make political capital out of his charges that the governor and members of the legislature were working for foreign syndicates and against the people ( Galveston Daily News, May 2, 1888, p. 1, col. 4 ). R. T. Milner, editor of the Henderson Times, seemed to support Bell in a May 5 editorial: “The opponents of this measure [the Survey bill] are termed by a few auto­ crats as the non-progressive element of the Legislature . . . but the whole ques­ tion resolves itself into this: Ts it right to tax the whole people to do what ava­ ricious man will do without governmental aid" ( see Rosalind Langston, “The Life of Colonel R. T. Milner,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLIV [April 1941], 446). 43 House Journal, 20th Leg., Extra Sess. (May 5, 1888), p. 179.

88

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

change in Alliance votes from 1887 could be attributed to such nebulous factors as the removal of Hill as lobbyist. However, an equally telling factor must have been the realization that a survey would help the school and University funds realize the full potential of their lands. A survey would grade the lands as pastoral, agricul­ tural, irrigable, or mineral and would provide for their sale at graduated prices. It is also likely that Senator Reagan, who enjoyed the fullest con­ fidence of Texas Alliance men and who was a proponent of Powells arid land reform program, which was based on a classification scheme, convinced many Alliance men that a survey would benefit farmers and the school funds more than it would corporations. Rea­ gan's argument was especially convincing since the same legislature had passed the Land Act of 1887, which was aimed at curtailing land acquisitions by speculators and corporations.44 The Senate quickly passed the survey bill, and it was signed into law on May 12, 1888.45 Presumably, the legislature acted because reform spirit was in the ascendancy and because the survey was related to the concept of land reform, which had emphasized the evaluation and classification of school and University lands. Yet the law mentioned nothing about a classification scheme. However, the 44 Another factor, which overcame the fears that a survey would mainly bene­ fit railroads and land speculators, was the realization that these groups could afford to have their own surveys run. The Galveston Daily News reported that the change in sentiment in the House could be attributed to the fact that private investors had discovered valuable coal and iron deposits since the first session of the Twentieth Legislature and had purchased the mineral rights at very low prices. The paper commented that, if the state geological survey had discovered these minerals, the landowners would have obtained more equitable prices for their minerals (May 3, 1888, p. 1, col. 6). The voice of the Farmers’ Alliance, The Southern Mercury, did not comment on the survey bill. It concentrated on the larger issues of railroad abuses and monied conspiracies. However, just as the new survey was getting under way, this newspaper carried an article by Dr. Nathaniel S. Shaler of Harvard in which this eminent geologist observed that '‘the laboratory gave its greatest gift to agri­ culture by showing that certain minerals which exist in large quantities in many lands afford minerals by which lands may be fertilized0 ( The Southern Mercury, October 9, 1888, p. 1, col. 6). 45 Senate Journal, 20th Leg., Extra Sess. (May 10, 1888), p. 117. Also see Appendix E.

The Durable Survey

89

newly elected Twenty-first Legislature, with its increased Alliance strength, enacted a land law in March 1889, authorizing the state survey to designate which of the reserved lands were potentially mineral-bearing and, therefore, subject to sale at graduated prices.46 The concept of a state survey of its natural resources for the benefit of its citizens was compatible with the moderate Alliance reform spirit, which sought to curtail the exploitation of the states resources by Northern and foreign capitalists. It is clear that the geological survey bill passed because of this support from reformers. In July 1888 Robert T. Hill suggested to Lafayette Lumpkin Foster, commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history, who was in charge of the survey and who had the authority to name the state geologist, that temporary division geologists be im­ mediately appointed.47 Hill recommended that Dumble and Wil­ liam Fletcher Cummins be placed in charge of survey operations in East and West Texas, respectively, while the Commissioner sought to obtain a qualified state geologist. Foster did not follow this plan, but he heeded Hill's advice to request Major Powell of the national survey to suggest a proper man to fill the head position.48 When Fosters request reached Washing­ ton, Powell was on vacation, and Grove Karl Gilbert was acting director. He was unfamiliar with the situation and referred the mat­ ter to Dr. Charles A. White, who recommended his former fossilcollector William Cummins. Hill considered Cummins unfit for the job and journeyed to Wash­ ington to plead his case. When he found Powell was absent, he turned to Dr. Nathaniel S. Shaler of Harvard. Shaler advocated his student, R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., for the position. However, by the time Hill received Powell's approval for Penrose, Commissioner Foster informed Hill that public sentiment demanded the appointment of a Texan to the post. Meanwhile, Hill had urged Dumble to help him secure a man “fresh from the scientific centers of modem methods" for the head position, but Hill had added that if he recommended 46 General Laws, 21st Leg., Chap. 56, pp. 50-53. 47 Robert T. Hill to Edwin Theodore Dumble, July 22, 1888, Dumble Papers. 48 Hill, “Recollections," pp. 29-30. Penrose thought the job was his until the last (see Penrose’s letters to Hill and Foster in the Dumble Papers).

90

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

any Texas man it would be Dumble.49 Accepting public opinion, Hül quickly wrote Foster and recommended Dumble.50 Foster asked Dumble and all other applicants to submit tentative plans for a state survey. Foster and Governor Ross selected Dumbles plan as the most practical and offered the thirty-six-year-old amateur the position. Dumble was young and comparatively inexperienced, but he had lobbied for the survey bill and was quite aware of what state officials demanded of the survey. Throughout his public career he showed a great propensity for maintaining a balance between the practical, economic work, which legislators demanded, and the basic geological investigation, which he as a scientist knew must ac­ company sophisticated mineral evaluations. Furthermore, on a few occasions he even allowed himself to give official recognition to mineral deposits that had not been sufficiently investigated.51 Never­ theless, Foster was entirely correct when he referred to Dumbles appointment as follows: “I do not think that I am stating the fact too strongly when I say that Mr. Dumble already possesses a more thorough and scientific knowledge of the geology of Texas than could be acquired by any new man by close application and hard study for several years, AH true Texans must feel a commendable State pride in the fact that we have such a man among us.”52 As part of Dumble’s well-organized plan for launching the survey he issued a series of public information circulars. The second circu­ lar, which he sent to the newspapers on October 11, explained the purposes and objectives of the survey: 49 Robert T. Hill to Edwin Theodore Dumble, August 1,1888, Dumble Papers. 50 Robert T. Hill to Lafayette Lumpkin Foster, September 17, 1888, Dumble Papers. 51 After resigning from the survey because of a personal difference with State Geologist Dumble, Robert T. Hill commented on a survey press release in which the occurrence of tin and platinum ores in the state was announced: ‘W hile it is apparent upon the face of these arguments just at the beginning of a session of the Legislature, that their purpose is not altogether scientific, it is doubtful if it a wise policy for the popular mind to be enthused with visions of mineral possibilities that do not exist” ( “Notes on the Geology of the Southwest,” American Geologist, VII [April 1891], 254). Also see Appendix F, which de­ scribes the Hill-Dumble dispute. 52 Frederick W. Simonds, “Memorial of Edwin Theodore Dumble,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXXIX ( 1927), 20.

The Dumble Survey

91

1. A search for ores, minerals, oils, coals, clays, and other minerals pos­ sessing a commercial value, and the determination of the question, wher­ ever possible, whether they exist in sufficient quantities and under suitable conditions and surroundings to make it reasonably certain that it will be profitable to work them. 2. An investigation of the geological formation and the topography of the country with a view to determining the probability of obtaining arte­ sian water and the feasibility of irrigating from such wells as from streams, shallow wells, or tanks where necessary. 3. The determination of the adaptability of soils to certain crops, and how their fertility can be increased by the use of the minerals closest at hand. 4. The search for and development of useful articles as not yet fully known.53 This outline, with its stress on aid to agriculture and to irrigation in the semiarid regions stricken by the drought, must have been especially pleasing to the Alliance bloc. Dumble made it quite clear that he would not neglect the practical goals of the survey. Since the legislature would reassemble in January 1889, the State Geologist realized that the survey must present a practical report at that time in order to justify more adequate appropriations than the original $15,000. He quickly sent out a circular to county officials in advance of the initial field work. The circular requested the of­ ficials to note any topographical errors on the county maps of the General Land Office which the survey would use as base maps and to provide personal information on the most prominent geological and mineralogical features of their counties.54 Dumble quickly made his reconnaissance assignments to his as­ sistants. He delegated Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz, an Austrian who had done mineral work in the Trans-Pecos, to investigate the min­ eral and agricultural resources of that region. Streeruwitz was to report by December 31.55 The State Geologist gave similar instruc53 Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Report of Progress of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, p. 9. 54 Ibid. 9 pp. 10-11. For a study of topographic work done for the Dumble Survey see Appendix D. 55 Edwin Theodore Dumble to Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz, October 2, 1888, Dumble Papers. Streeruwitz described the hardships of field work in the TransPecos in a letter to Dumble from camp on Eagle Mountain flat:

92

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

tíons to William Fletcher Cummins, the preacher who had collected vertebrate fossils in North Central Texas for Edward Drinker Cope. Dumble assigned Cummins the coal-bearing strata of the southeast­ ern Osage Plains, and R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., proceeded to investigate the iron ore, lignite, and asphalt deposits of East Texas.56 Gustav Jermy, James L. Tait, and Josiah Owen conducted the field work in arid South Texas. In his typical instructions to Owen, the State Geologist evidenced his concern with the drought condi­ tions in that region. First, he ordered Owen to explore the economic mineralogy of his area and then to determine the stratigraphy and its relation to artesian water and irrigation. Owen was also expected to designate the locality and quality of tillable lands that proper irrigation might benefit. His final report was due on December 15. Owen received $100 per month and field expenses.57 The survey published the results of the initial reconnaissance work in its First Report of Progress.58 After reading it, Governor Sul Ross announced to the legislature in January that “nothing in my opinion has contributed more effectively to bring into notice the resources of the State than the work of Professor Dumble and his associates, and adequate appropriations should be made to meet the necessary expenses in continuing this work on a more extended scale.”59 Ac­ cordingly, the legislature approved a biennial appropriation of $70,000. The survey published the results of its stratigraphie and “I never was in so desperate a condition and so depressed mentally as at the end of last month and the greater part of this. The weather was the worst imag­ inable. The crowd got difficult. I had to discharge and hunt a new cook. The animals drifted off before the storm. The camp was skunked, I had trouble about water at the barrels, and finally I was bitten in the right hand by a little black spider which nearly lamed me for 10 days . . . I had to use hypoderm injections of morphia in order to have some sleep . . . I had to keep quiet to the men not to make them scary, especially as the cold weather drove varmits [sic] of every kind into the tents” ( see Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz to Edwin Theodore Dum­ ble, October 28, 1889, Dumble Papers). 56 Helen R. Fairbanks and Charles P. Berkey, Life and Letters of R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., includes Penrose's observations on the hardships of East Texas field work (pp. 107-139). 57 Edwin Theodore Dumble to Josiah Owen, October 24, 1888, Dumble Papers. 58 See the bibliography for a complete list of the publications of the Dumble Survey. 59 House Journal, 21st Leg. (January 12, 1889), p. 25.

The Dumble Survey

93

economic studies during 1889 and 1890 in two annual reports and bulletins. The work was of such an impressive quality that out­ going Governor Ross was able to recommend successfully another $70,000 biennial appropriation.60 The legislature complied and also made a special appropriation of $3,000 for an investigation by Dumble into the utilization of lignite, which included a trip to study the workings of the lignite industry of Europe. Dumble linked the industrial future of Texas to the development of its lignite deposits. During the next two years, the survey published two more annual reports and several more bulletins of the same high quality. The enormous amount of work accomplished by the Dumble Survey during these first four years dwarfed all previous geological explora­ tions in Texas in both quality and quantity. But by the time the Fourth Annual Report appeared early in 1893 the political and eco­ nomic scenes bore little resemblance to those of the late eighties during which the legislature had created the Dumble Survey. First, the depression of 1893 had gripped the nation. Secondly, the radical elements in the Farmers' Alliance had succeeded in transforming the Alliance from an educational and economically oriented group into the main support of the People's Party, an outgrowth of the Populist movement in Texas. The election of the “progressive Demo­ crat” James S. Hogg in 1890 had united progressive reformers and agrarian reformers into a fairly harmonious Democratic majority. However, the struggle over the Railroad Commission bill—the de­ bate to decide whether the commission should be appointive or elective and whether an Alliance man should be placed on it— alienated the Alliance Democrats from the Democratic Party and brought them into the new People s Party after 1892.61 The Populists proclaimed themselves the party of retrenchment and economy and lashed out at all land, transportation, or money combinations in the state. In the 1892 elections they captured thirtyeight counties, twenty-three of which were drought-stricken counties in South Texas or the immediate Trans-Balcones region. Dumble knew that he must justify the work of his survey in the eyes of a legislature in which the Populists held the balance of power if he were to gain a renewal of appropriations. In the Fourth Annual 60 House Journal, 22d Leg. (January 13, 1891), pp. 31 and 45. 61 Robert C. Cotner, James Stephen Hogg: A Biography, pp. 257ff.

94

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Report, therefore, the State Geologist made an eloquent plea for continuance of the survey; he stressed the need for a strong basic understanding of Texas’ geology. The geologist and prospector work by entirely different methods, and although it is entirely possible for the latter to discover and develop a mineral deposit of value without any knowledge of geology, it is also true that the proper development of the mineral wealth of any area is depend­ ent largely upon a proper understanding of its geology. At the same time it should be clearly understood that the mineralogical survey and the de­ velopment of mineral resources is but one of the ends and aims of the geological survey, and is by no means the one which affects the greatest number of people. The proper study of the soils and their agricultural pos­ sibilities is also largely dependent upon a clear perception of the geology, as is the water supply and many other important questions which affect the individual far removed from any mineral district.62 Furthermore, Dumble could point to numerous practical contribu­ tions: the stratigraphie studies of the lignites and iron ores of East Texas and of the coal seams of the eastern Osage Plains and the Uvalde-Eagle Pass region, and the many discussions of the water re­ sources of various counties. The legislature cut the survey appropriations nevertheless, but it is quite significant that despite Texas’ economic plight the legisla­ tors appropriated $40,000 for the biennium beginning in March 1893. Undoubtedly, Populist support for this measure could be attributed to the water resource and soil studies of the survey as much as to its land reform contributions. However, the total of the general appropriation bill was so far in excess of expected state income that Governor Hogg reluctantly vetoed the survey appropriation for the fiscal year of 1894. Hogg later explained his action: ‘The State can­ not engage in the mining business, but must give way to private enterprise and capital. Up to date, through the efficient corps of scientific gentlemen connected with and in charge of the geographi­ cal department, [the State] has pointed the way to mines and 62 Edwin Theodore Dumble, Fourth Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, pp. xvii and xix. Dumble also pointed out that a thorough survey of the Eocene geology of the coastal plain alone would require a longer time than the geological investigation of the entire state of Mississippi or Louisiana and added that the Texas Cretaceous outcrop was even more exten­ sive and diversified stratigraphically.

The Dumble Survey

95

minerals of great value on public and private lands, and has laid out work enough to engage industry and capital of immense proportions for many years to come”63 This statement makes it clear that Hogg, an East Texan, did not consider the survey s soil and water resource studies, which were so appreciated in the semiarid regions, of para­ mount importance. Dumble was extremely interested in the irrigability of these lands, but his schemes attracted little official attention in the depressed times. Furthermore, although the survey classified some of the potential mineral-bearing reserved lands in the TransPecos region, state Land Office officials realized that this work was of little value in the absence of topographic base maps with super­ imposed land survey lines. The farmer seemed to stand alone in his support of the survey. When debate over biennial appropriations began again early in 1895, an attempt was made to resurrect the survey. In the election for the state House of Representatives in 1894, the Populists had captured fifty-two counties, fairly evenly distributed east and west of the ninety-eighth meridian. As agricultural conditions had wors­ ened since 1893, the strength of the party had increased greatly. The business-oriented press attacked the Populist-controlled legis­ lature for its retrenchment policies, although the legislature passed a biennial appropriation for the “State Geologic Department” in March.64 The monies provided for a state geologist's salary of only $2,000 per year and an unknown amount to cover the biennial ex­ penses, but at least the Populists believed that a survey was worth­ while and should be continued even if on a less ambitious level.65 They apparently welcomed the soil and water resource studies, 63 House Journal, 23d Leg. (May 9, 1893), p. 1209. In a letter to the author, Charles Laurence Baker relates that Governor Hogg “was man enough to tell William Kennedy that his worst mistake was vetoing the appropriation for the Texas Geological Survey, even though the 1893 panic was on.” 64 The Austin Daily Statesman reported that because of a split in the Demo­ cratic ranks, the Populists were controlling House legislation and chided the Democrats: “And as to all this wild economy racket that has run off into the rottenest parsimony, can’t you see that you are playing right into the hands of the Populists?” (Austin Daily Statesman, April 1, 1895, p. 2, col. 1). 65 Senate Journal, 24th Leg. (March 20, 1895), p. 317. Unfortunately the ex­ pense allowance was deleted from the record because of the subsequent veto, and its total is unknown.

96

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

which offered greater economic benefit to the farmer than did the land reform contributions of the survey. Former Grange leader, Archibald Johnson Rose, commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history under Governor Cul­ berson, had encouraged this move by the legislature.66 He sensed that the correspondence of the survey indicated a strong demand for the continuation of its services.67 However, the Governor favored retrenchment and vetoed the geological appropriation. In defense of this veto, Culberson declared that “it may be readily granted that the expenditure of this money would result in good to the State, but the condition of the Treasury is such that the benefits must be postponed.”68 In 1897 Jefferson Johnson, Roses successor as agricultural com­ missioner, reactivated the demand for the resurrection of the Dum­ ble Survey. Johnson cited several examples of ways in which this survey had contributed to the economic development of Texas, but the Governor again did not heed the requests for renewed appro­ priations.69 After 1894 Dumble had continued his work as state geologist under an agreement with the commissioners that he retain the regu­ lar state fees for making water supply investigations and reports on mineral deposits for private individuals.70 Even after being ap­ pointed consulting geologist for the Southern Pacific Railroad Com­ pany in March of 1895, Dumble continued to carry on the official correspondence of the survey until February 1899. In 1901 the legis­ lature officially terminated the survey by ordering its laboratory, library, and collections transferred to The University of Texas.71 After a decade of activity, which cost Texas only $176,500, the 66 Rose had been Worthy Master of the Texas Grange from 1880 to 1891 ( Handbook of Texas, II, 502). 67 Texas, Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics and History, Re­ port, p. 23. 68 Austin Democratic Statesman, “That Dreaded Veto," May 5, 1895, p. 5, cols. 2-4. 69 Commissioner of Agriculture, Report, p. 23. 70 George P. Merrill, “Contributions to a History of State Geological and Nat­ ural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Museum, CIX ( 1920), 494. For the months of March and April 1895, Dumble’s salary amount­ ed to $333.33 (A. J. Rose to Edwin Theodore Dumble, n.d., Dumble Papers). 71 Merrill, “History of State Geological Surveys,” p. 494.

97

The Dumble Survey

third state geological survey ended.72 The contributions to the geo­ logical knowledge of Texas which the personnel of the Dumble survey made were monumental and will be discussed in a later chapter. It is noteworthy that, outside of incalculable contributions to agriculture, this survey contributed little of immediate economic value. These men were unable to find sufficient deposits of mineral resources to encourage significant capital investments. 72 Comparative appropriations for other state geological surveys show that Texas survey appropriations were about average: Texas: Arkansas: California:

1888-1894: 1887-1895: 1880-1900:

$170,500 $120,000 $471,171

1858-1894: 1857-1895: 1850-1900:

$212,000 $168,789 $736,771

SIX

The Dumble Survey and the Diffusion of Public Resources

T h e reformers, who had pushed through legislation to terminate the policy of state land grants to encourage works by internal improvement companies and who had then supported the Land Act of 1883, fostered a land-reform program, which had as one of its main objectives distribution of the remaining public lands among the common people. They would create a Jeffersonian Arcadia, a land of small ranches and farms in the Trans-Balcones region, through the democratic principle of diffusion of public lands. Despite the loopholes in the new land act, which permitted cor­ porations to obtain more than the stipulated one section per coun­ ty, settlers appeared to be fulfilling the reformers’ dream. The dwindling supplies of lands in the more humid eastern areas of the state and the exceptionally heavy rains of 1883-1885 combined to lure many actual settlers west and south onto the available public lands. These sturdy agriculturalists seemed to be challenging the cattle barons' usurpation of vacant public lands.1 But the drought of 1 John S. Spratt, The Road to Spindletop: Economic Change in Texas, 18751901, p. 93.

The Diffusion of Public Resources

99

1886 sent thousands of them reeling back from the Trans-Balcones frontier. Major John Wesley Powells findings in his Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States in 1878 seemed vindi­ cated by the drought, which challenged the myth that these semiarid public lands west of the ninety-eighth meridian could develop into agrarian commonwealths similar to those in the Middle West.2 On the national level the drought was highly instrumental in winning the necessary congressional support in October 1888 for the creation of the Irrigation Survey long advocated by Major Powell. The joint resolution creating this survey directed the Secre­ tary of the Interior to make “an examination of that part of the United States where agriculture is carried on by means of irriga­ tion,” to determine dam sites “together with the capacity of streams, and the cost of construction and capacity of irrigation reservoirs.”3 It is noteworthy that Senator John H. Reagan, the national spokes­ man for the Texas reformers, had supported Powell's Irrigation Survey because such a scientific survey and classification of the irrigable lands of the public domain was the only means of prevent­ ing the development of “landlordism” in the American West.4 State land reformers also realized that some scheme of irrigation must accompany their plans to populate the semiarid public lands with farmers and small ranchers.5 Otherwise, the large ranchers 2 William C. Holden reported that this drought gave West Texas a reputation over the entire nation as being a desert country of winds and drought (see “West Texas Droughts,” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXXII [October 1928], 105). He also quoted an article from the Haskell Free Press, April 2, 1887: "The Texas and Pacific Railroad Company bored a number of artesian wells across the drouth area to see if underground water could be had in sufficient quantities . . . In addition, the Company sent a corps of engineers to California to study irrigation in that state and determine whether or not California meth­ ods could be used in Texas” (p. 123). No mention of the results of this work has been found. 3 Quoted in E. W. Sterling, “The Powell Irrigation Survey, 1888-1893,” Mis­ sissippi Valley Historical Review, XXVII (December 1940). 4 Reagan’s support for the Irrigation Survey is mentioned in ibid., p. 431. 6 Fortunately, Texas had inherited certain truths about arid land ranching from the Mexicans, who especially emphasized that ranches in dry country had to be large to be viable. Mexican and early Republic law had provided for a homestead unit of 4470 acres in arid regions. Despite the demand of the Farm­ ers' Alliance that purchases from the reserved lands be limited to 320 acres, the astute framers of the Land Act of 1887 continued the system of classifying lands

100

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

would continue to hold vast amounts of acreage by controlling the few strategic water holes.6 These ranchers had either purchased the watered lands they used under the free range system by devious methods or now leased them for minimal prices under the new land laws. Small ranchers and farmers could not develop their home­ steads on open lands unless new supplies of water were made available. Governor Sul Ross, who was aware of the burgeoning reform spirit and of the demands for drought relief by the western farmer, promoted the cause of irrigation despite the opposition of the pow­ erful cattlemen s lobby, which sought to prevent the settlers from entering their pastoral domain. In his message to the legislature in January 1889, Ross declared that irrigation was “one of the most important questions affecting the interest of a large but partially developed section of our State, and in no small degree regulates the value of our common school lands.” To stress the need for a more equitable distribution of water rights to prevent “riparian monopolization” of available water, the Governor quoted the gov­ ernor of the Arizona territory, who had strongly advocated the re­ placement of the riparian doctrine of water rights with the doctrine of prior appropriation. The latter doctrine would be a much better scheme for distributing water in arid regions “so as to build up and enrich the community in the place of the individual.” This novel system of water rights would permit landholders with no access to water to channel off such water as they needed for irrigation. Ross also recommended that capitalists should be encouraged to build the irrigation works necessary for the development of farms in the Trans-Balcones by the assurance that they would receive fair returns as “watered agricultural [farming]” and “unwatered agricultural [grazing],” and set the size of units of grazing lands for sale at 2,560 acres. 6 Trans-Pecos geologist Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz made the following obser­ vation: ‘‘The few springs and permanent water holes, which supply a few thousand head of cattle with water, are private property, and their owners control in fact all the superabundance of grass, of which millions of tons decay in the prairies, where thousands of thrifty farmer families might find a comfortable home in an excellently healthful climate, on rich soil, if water for irrigation should be pro­ vided” ( see Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Report of Progress of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, p. 43).

The Diffusion of Public Resources

101

on their investments although they should not be permitted to im­ pose extortionate charges upon dependent landholders.7 The legislature acted quickly on Ross’s recommendation. Influ­ ential Representative Alfred H. H. Tolar of Taylor County, whose constituency included much of northwestern Texas and the Pan­ handle where large blocks of public lands lay, introduced a bill to encourage irrigation and to provide for the chartering of irrigation companies to construct and maintain irrigation works. B. H. Erskine of arid Frio County, who was chairman of the Committee on Irriga­ tion, offered a substitute bill, which included two important amend­ ments. One addition declared that the state adhere to the doctrine of prior appropriation of water rights: “as between appropriators, the one first in time is the one first in right, to such quantity of wa­ ter only as is reasonably sufficient and necessary to irrigate the land susceptible of irrigation on either side of a ditch or canal.”8 The other amendment probably reflected Alliance demands. It stipulated that the commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history should investigate and report to the legislature the con­ struction costs of the various irrigation works made by companies incorporated under the Tolar bill and the charges that these compa­ nies made for the use of the waters.9 The bill as amended by Erskine applied only to natural surface waters, and its application was limited to arid districts where “irrigation was necessary for agricul­ ture,” It easily passed both houses in March 1889.10 It is obvious that the limited quantity of “natural surface waters" in such areas as the Trans-Pecos and the Llano Estacado seriously reduced the usefulness of this law. But its enactment was a signifi­ cant beginning because it illustrated that the Alliance legislators were willing to risk the creation of speculative water companies in order to stimulate the settlement by farmers and small ranchers of the remaining public lands, which were then predominantly reserved 7 Texas, House Journal, 21st Leg. (January 10, 1889), p. 24. 8 Ibid. (January 18, 1889), pp. 132-133. Tolar wrote a series of articles on the Texas public land system for The Southern Mercury in 1890; he recom­ mended a form of homestead program for developing the reserved lands which would foster the creation of small ranches and farms (see The Southern Mer­ cury, April 11, 1890, p. 5, col. 2 ). 9 House Journal, 21st Leg. (March 4, 1889), p. 589. On water laws, see Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Plains, pp. 431—452. 10 House Journal, 21st Leg. (March 9, 1889), p. 65.

102

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

for school and University use. They considered this risk preferable to an expensive scheme like state construction of irrigation works. They and the moderate reformers undoubtedly visualized that cattle companies would continue to monopolize the use of the semiarid reserved lands through control of available water and long-term grazing leases unless available water supplies could be more equi­ tably distributed. They hoped that legislative control over water rates would keep irrigation companies from developing into specu­ lative land companies. However, many others advocated some plan for state construction of irrigation works. In 1886 after the catalytic drought had begun, reform-minded Land Commissioner William C. Walsh, whom the free grass forces later ousted in the Democratic nominating conven­ tion, recommended that the irrigable school and University lands be separately classified so they would not fall into the hands of speculators. With regard to the construction of irrigation works nec­ essary for the development of these lands, the Land Commissioner recommended a unique plan. He declared that the cost of dam and ditches was too much for the single settler, and, if an association of capitalists advanced the money, the interest would become a per­ petual tax upon the farmer using the water. So he concluded that the state must act: ‘Without irrigation these reserved school lands are almost worthless, with it their value can hardly be estimated. In view of these facts, would it not be practicable to invest a por­ tion of the respective permanent funds in such improvement? . . . The feasibility and wonderful results of such work has been dem­ onstrated in the far more arid States and Territories of the west and northwest.”11 This concept anticipated the Newlands Act of 1902, which set aside funds from the sale and disposal of public lands for the survey and construction of irrigation reservoirs on the same federal lands. Walsh was perhaps one of the earliest state officials to advocate state construction of irrigation works, but State Geologist Edwin T. Dumble was surely its most active proponent.12 The irrigation pro­ 11 Texas, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report ( 1886), p. 9. 12 The succeeding land commissioner, Richard Moore Hall, also discussed the problem of utilizing the remaining three million acres of unappropriated public lands, which were without permanent water. He recommended reducing the lease rental, extending the lease term, and either inducing private parties to de-

The Diffusion of Public Resources

103

grams that he recommended represent the most important contribu­ tion of the state geological survey toward land distribution reform schemes, although he greatly underestimated their cost. Although discussions of water well prospects fill the reports of the Dumble Survey, they were meant more to gain favor with farm­ ers than to combat the basic problem of aridity. Dumble was in full agreement with Major Powell's basic conclusion that only surface waters, both natural flow and storm waters, could support practical irrigation.13 This observation was most valid for their times and for several decades to come.14 In the initial official survey report, Dumble discussed droughts in general and concluded, as had Powell, that the main problem in the area west of the ninety-eighth parallel most affected by droughts was not the amount of rainfall but its distribution. Rains usually fell in the autumn in the form of cloudbursts but not during grow­ ing seasons when most desperately needed.15 Dumble concluded that a state program of storage reservoir construction similar to Powell's federal program was the only feasible approach to the prob­ lem of making irrigation on the reserved lands possible.16 From the start he seemed opposed to the creation of private irrigation com­ panies. The mountainous Trans-Pecos country was the one region in which the construction of storage reservoirs of a size to render irrivelop irrigation works or having the state develop the water resources of these lands (see Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, p. 3). 18 In 1890 the Artesian Well Investigation Committee of the Department of Agriculture placed Dumble in charge of water resource studies west of the ninety-seventh meridian. While Dumble held this position Senator John Reagan of the Special Senate Committee on the Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, thoroughly questioned him, and Dumble emphasized the feasibility of storm-water storage systems (see United States, Senate, Report of the Special Committee of the United States Senate on the Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Report 291 [1890], pp. 115-117). 14 It was not until the development of gasoline water pumps that well irriga­ tion became feasible in such areas as the Llano Estacado in the second decade of the twentieth century. 15 Dumble, First Report of Progress (The Dumble Survey), p. 28. 16 Dumble also proposed the highly impractical plan of foresting the arid lands. He felt that forests would retard runoff, and “would be attended by all the consequences of reduced evaporation, cooler winds, and increased rainfall” (ibid., p. 29).

104

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

gationpossible would be feasible. Fortunately for Dumbles purpose, over half of the unsold school and University lands lay in this arid region. Dumble organized his project quickly in order to have some practical information to present with his proposals to state leaders. Upon his recommendation, Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz spent con­ siderable time in locating four prospective storage reservoir sites in the Trans-Pecos.17 In August 1891, on the basis of Streeruwitzs work and of some investigations on his own, Dumble wrote to Commissioner of Agri­ culture, Insurance, Statistics, and History John E. Hollingsworth and reported that the most attractive solid block of public lands con­ sisted of two thousand square miles in what is present-day Culberson County. Dumble stated that most of the area was covered with very fertile soils and included extensive mountain areas containing “suitable sites for building dams and storage reservoirs for stock raising, mining, and irrigation purposes.”18 Dumble suggested to Hollingsworth that the state construct storage reservoirs on this land with the use of convict labor. Shortly after making this informal proposal, Dumble departed for his survey of the lignite industry of Europe. He left his close friend Allen Charles Gray, the editor of the Houston Telegraph, in charge of his office. Gray wrote Dumble that one Anthony W. Dillard had written a newspaper article that completely stole Dumble s “convict-reservoir thunder.”19 Dillard, like Land Commissioner Walsh, 17 Specific locations included Rattlesnake Tanks on the west side of a spur of the Van Horn Mountains, the valley of Carpenter Springs on the north side of the Eagle Mountains, the hills at the foot of the Sierra Diablo cliffs, and the pass northwest of the Bonanza mine in the Quitman Mountains ( see Edwin Theodore Dumble, Second Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, pp. 702-703). 18 Edwin Theodore Dumble to John E. Hollingsworth, August 11, 1891, Hogg Letter Record, XVI, 116-117, James Stephen Hogg Papers, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. 19 Allen Charles Gray to Edwin Theodore Dumble, October 21, 1891, Dumble Papers, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas. Then, perhaps with tongue in cheek, Gray informed Dumble that Streeruwitz had written of a cloudburst that almost swept his camp away. Gray felt that this might have been the result of rainmaking experiments being conducted at federal and private expense under the direction of a special agent of the Department of Agriculture, Robert C. Dryenforth. The tests were inconclusive, but Gray wryly commented that “the rain­ makers are said to have been astonishingly successful recently . . . and if these

The Diffusion of Public Resources

105

perceived that individuals would be unable to pay for reservoir con­ struction and that a construction syndicate set up under the Irriga­ tion Act of 1889 which charged for the use of water would be a perilous monopoly.20 Dillard argued that state construction was the only answer, and he suggested the use of convict labor. He estimated that a force of two thousand convicts could give West Texas a working system of irrigation in ten years and could complete the task in fifty years. He added that the minimal cost would be more than offset by the increase in state tax income due to increased productivity in the western lands. It is apparent that he, like Dum­ ble, grossly underestimated the magnitude of the task, although his basic plan was well-intended. Upon his return from Europe, Dumble officially proposed in a survey publication that the state use convict labor to construct “storm-storage” reservoirs, provided suitable locations could be found upon state lands. With the endorsement of Hollingsworth and Governor Hogg, Dumble and Streeruwitz had already discov­ ered several such localities in Culberson County. The State Geolo­ gist also noted that Major Powell of the United States Geological Survey had ‘promised not only to designate such localities as may be found by [federal] topographic parties at work in the district, but also to estimate the cubical contents, height of dam and other details.”21 Dumble emphasized that one of the main attributes of his state construction plan was that it would give Texas “practical control of the water supply, and such laws could be enacted as would se­ cure the distribution to all parties on a fair and equitable basis.”22 This democratic scheme was in harmony with the land reformers’ goal of distribution of public lands among the greatest possible number of actual settlers. However, his state construction plan things succeed your reservoir scheme will be superceded and ‘knocked sky high'.” For more information on these tests of the cannonading or concussion theory of rainmaldng see John C. Rayburn, “Cannonading the Clouds at Mid­ land, 1891,” Yearbook of the W est Texas Historical Association, XXXIV (Octo­ ber 1958), 50-60. 20 San Antonio Daily Express, October 18, 1891, p. 9, col. 5. 21 Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. 16. 22 Edwin Theodore Dumble to John E. Hollingsworth, December 8, 1892, Hogg Letter Record, pp. 117-120.

106

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

directly contradicted the Irrigation Act of 1889, which had allowed the creation of private irrigation construction companies and had introduced the doctrine of prior appropriation of waters.23 The United States Geological Survey under Major Powell belat­ edly assisted the state survey in locating potential reservoir sites. In the early part of 1893, Richard Urquhart Goode, topographer with the Irrigation Survey, informed Dumble that “owing to the fact that there were no United States public lands in Texas we have never paid any special attention to the selection of reservoir sites.” How­ ever, he added that there were numerous potential sites for “stormstorage” reservoirs and that both Major Powell and Robert A. Thompson, professor of civil engineering at The University of Texas, thoroughly approved Dumble’s plan of state reservoir construction.24 The following year—the last year of the Dumble Survey—Thomp­ son wrote a detailed article for the Texas Academy of Science in which he reported that both Major Clarence Edward Dutton, hydrographer for the United States Geological Survey, and Dumble considered the most advanced stage of the science of irrigation to be the impoundment of storm water in storage reservoirs. Further­ more, Thompson noted that, upon the urgent request of Dumble, Major Powell's men had finally surveyed several catchment basins in the Trans-Pecos region.25 23 Trans-Pecos geologist Streeruwitz apparently favored the private construc­ tion scheme. To facilitate irrigation projects, Streeruwitz advocated increasing the size of the land blocks, which were included in railroad grants in checker­ board fashion, from one section to one hundred sections. He commented that people were hesitant to buy and improve state-owned sections when the alter­ nate railroad sections belonged to another party. Private parties would be willing to incur reasonable expenses and even risks in constructing irrigation works in larger land blocks. He also correctly argued that a single section was too small a land unit to be disposed of as grazing land in arid country by either the state or railroad companies. Furthermore, the owner of a section containing water sources usually controlled many surrounding open sections: “Free grazing is abolished by law, although in many places practically continued [in this manner]” (Dum­ ble, Second Annual Report, p. 43; also pp. 703-704). 24 Richard U. Goode to Edwin Theodore Dumble, February 24, 1893, Dumble Papers. By this time Powell's Irrigation Survey had been stripped of most of its power. 25 Robert A. Thompson, “The Storm-Water Storage System of Irrigation,” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, I (October 1894), 74. The na­ tional survey sent Dumble plats of two good reservoir sites in the Trans-Pecos

The Diffusion of Public Resources

107

One such typical basin lay nine miles south of Marfa in Presidio County. The Irrigation Survey topographers estimated the area of the catchment basin at 440 square miles, the maximum surface area of the proposed reservoir at 1.43 square miles, and the height of the dam at 100 feet. They also calculated that a rainfall of 1.3 inches over the entire basin would fill the reservoir and would be sufficient to irrigate 20,000 acres.26 Thompson, who had made several similar studies in the southern Osage Plains, commented on the fact that speculative irrigation com­ panies had capitalized on his work for the state survey. Such com­ panies had selected his prospective reservoir sites in Brown and San Saba Counties.27 However, it should be pointed out that both of these projects utilized natural flowing waters, and the cost of con­ structing ditches to draw irrigation waters off was nowhere near the expense of constructing “storm-storage” reservoirs 28 Unfortunately, just as Dumble presented state officials with en­ gineering estimates for proposed reservoir construction, the Panic of 1893 commenced. This panic increased the Populists' advocacy of retrenchment in state government. However, the legislature in which they held the balance-of-power renewed appropriations for the geological survey, presumably because the survey held promise of immediate benefit to the distressed farmer. Moreover, drought conditions had worsened in 1891-1893, and since Populist power centered in the semiarid region west of the ninety-eighth meridian, Populist legislators considered irrigation a question of paramount which R. U. Goode had prepared (see United States Geological Survey to Edwin Theodore Dumble, April 3, 1894, Dumble Papers). By this time the Dumble Survey had practically terminated. 26 Another site seven miles south of Alpine had a catchment basin of 203 square miles, a reservoir surface area of 1.43 square miles, and a dam height of 50 feet. A rainfall of 1.25 inches would fill the reservoir and irrigate 2,000 acres (Thompson, “Storm-Water Storage System,” p. 78). 27 Ibid., p. 79. 28 Other geologists had studied the reservoir possibilities for the Dumble Sur­ vey. Josiah Owen advocated construction of a dam across the Rio Grande just above the mouth of the Devils River (in Dumble, First Report of Progress, p. 70). William Fletcher Cummins noted that an immense storage reservoir a few miles below the head of the South Concho River could provide enough water to irrigate at least 500,000 acres on the Lipan Flats (ibid., pp. 178-179). Present Lake Nasworthy is on the headwaters of the South Concho, and Amistad Dam is currently being constructed just below the mouth of the Devils River.

108

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

importance. Yet because of their concern with economy Populists turned away from Dumble’s program of state irrigation works, which would have been very costly, and supported proposals to encourage private enterprise to undertake the task. Populist reasoning was similar to that of Governor Charles A. Culberson, who at times carried retrenchment to extremes. In his message to the legislature in January 1895, Culberson declared that irrigation was of paramount importance to Texas because virtually the entire body of school lands was situated in semiarid areas of western Texas. He asserted that “not only the value of those unsold school and University lands, but the solvency of purchase money belonging to the school fund,” was dependent upon the success of irrigation on the lands. In his proposal for a revised irrigation law, Culberson, perhaps upon Dumble’s urging, advised that supple­ mentation of natural rainfall and waterflow with artificially stored storm waters was necessary for any successful scheme of irrigation in the Trans-Pecos and the adjoining regions where the bulk of the public lands lay.29 Culberson also wanted to facilitate the creation of irrigation con­ struction companies or cooperatives. Representative William Ward Turney of El Paso promptly introduced a new irrigation bill.30 Turney's bill would continue the practice of granting irrigation companies the right to have contracts for the sale of water rights secured by preference Hens on the irrigated crops. The bill would also extend to irrigation companies the right to capture and sell “storm and rain waters of every river or natural stream, canyon, ravine, depression, or watershed within those portions of Texas in which by reason of insufficient rainfall or by the reason of irregu­ larity of rainfall, irrigation is beneficial for agricultural purposes.” The last clause complied with the Governor s recommendation. The House passed the bill by a four to one margin, with only three negative votes coming from west of the ninety-eighth meridian. The Senate also passed it easily, but Culberson refused to sign it into law because of inadequate checks on the irrigation corporations. It be­ came law without his signature despite considerable support for his stand.31 Turney himself had been forced to submit a petition to the 29 House Journal, 24th Leg. (January 16, 1895), p. 58. 30Ibid., (March 18, 1895), p. 506. 31 Texas, General Laws, 24th Leg., chap. 21, pp. 21-26.

The Diffusion of Public Resources

109

legislature from some El Paso citizens “condemning the irrigation bill introduced by their own representative and severely criticizing his action in connection therewith, and praying the Legislature not to pass a measure framed and slyly rushed through the House in the interest of an English syndicate and against the interests of the people.”32 Just a few days after the passage of the Turney bill, Senator Ed­ win A. Atlee of Laredo introduced a bill to amend the new irriga­ tion act “so as to conform the same to the objectives of the Gover­ nor.”33 This amending act, which passed the House ninety-two to seven, specified that the legislature should insure reasonable and just rates.34 This clause probably salved Culberson’s fears of cor­ porate exploitation under the Turney act. However, Atlees act included two clauses that seemed to increase the opportunity for irrigation companies to become land speculation companies. One clause stipulated that in addition to crop liens, irrigation companies could secure water-lease contracts with hens on the prospective irrigated land; another clause allowed the com­ panies to acquire lands in direct payment for water rights. It ap­ peared that land speculators had rewritten the law for their own purposes. Populist Sam T. Foster of North Central Texas, one of the few to vote against the Atlee bill, had protested that the bill would “create a monopoly which in a few years will absorb the most valuable lands of the West through the foreclosure of liens given to secure payments for the use of water.”35 Indeed, it seemed that the legislature had forgotten the original concept of encouraging the private construction of irrigation works to facilitate the develop­ ment of the arid reserved lands and their distribution to the greatest possible number of actual settlers.36 This concept was based on the 32 House Journal, 24th Leg. (February 25, 1895), p. 365. In spite of this, Turney appeared to be genuinely interested in irrigation possibilities in his re­ gion. Later he was head of the Southwestern Irrigation Committee of the Na­ tional Irrigation Congress. 33Ibid., (March 19, 1895), p. 303. 34 General Laws, 24th Leg., chap. 23, pp. 27-29. 35 House Journal, 24th Leg. (March 19, 1895), p. 511. 36 The historian of the Texas land system commented that regardless of the seemingly noble intentions of this Twenty-fourth Legislature, the results of the operation of the land act that it passed “show conclusively that it was designed and constructed in such a way as to yield a handsome profit to speculators rather

110

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

democratic principle of diffusion which was central to the land dis­ tribution reform schemes of Dumble and the Populists. Two years later Representative William Ward Turney proved that he was sincerely interested in democratic irrigation schemes by making one more attempt to encourage irrigation and thereby bene­ fit his constituents in El Paso County. In 1897, with the support of the Texas Irrigation Association, he introduced a joint resolution into the Senate which would amend the state constitution to enable the majority of the landholders in an intercounty drainage area in the semiarid regions to create irrigation districts.37 These districts, which would be a form of cooperative, were to be bodies corporate with all the rights and liabilities of ordinary irrigation companies. Unfortunately, the voters soundly defeated Turney’s amendment at the polls on August 3 ,1897.38 This proposal, essentially Powell's plan, would have ended the threat of speculative irrigation companies.39 The cooperative irrigation districts that it provided could have con­ structed their own irrigation works with some minor degree of state assistance. A similar proposal was eventually enacted in 1905. In addition to their democratic concern for irrigation and for stimulating distribution of the arid reserved lands to the small stock farmer, Dumble and Streeruwitz sought to encourage individ­ ual mineral prospecting activities. They proclaimed that survey in­ vestigations had proved that the Trans-Pecos region contained “numerous and extensive deposits and veins of lead, copper, and gold ores, which for plainness of surface indication, continuity and than an income to the school fund” (Reuben McKitrick, “Public Land System of Texas, 1823-1910,” Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, no. 905 [Febru­ ary 1918], p. 100). 37 General Laws, 25th Leg., Sen. Jt. Res. no. 7, pp. 258-260. 38 The defeat of this proposal could be attributed mainly to the provision that every landowner in the proposed district be taxed up to $15 per acre to help finance the construction of irrigation works, even though many acres within each district might not be irrigable ( Austin Democratic Statesman, July 30, 1897, p. 4, col. 1; and August 2, 1897, p. 4, col. 2). 39 This proposal was almost exactly like the one made by Major John Wesley Powell ( “Institutions for the Arid Lands,” The Century Magazine, XL [May 1890], 111-116), which was embodied in a bill introduced by Senator John H. Reagan. See Minority Report of the Special Committee on the Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Report 92 ( 1890), pp. 178-182.

The Diffusion of Public Resources

111

richness are not excelled by any similar district in the United States.”40 This premature and overly optimistic evaluation explains why the two geologists were so concerned with stimulating the de­ velopment of the mineral resources of this region, in which the state controlled over half the available acreage—over ten million acres. Development would benefit the school and University funds as well as the individual prospector. The Constitution of 1876 had given the state control over the minerals located on the reserved school and University lands.41 However, the framers of this document had made no provision for the disposal of these reserved minerals. Perhaps they anticipated some form of state development. In 1882 Land Commissioner Wil­ liam C. Walsh proposed that prospective mineral-bearing lands be classified separately and sold at graduated prices.42 However, in the mineral law passed the following year, the legislature adopted a more practical policy of simply reserving a royalty of 5 per cent on all minerals taken from the reserved public lands.43 Dumble supported Walsh’s classification proposal, and the two men were probably largely responsible for the passage of the Min­ eral Act of 1889, which included a classification scheme of disposal.44 This act, which Representative George Bush Stevenson of El Paso had introduced and which both houses quickly passed, replaced the simple policy of requiring a mineral royalty on reserved lands and set up a dual sale and lease program. A prospective purchaser could buy lands that the state Geological Survey had designated as min­ eral lands, or prospectors could obtain mineral leases on reserved lands for an annual prepayment of $50 for each claim. The classification scheme was totally impractical. First, the state survey did not have the personnel or financial support to conduct adequate examinations of prospective mineral lands. Furthermore, 40 Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. xxviii. 41 Wallace Hawkins, El Sal del Rey, describes the history of laws governing ownership of minerals in Texas from the days of Spanish rule until 1866, the year in which title was transferred to the owners of the land. 42 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, p. 5. 43 General Laws, 18th Leg., chap. 97, pp. 100-101. 44 Dumble, First Report of Progress, p. 15. The law is found in General Laws, 21st Leg., chap. 100, pp. 116-120. Also, see House Journal, 21st Leg. (March 29, 1899), p. 910.

112

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

the Texas General Land Office never provided the survey with the land title maps on which the survey was expected to designate its findings. Thus, the survey maps on which Streeruwitz and his men did eventually classify some 372,247 acres by 1892, in El Paso, Jeff Davis, and Presidio counties, were practically useless as guides to land distribution.45 Without the adequate classification maps, the task of designating which lands the state would sell as mineral lands fell to the land commissioner. Streeruwitz opposed this practice and recommended the reservation of all school and University lands the state survey suspected of being mineral-bearing until they could be thoroughly evaluated.46 He obviously failed to observe that a similar reservation policy on the national level had led to the downfall of the Irrigation Survey because it violated the westerner s demand for local control of resources. Despite the shortcomings of the classification-sale scheme, the Twenty-fourth Legislature, which passed an appropriation for the continuance of the Dumble Survey in March 1895, also passed a new mineral law, which included the stipulation that this survey con­ tinue to classify the mineral-bearing reserved lands.47 However, when Governor Culberson vetoed the survey appropriation, the land commissioner assumed full control of the distribution of mineral lands. The framers of this new mineral act had as their main objective the removal of the $50 annual prepayment on all claims which Streeruwitz had opposed because it favored the speculator rather than the common prospector. However, the legislature’s adjustment was too generous. The new law allowed a prospector to work a mineral prospect for five years before deciding whether to patent his claim. Thus, a miner could strip minerals from the reserved lands for five years without making any payment, and at the end of that period he could even refile his original claim. It was not until after the turn of the century that a new state mineral survey and new land commissioner could convince the 45 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, p. 28. 46 Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz to Edwin Theodore Dumble, March 7, 1891, Letterpress, Papers of the Texas Geological Survey, The University of Texas Archives. 47 General Laws, 24th Leg., chap. 127, pp. 197-202.

The Diffusion of Public Resources

113

legislature of the unrealistic nature of the classification scheme and the loopholes in the prospecting law. At that time they would suc­ cessfully advocate a return to the workable program of reservation of mineral royalties on all of the school and University lands. Although they were not too effective or farseeing, Dumble and his associates had tried to make the state survey a participant in schemes for democratic land reform. Their efforts—from Dumble’s plan for state storage reservoir construction to Streeruwitz’s pro­ posal for eliminating annual prepayments on mineral claims—were attempts to make certain that the remaining water, land, and mineral resources of the state did not fall into the hands of speculators but were diffused among the common people. At the same time, they felt that their programs would increase the income of the school and University funds. Unfortunately, Dumble’s public works scheme was too radical for moderate and conservative Texas Democrats and too expensive for the economy-minded Populists. Furthermore, he and others had grossly underestimated the magnitude of storage reservoir and canal construction costs. In addition, Dumble and Streeruwitz advocated a land classification program that was totally impractical. They considered this scheme worthwhile because it represented the most scientific and equitable solution to the distribution of public lands. However, as Powell had discovered earlier, this program countered the demands of the avaricious frontier entrepreneur, who sought to remove all impediments to the rapid exploitation of undeveloped public lands.

SEVEN

The Phillips Survey: A Classical Resource Study of Undeveloped Public Lands

A t the turn of the century, the discovery of minerals of significant economic value in the Trans-Pecos region appeared to vindicate the optimistic estimates of Dumble and Streeruwitz. By 1900 mining companies had proved that the Terlingua quicksilver deposits in the Big Bend were quite valuable, and state legislators could not overlook the fact that the Terlingua district included many acres of unsold school and University lands. In his 1900 General Land Office report, Commissioner Charles Rogan reported to the governor that the state was selling some of the richest mineral-bearing reserved land in El Paso, Presidio, and Brewster counties at the price of grazing lands.1 Rogan pointed out that his office was not equipped to handle the task of declaring which reserved lands should be sold at mineral-land prices, an obli­ gation the office had inherited from the state geological survey upon its termination in 1895. The Commissioner asked for sufficient ap­ propriations to enable the Land Office to evaluate properly the min1 Texas, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report (1900), p. 28. As classification of public lands continued to lag under the new state geological survey, the land commissioner began to classify as mineral-bearing those lands in active mineral-prospecting regions, thereby securing for the state a reserved interest in any minerals produced from such lands (Octavia F. Rogan, Land Commissioner Charles Rogan and Mineral Classification of Texas Public Lands).

The Phillips Survey

115

eral potential of the remaining reserved lands and to locate mineralbearing tracts on Land Office maps. Concurrently, professional geologists moved to reestablish a state geological survey. In his memoirs, Robert T. Hill related that in 1899, while dining with some eminent geologists at a meeting of a national scientific society in New York, the subject of state surveys had arisen. When asked why there was no longer a Texas survey, Hill had replied that parsimonious legislators had killed it. There­ upon, Professor Eugene Smith, the veteran state geologist of Ala­ bama, commented that the state could overcome this impediment by having the survey placed under the control of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas. Since Hill was already scheduled to leave for Texas to resume his Trans-Pecos reconnaissances for the United States Geological Survey, he agreed to pursue Smith’s suggestion. He related the subsequent events as follows: “When I got on the train at Galveston for Austin, whom should I meet but my old friend, Major [George W.] Brackenridge, a leading Regent of the Univer­ sity, and he told me he was going to a meeting of the Board. While on the road to Austin I had ample time to explain the matter to him, and he arranged that I should lay the matter before the Board the next day in Austin, which I did. This was the inception of the Texas State Mineralogical Survey.”2 The board acted on his suggestion. In its Ninth Biennial Report in December 1900, it recommended that the state organize a survey of its mineral resources. The regents noted that the former geological surveys had attracted scientific attention to Texas and had estab­ lished the groundwork for future detailed examinations of the states mineral resources. Now was the time, they reasoned, to use this geo­ logical background to investigate questions of economic interest to the people of Texas. They felt that this twentieth-century survey should “devote itself to questions of industrial progress rather than to those of a more purely scientific nature.”3 The words of the re­ 2 Robert T. Hill, “Some Geological Recollections of a Young Man,” pp. 75-76, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. An undated letter from Hill to the Board of Regents recommending the creation of a new survey is found in the Hill Papers in the basement of the Fondren Library, Southern Methodist Uni­ versity, Dallas, Texas. In it Hill presents his choices for a nominating committee for the state geologist. 3 University of Texas, Ninth Biennial Report of the Board of Regents, p. 7. In

110

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

gents seemed to echo the pragmatic mood of an emerging industrial region. Governor Joseph D. Sayers was most receptive to the reform con­ cepts of Land Commissioner Rogan and tied them to the regents’ proposals for a new state survey. On January 10,1901, he addressed the legislature and repeated Commissioner Rogan s protest that the state was selling potentially valuable public lands for minimal prices. Sayers then called for an immediate evaluation of the mineral poten­ tial of the school and University lands, more than half of which lay west of the Pecos River. He “earnestly recommended that prompt action be taken so that they be made to realize to the fund some­ what of their true value when sold.”4 The very day that the Governor delivered his message to the legis­ lature the famous Lucas oil well “blew in” at Spindletop south of Beaumont and further stimulated interest in a state mineral survey. Eight days later, Senator A. G. Lipscomb of Waller County in the oil-conscious Gulf Coast region introduced a mineral survey bill.5 The Galveston Daily News editorialized that the object of this bill appeared “to be the protection of the State from selling any rich mineral lands it may have for a song, and also to promote the devel­ opment of Texas mineral lands generally.”6 This prominent news­ paper added that the bill attracted considerable attention because of the recent discovery of oil and rich minerals in the state. Meanwhile, the University Board of Regents had requested Law Professor William Stewart Simpkins to draft a bill creating a mineral survey under the direction of the School of Geology of TTie Univer­ sity of Texas.7 Representatives E. T. Moore and H. P. Mclnnis of

an article on manufacturing in Texas, Edwin L. Caldwell noted that “by 1900, the economy of Texas . . . had become integrated thoroughly with that of the rest of the United States on the colonial basis of supplying raw materials to the industrial sectors and importing manufactured products” ( “Highlights of the Development of Manufacturing in Texas, 1900-1960,” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXVIII [April 1965], 405). The Texas economy was still over­ whelmingly agricultural. 4 Texas, House Journal, 27th Leg. (January 10, 1901), p. 23. 5 Texas, Senate Journal, 27th Leg. (January 18, 1901), p. 69. 6 Galveston Daily News, March 31, 1901, p. 5, col. 2. 7 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. B (January 15, 1901), p. 414, Re­ gents Office, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

The Phillips Survey

117

Central Texas introduced the bill.8 During February and March, while the legislature considered the bill, state newspapers were filled with news of the oil excitement along the Gulf Coast. The Galveston Daily News reported oil discoveries near reserved school lands in Pecos County and devoted entire Sunday supplements to discussions of oil developments. The North Carolinian, William Battle Phillips, a mining engineer who had formerly been associated with the Ala­ bama Geological Survey, discussed the Spindletop discovery in a noteworthy article printed by the Daily News. Phillips, who at the time was an instructor at The University of Texas, wrote: W e shall have to await further developments before the exact thickness of the oil-bearing strata is ascertained, and to collect and digest data de­ rived from the drilling of other wells in the coastal plain. This work will be taken in hand by the mineral survey contemplated by the University of Texas, a bill for the establishment of which is before the Legislature . . . It is unfortunate just at this time that there are no State reports on the developm ent of the oil industry. The former survey w ent out of business before the oil industry arose.9

Finally, the special session of the legislature easily passed the Moore-Mclnnis bill and the Governor signed it into law on March 28, 1901.10 This act authorized the Board of Regents to “have made a mineral survey of all the lands belonging to the public schools, University, asylums, or of the State.” The act specified that the main objective of the survey was to ascertain the mineral value of the re­ served lands to prevent their sale at unrealistic prices and thus to avoid great monetary loss to the school and University funds. Al­ though the act did not specifically authorize the survey to classify the reserved lands with regard to mineral potential, the 1895 land act, which stipulated that the state survey perform this work, was still in effect. Finally, this new act granted an appropriation of $10,000 per year provided that the survey complete its work in two years. Unfortunately, the new survey still depended upon legislative appropriations. In a meeting on May 4, the regents promoted William Battle Phillips to the rank of professor of field and economic geology, and 8 House Journal, 27th Leg. (January 21, 1901), p. 174. 9 Galveston Daily News, March 17, 1901, p. 8, cols. 6-7. 10 See Appendix G.

118

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

placed him in command of The University of Texas Mineral Survey at an annual salary of $2,500.n Regent R. E. Cowart nominated Phil­ lips, who had applied for the post earlier. The board also appointed Benjamin F. Hill, fellow of Columbia University and member of the New York Geological Survey, as assistant geologist at a salary of $1,800 per year. Under the direction of the board, University President William L. Prather outlined the practical objectives of the Mineral Survey. One of the most interesting of Prathers stipulations was that Phillips must not neglect his teaching duties at the University.12 With the question of the protection of University lands and thus the future of the University at stake, Prather was faced with the teaching versus research dilemma—a somewhat trivial consideration in view of the stakes involved. Phillips had to conduct his field studies on behalf of the state during his vacation periods. The Mineral Survey act stipulated that the evaluation of public lands be completed in two years. However, in his legislative mes­ sage in January 1903, Governor Sayers recommended that the Min­ eral Survey “should be extended to all the lands without exception, and that in consequence a larger appropriation should be made— especially as the U.S. Geological Survey will cooperate, spending a like amount of money.”13 The Governor also mentioned the need for new legislation deal­ ing with the classification, sale, and prospecting of the mineral-bear­ ing reserved lands. Land Commissioner Charles Rogan had reported that it was “openly known that there are very rich copper, silver, and cinnabar mines being worked daily in El Paso, Presidio, and Brew­ ster Counties from which rich ore of great value is being taken from the public school lands under existing laws without any remunera­ tion to the school funds.”14 Prospectors were stripping minerals from the lands without the outlay of any prospecting or purchase money. The legislature would draft another mineral prospecting law in 1905, but in the meantime the Mineral Survey’s appropriations ter­ 11 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. B (May 4, 1901), pp. 425-426. For a biographical sketch of Phillips, see Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 3501 (January 1935), p. 10. u Ibid., pp. 428-433. 13 House Journal, 28th Leg. (January 16, 1903), p. 55. 14 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, p. 42.

The Phillips Survey

119

minated in March 1903, and it was the only agency equipped to eval­ uate the reserved lands prior to sale. The Governor and the regents gave their full support to the survey, and soon Senator J. W. Hill of San Angelo, who represented several Trans-Pecos counties, intro­ duced a bill extending the life of the survey for two more years.15 The Senate swiftly passed the bill, but in the House several repre­ sentatives tried to attach well-intended but unrealistic amendments. J. W. Baines of Blanco County proposed an amendment declaring that “all mineral-bearing lands belonging to the public school, asy­ lum, and University funds of the State, situated west of the Pecos River, are hereby withdrawn from sale until the same can be surveyed, classified, and appraised.”16 Frontier capitalists and land speculators were able to block this amendment, but the House passed the Hill bill easily, and it became law without the signature of new Governor S. W. T. Lanham on April 11, 1903. The most significant feature of this new survey law was the provi­ sion that the survey be extended to “all lands belonging to the pub­ lic schools, University, asylums, or to the State, and other mineral lands within the State” The legislature had broadened the survey's scope to include private as well as public lands. The University of Texas Mineral Survey also officially assumed the duty of providing the land commissioner with the information necessary to guide him in the disposition of the mineral-bearing reserved lands. Specifically, the act stipulated that the survey “construct a geologic map of the State of Texas, to the end that the exact location of mineral deposits may be correctly set forth.”17 The legislature failed, however, to execute a new mineral-pros­ pecting law, but in a Mineral Survey Bulletin published in July 1903, Director Phillips expounded in some detail on state mineral laws and the public lands.18 He revealed that the total revenue derived from the sale or lease of mineral lands belonging to the public school 15 House Journal, 28th Leg. (March 1,1903), p. 537. 16Ibid. (March 30, 1903), p. 1113. 17 General Laws, 28th Leg., chap. 144, pp. 234-235. 18 William Battle Phillips, “The Mining Laws of Texas and Tables of Mag­ netic Declination,” Bulletin of the University of Texas Mineral Survey, 6, p. 3. Phillips was exceptional in his extremely realistic assessment of the mineral wealth of the Trans-Pecos, where most of the unsold reserved lands were situ­ ated: “The untold wealth which has been supposed to lie in that charmed area is a product of the imagination” (ibid., p. 21).

120

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

funds or to the University amounted to only $11,000 during the past fifteen years. He attributed this to the loopholes in existing laws. Phillips reasoned that the state should do away with the present prospecting law. Furthermore, he concluded that it was virtually impossible for any survey to undertake the examination and detailed classification of all of the reserved lands. Therefore, he recommend­ ed that the state conduct a general mineral survey of the TransPecos, publish its findings on maps, and leave the legal classification of patented reserved lands to the actual event of mineral discovery. He argued that the state should reserve a percentage of all minerals on the reserved lands, whether they were purchased or prospected. In March 1904 University President Prather, on the recommenda­ tion of the Board of Regents, asked Director Phillips to review and justify the activities of the survey in light of the duties that the act of 1903 had stipulated. Phillips reported that the permanent mem­ bers of the survey had complied with the provision that they “teach practical and economic field geology and mineralogy” at the Uni­ versity, in addition to their research activities.19 With regard to the construction of a state geologic map, the Director stated that there were in progress geologic maps of northern El Paso County, where 2,056,084 acres of unsold school lands lay, and southern Presidio and Brewster counties, where more school and University lands were situated. Like Phillips, Land Commissioner John J. Terrell continued to be­ moan the stripping of minerals from reserved lands.20 He called the 1895 prospecting law, under which a miner could work public lands free for five years, “an act to authorize persons to rob.” He quoted the value of quicksilver production in the Terlingua district as $239,355 in 1902 and noted that an individual section of privately owned land that adjoined school land in this district had sold for $125,000 in that year. Yet, since 1883 prospectors had patented only thirty-nine claims on reserved lands which contributed a mere $17,972 to the school and University funds. As the legislative session of 1905 approached, Phillips prepared to battle for the life of the survey. Terrell's protests seemed to indicate that the survey was not performing its duties. In defense, Phillips 19 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. C (March 16, 1904), p. 87. 20 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, p. 10.

The Phillips Survey

121

wrote a letter to University President Prather extolling the work of the survey. He also wrote several legislators. He informed a rep­ resentative from the Trans-Pecos of the survey’s progress in water resource studies there.21 Phillips even prepared the draft of a new survey bill, which the Board of Regents approved and passed on to the legislature.22 On February 10 a group of Trans-Pecos legislators introduced a House bill entitled: “An act to create and establish a mineral survey of lands belonging to the public school, University, and asylum lands of the State and other mineral lands within the State and to deter­ mine the extent and use of artesian and other underground or sur­ face waters within the State.''23 Three days earlier, Senator D. E. Decker from the Panhandle had introduced a similar bill, which the Senate soon passed on to the House. It replaced the survey bill that the House had introduced and subsequently tabled. Survey Director Phillips commented at the time that the commit­ tees on mining in both houses had voted unanimously to recommend the continuance of the survey, and “such opposition as has yet de­ veloped comes from the Commissioner of the General Land Office who insists that there is no need for the Survey unless the State’s interest in the mining lands is better protected.”24 Representative A. M. Kennedy of McLennan County, a supporter of Terrell, led the opposition to the survey bill using the basic argument that the school funds had received no practical benefits from any of the previous state geological and mineralogical surveys. Another member ob­ served that it would be unwise to pass a survey bill until the legisla­ ture had protected the state’s mineral interests more fully.25 21 William B. Phillips to Frank Guinn, February 10, 1905, Papers of the Uni­ versity of Texas Mineral Survey, The University of Texas Archives (cited as Mineral Survey Papers ). 22 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. C (March 18—19, 1904), p. 78. 23 House Journal, 29th Leg. (February 10, 1905), p. 357. 24 William B. Phillips to Morris Kirk, February 20, 1905, Mineral Survey Pa­ pers. Phillips, Kirk, and others had formed the Texas Mineral Association in November of 1904 for the purpose of supporting legislation necessary for the protection of the mineral industry. This association strongly supported the Min­ eral Survey bill (William B. Phillips to J. M. Dobbins, March 10, 1905, Mineral Survey Papers ). This extracurricular activity by the Survey Director might have worked to the detriment of the survey bill. 25 Galveston Daily Netos, April 4, 1905, p. 2, col. 2.

122

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

In reply to Phillips" charges that Terrell opposed The University of Texas as well as the Mineral Survey, Commissioner Terrell ad­ dressed the legislature on April 9.26 He reiterated that it would be a profligate waste of taxes to evaluate the mineral potential of the reserved lands until “some adequate law should be enacted which would better protect the school children’s interest” Furthermore, Terrell questioned the ability of a state survey to classify public mineral lands with any degree of accuracy. He observed that ‘all of the appropriations [for state surveys, which totaled $225,000] were conditioned upon the discovery of all minerals on public lands be­ ing reported to the General Land Office.” According to Terrell, the only practical contributions had been "a smoked map or two pur­ porting to show where minerals were supposed to exist” which the Dumble Survey had compiled and “two or three highly colored maps of what purports to indicate where minerals are supposed to exist west of the Pecos River” drawn by the men of the Phillips Sur­ vey. Terrell made the valid criticism that since the geological infor­ mation had not been placed on land survey maps it was practically useless as a guide to the disposition of the public lands. Phillips would have readily agreed, but the fault lay with the Land Office it­ self. This office had failed to provide the necessary land survey maps for the use of the state geological surveys or for the United States Geological Survey topographers. Nevertheless, on the basis of Terrell’s complaints, the House ap­ proved a motion to postpone the final vote on the Decker survey bill until the last day of the session. The House passed the motion by a forty-nine to forty-one margin on April 13. Two representatives jus­ tified their votes as follows: “We vote yes because we do not believe that it is good business for a ‘busted’ man to speculate and as the State is ‘busted’ and this is a speculation scheme, we do not believe that she is in a position to spend $30,000 in speculation at the ex­ pense of the taxpayers.”27 These men probably illustrated the apa­ 26 ibid., April 9,1905, p. 4, col. 4. 27 House Journal, 29th Leg. (April 13, 1905), p. 1288. The proceedings in the House during the last days of the session were hectic. The Galveston Daily News described them as follows: "The pages started a battle with paper balls, and many of the members joined in. It was fiercely waged, and dead and dying bills were to be seen on every hand” (Galveston Daily News, April 15, 1905, p. 4, col. 1).

The Phillips Survey

123

thy toward the basic issues at stake which prevailed through much of heavily populated East Texas where there was little concern with the reserved land issue and where water was plentiful. Apathy was not, however, the cause of the Decker survey bill’s ul­ timate defeat. The passage of legislation fully protecting the min­ erals on reserved lands seemed to remove the need for a survey. In his legislative message criticizing the work of the Mineral Survey, Terrell had strongly advocated a new mineral law that would tax unpatented mining claims at the rate of $5 per acre.28 On the other hand, Phillips favored something more akin to the 1883 min­ eral law, which reserved a state royalty on mineral production from any public lands. The very day on which the legislature voted to postpone a final decision on the survey bill, it passed a prospecting law that was undoubtedly more to Terrell's liking. It stipulated that the prospector begin patent payments on his claim in the first year of his operations, one-fifth of the land s value to be paid each year along with interest on the deferred payment.29 This act prevented prospectors from stripping minerals from re­ served lands without benefit to the reserved funds, and the day after its passage the speaker of the House signed a new land bill that sought to prevent the sale of mineral-bearing reserved lands at un­ realistic prices. Commissioner Terrell and his assistant, James T. Robison, proposed this new act, which provided that the state sell the remainder of the public lands by taking sealed bids on them.30 The Commissioner also had the authority to set minimum bids. These new prospecting and land-sale laws apparently assured the public school and University funds of receiving full compensation for the minerals on their reserved lands.31 There was no longer any 28 Galveston Daily News, April 12, 1905, p. 2, col. 2. 29 General Laws, 29th Leg., chap. 99, pp. 148-150. 30 Ibid., chap. 103, pp. 159-167. 31 In his 1906 report Land Commissioner Terrell urged further refinement of state land policies, and the legislature passed an act the following year which authorized the land commissioner “to have such surveying done in the territory between the Pecos River and the Rio Grande as may be necessary to definitely locate the mineral-bearing school land surveys and cooperate with the Director of the United States Geological Survey in making a topographic survey and map of the localities as surveyed” ( General Laws, 30th Leg., chap. 147, pp. 285288). This act authorized a meager biennial appropriation of $5,000. The legislature finally voted to resume the practical policy of reserving a roy-

124

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

need for a state mineral survey to classify the mineral-bearing re­ served lands, and most legislators considered this the primary moti­ vation behind the creation of The University of Texas Mineral Sur­ vey. Amid a scene of mass confusion, the House refused to bring up the survey bill for a final vote on the last day of the session. After four years of very capable geological work, especially in the TransPecos region, at a total cost to the state of only $50,000, the Mineral Survey ended even though Phillips had proved to be just as astute a lobbyist for his cause as had his predecessor, Dumble. In addition to evaluating the mineral potential of the reserved lands, the ill-fated survey bill of 1905 had stipulated that the survey “determine the extent and use of the artesian and other under­ ground waters within the State.” Legislative interest in irrigation ap­ parently remained high despite the return of the rains in 1896. Be­ cause of the rains and the high initial capital outlay that irrigation works required, few irrigation companies had applied for state char­ ters under the Irrigation Act of 1895.32 No company had even at­ tempted to construct storm-storage reservoirs because the expense was almost prohibitive, especially since storm-water irrigation pro­ grams were highly speculative. Interested state officials realized that private enterprise could not adequately handle the construction of the speculative irrigation works that would help develop the semiarid reserved lands. Although public irrigation projects were con­ sidered too radical and expensive, it was obvious that the state should extend some form of aid to irrigation. In the winter of 1904, the Twelfth National Irrigation Congress met at El Paso. William Ward Turney of El Paso, who in 1897 had introduced the unsuccessful constitutional amendment that would have permitted the creation of autonomous irrigation districts, was head of the Southwestern Committee of this national congress.33 The combination of this prestigious conference and Turney’s influ-

alty on all minerals taken from the school and University lands in 1913 (General Laws, 33rd Leg., chap. 173, pp. 409-419). 32 By 1900 only 581 irrigation systems were in operation, supplying 1,325 farmers with water for 49,652 irrigated acres (John S. Spratt, The Road to Spindletop: Economic Change in Texas, 1875-1901, p. 55). 33 El Paso Times, July 28, 1904, p. 1, col. 4; and January 16, 1904, p. 3, cols. 4-5.

The Phillips Survey

125

enee provided the impetus behind the drive for a new Texas irriga­ tion law. The legislature passed this irrigation law, and the Governor signed it on April 15, 1905, the last day of the hectic legislative session.34 The new law closely resembled Turneys amendment proposal of 1897 and stipulated that if the majority of landholders in a county presented a petition to the county board, the board would hold a vote on whether an autonomous irrigation district as outlined in the petition would be created. This district would have the full authority to build its own irrigation works and to issue bonds and levy taxes to finance construction. These provisions form the basic system under which new cooperative irrigation projects are initiated within the state today, and their enactment obviated the creation of private irrigation companies.35 The geologists active in 1900 probably considered the TransPecos, with its bold outcrops, structure, and metallic mineral de­ posits, a “classical” Trans-Mississippi geological province. Thus, an examination of the work done in this region by The University of Texas Mineral Survey and the United States Geological Survey in the first decade of the twentieth century perhaps best illustrates the typical nineteenth-century approach, both political and scientific, toward the evaluation of undeveloped public lands. Geological re­ search efforts were centered in the Trans-Pecos because almost all state University and public school lands were concentrated in this semiarid district. Because the state had dedicated the income from these public lands to the support of educational institutions, the de­ velopment of their agricultural and mineral potential was of crucial importance. The discovery of commercial deposits of mercury or quicksilver ore at the turn of the century in a district containing re­ served lands gave immediacy to the problem of evaluation. The Twenty-second Annual Report of the United States Geologi34 General Laws, 29th Leg., chap. 122, pp. 235-259. 35 Either as a result of the advantages of this new law or because of general prosperity, close to 500,000 acres were irrigated in the state by 1908, and other systems of vast proportions were being constructed, especially in the lower Rio Grande Valley (J. C. Nagle, “Irrigation in Texas,” Bulletin of the Office of Experimental Stations of the United States Department of Agriculture, no. 22 [1910], p. 88).

126

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

cal Survey presented a brief history of cooperation between the national survey and state geological surveys. Director Charles D. Walcott echoed the words of his predecessor, Major John Wesley Powell, by proclaiming that the national survey was prepared to conduct academic studies that the state surveys were financially un­ able to support. The national survey would thereby enable the states to devote their energies to the “exploitation of such economic re­ sources as might prove to be of greatest immediate benefit to their citizens.”36 The national survey began its work in the Trans-Pecos by con­ ducting a series of broad regional, interstate reconnaissances that exceeded the scope of state survey efforts. In 1899 Robert T. Hill initiated these studies, and in the following year the United States Geological Survey published Hills preliminary results in the Topo­ graphic Atlas of the United States?1 Hill again proved himself to be one of the foremost American reconnaissance geologists by his quick grasp of some of the fundamental structural features of this region. In August 1901 Director Phillips of the state survey and his assist­ ant, Benjamin F. Hill, initiated field studies in the Trans-Pecos with an examination of the University lands in northeastern Pecos County, where there had been some oil activity.38 Due to his strict University commitments, Phillips had to return to resume his teaching duties in September, but he was “fortunately able, through the kindness of R. T. Hill to attach Mr. B. F. Hill to a party of the United States Geological Survey which was going into the northern part of Reeves county,” where there was more oil activity.39 Robert T. Hill’s recon36 United States, Geological Survey, Twenty-second Annual Report (1902), p. 15. 37 Robert T. Hill, “Physical Geography of the Texas Region,” Topographic Atlas of the United States, no. 3. 38 The first Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey ( The Phillips Survey) was devoted to the study of the emerging oil industry. The publications of the survey are listed in the Bibliography, and are hereafter cited as Bulletins. 39 William Battle Phillips, “Report of Progress for 1901— Sulphur, Oil, and Quicksilver in Trans-Pecos Texas,” Bulletin 2 (1902), p. 3. There are “coal” deposits north and northeast of Terlingua, but about 98 per cent of the material would be more properly referred to as black carbonaceous shale or low-grade lignite. It can hardly be given the more dignified term of coal. Some of the better deposits were marketed as a soil conditioner under the trade name “MinSoil.” The only coal mined from the area was a low-grade, high-ash, subbituminous coal or lignite with about 800 to 900 B.t.u. value. This coal was mined for

The Phillips Survey

127

naissance party departed at the end of October; Benjamin F. Hill and his assistant, Oscar W. Williams, the former Pecos County surveyor, continued field work until the middle of November. In December Phillips utilized his Christmas vacation to make a rapid inspection of the Terlingua quicksilver district in the Big Bend country. Phillips subsequently arranged with the United States Geological Survey to have made an accurate topographic map of this area of intense mineral prospecting and of the region around Agua Fría, north of Terlingua, where there were coal deposits. The state survey contributed $2,500 to pay the field expenses of the federal topo­ graphic survey party, which began its work in the spring of 1902 at the same time that Benjamin F. Hill initiated his detailed study of the geology of the same quicksilver district.40 In 1902 Robert T. Hill also extended his reconnaissance studies through the Big Bend coun­ try and into Mexico, and George Girty continued his investigations, begun the previous year, of the stratigraphy of the Upper Paleozoic rocks of the Guadalupe Mountains.41 In 1902, therefore, both federal and state geologists were actively exploring the Trans-Pecos under the type of cooperative program Powell and Walcott had anticipated.42 The national survey was con­ structing topographic maps in the area, Robert T. Hill was conclud­ ing his series of broad reconnaissances that stretched from New a few years, trucked to Terlingua, and used to make producer gas for power and fuel at the Chisos Quicksilver mining operation (Charles L. Baker to Frank H. Wardlaw, April 18, 1968). For summary see Ross A. Maxwell, et al., “Geology of Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas,” The University of Texas Publication, no. 6711 (June 1, 1967), p. 86. 40 Benjamin F. Hill, “The Terlingua Quicksilver Deposits,” Bulletin 4 ( Octo­ ber 1902), p. 1. 41 George H. Girty, “The Upper Permian in Western Texas,” American Jour­ nal of Science, 4th ser., XIV (November 1902), p. 363. 42 The passage of the Newlands Reclamation Act in June 1902 promoted greater emphasis on ground water studies. This act placed the United States Geological Survey in charge of administering the Reclamation Service. Typical detailed studies of the geology and water resources conducted for the Reclama­ tion Service in Texas include Charles N. Gould, The Geology and Water Re­ sources of the Eastern Portion of the Panhandle of Texas, and The Geology and Water Resources of the Western Portion of the Panhandle of Texas, United States Geological Survey Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 154 (1906), and 191 (1907).

128

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Mexico to Mexico, and Girty was pursuing his paleontological stud­ ies. These federal efforts facilitated the more detailed economic studies by the states geologists and were particularly important to Benjamin F. Hills work in the Terlingua area, the only exploration that the limited funds of the Mineral Survey could support.43 After the legislative expansion of the Mineral Survey in 1903, Director Phillips and Benjamin F. Hill journeyed to Presidio County in the summer to resume their investigations there. John August Udden, professor of geology and biology at Augustana College in Illinois, accompanied the pair.44 During the previous five summers, Udden had been an assistant on the Iowa Geological Survey. Phil­ lips had contracted this Swedish scientist especially to study the stratigraphy of the Shafter silver mine area in Presidio County. Ud­ den remained in the field during May and June, and Benjamin F. Hill spent the entire summer investigating school lands in Presidio and El Paso counties before resigning in September to become in­ structor in petrology and mineralogy at The University of Texas. 43 The extremely practical bent of Director William Battle Phillips is illustrated in the following quotes taken from letters received by Benjamin F. Hill from Phillips in the Hill-Milam Papers, The University of Texas Archives: “Fossils, fossils, fossils, always fossils. All right in their way and very impor­ tant, but we must look at the matter in another way, the commercial way” ( letter of April 26, 1902 ). “It is the business side of the matter that our people are interested in, not so much the scientific side. That may come later, but we shall have to wait for it” (letter of September 18, 1902). Other interesting letters appearing in the Hill-Milam Papers include one from Phillips to Hill mentioning a move made by Dumble to create a new state geo­ logical survey (letter of May 13, 1903), and one from R. D. Coulter to Hill not­ ing that “a case of iced Anheuser-Busch had been forwarded to Terlingua” ( let­ ter of March 31, 1902). 44 In July and August Udden did geological work for the New York and Texas Land Company of Austin, under the direction of Phillips (Biographical Notes, Udden Papers, in possession of Svante Udden, Kerrville, Texas). The Board of Regents had earlier forbidden Phillips to do this work ( Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. C [June 10, 1903], p. 32). Udden published the results of his survey of the company’s lands in the upper portion of the Rio Grande embayment in 1907 ( “Report of a Geological Survey of the Lands Belonging to the New York and Texas Land Company, Ltd., in the Upper Rio Grande Embayment in Texas,” Publications of the Augustana Library, no. 6 [1907]). It is al­ most a classic oil prospect report. Similar privately supported work would be the dominant form of geological research in Texas for several years.

The Phillips Survey

129

Although Robert T. Hill had terminated his service with the United States Geological Survey in 1902, other federal geologists continued their studies of Trans-Pecos rocks. In 1903 George Girty began his thorough paleontological analysis of the Guadalupian Per­ mian fauna in the Washington offices of the national survey, and Grove Karl Gilbert made a brief reconnaissance study of the Soli­ tario uplift, an important structural feature in the Terlingua area. Most important, under a plan of cooperation with the Mineral Sur­ vey, George B. Richardson of the United States Geological Survey spent the summer and fall of the year investigating the geology of the entire Trans-Pecos province north of the Texas and Pacific Rail­ road. The state paid his six months’ field expenses.45 In the survey progress report published at the end of 1903, Phil­ lips commented that the region Richardson examined lay in the part of El Paso County where the school fund owned large blocks of land and the University owned some 400,000 acres. The region also in­ cluded the one productive Hazel copper and silver mine. Phillips commented, however, that Richardson gave his undivided attention to the problem of water supply rather than to the study of mineral resources. Richardsons emphasis was much to Phillips’ liking and was probably the basis on which the national survey agreed to cooperate, for its official report observed that Richardsons inves­ tigation was “to ascertain the prospects for water from deep wells, especially in areas of school lands which the State holds in these counties.”46 Richardson concluded that although the prospects for water wells in the Toyah Valley basin in western Reeves County were encour­ aging, “the most favorable opportunity for developing these Alphabet Blocks [the 680-square-mile tract of University land upon the Diablo Plateau] appears to be by the construction of tanks to catch storm waters.”47 He noted that there were no especially good sites on the 45 William Battle Phillips, “Report of Progress for the Year Ending Decem­ ber 31, 1903,” Bulletin 7 ( 1904), pp. 6-7. 46 Twenty-fifth Annual Report, p. 279, Phillips commented that he was “afraid that we have held the sixpence of smelter returns so close to our eyes that we have failed to see the more important fields for agriculture and grazing in the Trans-Pecos” ( Bulletin 6, p. 24). 47 George B. Richardson, “Report of a Reconnaissance in Trans-Pecos Texas North of the Texas and Pacific Railway,” Bulletin 9 (November 1904), p. 93.

130

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

public lands, but many fine reservoir sites were available in the flanking mountains. This report prompted Phillips to plead for the United States Geological Survey to resume topographic and hydrographic studies in the Trans-Pecos which would be similar to the work done by the ill-fated Irrigation Survey.48 In its last full field season, the Mineral Survey again concentrated on detailed investigations of mineral districts.49 In 1904 Udden con­ ducted a reconnaissance of the lands surrounding the Terlingua mines. In the course of his classical study, Udden began developing the theory that the quicksilver ores had accumulated in the same fashion as had oil or gas.50 They had migrated in vapor form up through porous beds until they were entrapped in a dome or struc­ tural high formed by an impervious layer. The preceding review vividly illustrates the advantageous manner in which the work of the national survey—work in topography, pale­ ontology, and broad interstate reconnaissance—complemented the detailed mineral surveys done by the state survey. It is obvious that the state could not have conducted such an ambitious and so­ phisticated resource evaluation program on its meager $15,000 an­ nual appropriation. Scientifically, or geologically, these coordinated efforts represent the most effective approach to the problem of eval­ uating undeveloped public lands. The work was a success in terms of academic or basic geology, and Uddens report on the Terlingua quicksilver deposits represents perhaps the most significant eco­ nomic contribution made during the span of time covered by this study. However, any public undertaking has definite political objectives that the scientific work must satisfy if the overall program is to be a 48 Phillips, Bulletin 7, p. 7. By 1905 the United States Geological Survey had published sixteen topographic quadrangle sheets for the Trans-Pecos. 49 Director Phillips was the only permanent geologist on the survey at this time. He contracted both Richardson and Udden for specific geological work. He felt that this contract system was much superior to having permanent staff geologists (Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. C [March 16, 1904], p. 87). 50 J. A. Udden, "A Sketch of the Geology of the Chisos Country, Brewster County, Texas,” Bulletin 93 (April 1907), p. 91. The full development of this anticlinal concept is to be found in Udden’s classic, "The Anticlinal Theory as Applied to Some Quicksilver Deposits,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 1822 (April 1918).

The Phillips Survey

131

success. Unfortunately, the legislature felt that the Mineral Survey had failed to accomplish its assigned political objective of classify­ ing the potential mineral-bearing reserved lands. The areal geology was not superimposed on land survey maps and was, according to Land Office officials, therefore of no value to the state. Whether this failure was the fault of the Land Office or of the national or state surveys is incidental. The fault basically lies in the contemporary concept that it would be possible to make a thorough enough geo­ logical examination to determine prospective locations of metallic ores at a cost of $15,000 per year. Furthermore the whole classifica­ tion scheme of planned land distribution contradicted the accepted American principle of unhindered private exploitation of undevel­ oped lands. The work of the Mineral Survey succeeded geologically but failed politically, and this failure could be traced back to the reasoning behind the creation of the survey. Any scheme of mineral-land clas­ sification is highly impractical in the face of the demand for un­ hindered private exploitation characteristic of the Trans-Mississippi West. In final analysis, the only contribution that encouraged imme­ diate development of these reserved lands was Uddens quicksilver study. Richardsons water resource recommendations, like those of the Dumble Survey, were too ambitious to be of immediate practi­ cal value.51 01 Phillips' outline for the proposed work of the survey in 1905 included “a protracted study of the artesian water supplies, of the deposits of salt and gyp­ sum, building stones and road making materials, and a geological map of the Coal Measures" (“Mineral Survey,” The University Record, VI [February 1905], 61).

EIGHT

Geological Résumé: Stratigraphers Interpret the “Individualities” of Texas Geology

T h e United States Geological Survey, which began investigations in Texas in 1884, and the Dumble Survey, which began in 1888, ushered in the era of sophisticated geological surveying in Texas. Geologists had not yet fully reconnoitered the complex geology of the Trans-Pecos, but in most other geological provinces state and federal geologists began basic stratigraphie studies on a subprovince or even county level. Whereas the reconnaissance geologist had nec­ essarily based his observations upon rapid, superficial field work, the stratigrapher used a more thorough approach. Guided by the general outline that the reconnaissance geologists had constructed, the stratigraphers were able to conduct more detailed lithological and paleontological investigations. On the basis of the extensive geological data they collected, they then made more accurate induc­ tions about the nature of the various geological provinces, about their local variations, and about the history of their formation. Finally, theoretical geologists used the wealth of stratigraphie in­ formation to hypothesize about the basic mechanics of geological processes, such as the formation of salt domes and geosynclines. To gain greater accuracy, stratigraphers used more specialized techniques than had their predecessors. Whereas the reconnais­ sance geologists made a real contribution by simply announcing the

Geological Résumé: Stratigraphers

133

presence of strata of a certain period, the stratigrapher discerned the variations within that series of strata. By studying the sedimentary features or depositional characteristics of the rocks and their faunal assemblages and by placing this data on small-scale geologic maps, the stratigrapher determined the geographical conditions that pre­ vailed during the deposition of formations. In this fashion, state and federal geologists determined the geological history surrounding the formation of the Lower Cretaceous and Permian beds, the pres­ ence of which the reconnaissance geologists had simply announced. Stratigraphers also began to interpret the intricate geological pat­ terns in the Gulf Coast Cenozoic sediments.1 In September of 1884 Dr. Charles D. Walcott, the paleontologist for the Paleozoic section of the United States Geological Survey, first examined the geology of the Central Mineral Region. His limited field investigations marked not only the initiation of geological in­ vestigations by the national survey in Texas but also the beginning of the stratigraphie phase of geological surveying in the state. Then, in the Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey for 1886-1887, Director John W. Powell declared that "one of the most important events of the year in systematic geology was the discovery by Dr. [Charles A.] White and Mr. [Robert T.] Hill of a great series of Cretaceous strata in the State of Texas underlying the rocks hith­ erto regarded as the base of the American Cretaceous and corre­ sponding in many aspects with the Lower Cretaceous of Europe.”2 In April 1887 Hill had first startled the geological profession with the publication of a most radical article in the authoritative American Journal of Science, in which he announced discovery of an extensive Lower Cretaceous section in the Texas region.3 Hill had collected 1 The launching of cooperative efforts with the states was accompanied by the compilation of a geological map of the nation. For a discussion of the construc­ tion of this map with special reference to Texas see Appendix D. 2 United States, Geological Survey, Eighth Annual Report, p. 82. 3 Robert T. Hill, “The Topography and Geology of the Cross Timbers and Surrounding Regions in Northern Texas,” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXIII (April 1887), 291-303. In an address to the Academy of Natural Sci­ ences of Philadelphia in February 1887, two months before Hill's article ap­ peared, Dr. Charles A. White, Hill's superior and the foremost Mesozoic paleon­ tologist at the time, announced the discovery of the Texas Lower Cretaceous fauna. White implied that he was responsible for the discovery, and the result was a lasting personal feud with Hill ( see Charles A. White, “On the Cretaceous

134

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

most of the information for this article before his first official field survey for Powell in the summer of 1886 in the Grand Prairie region. Although Marcou had observed that the extensive limestones of the Texas highlands were Lower Cretaceous, his hasty and poorly founded identification of the beds comprising the floor and table­ lands of the Great Plains as Triassic and Jurassic respectively and his repeated disputes with American geologists had caused subse­ quent workers to overlook his perceptive Cretaceous studies. Hill gave Marcou his due praise, but Hill deserves credit as the first geol­ ogist to offer extensive and conclusive evidence of the presence of a well-developed Lower Cretaceous series in Texas. Furthermore, recognition by the national survey represented official acceptance of Hills work. Hills second exciting contribution to the knowledge of the geology of Texas appeared just six months later in the same prestigious scien­ tific periodical when he announced the “rediscovery” of the Bal­ cones fault zone.4 Hill rightly attacked Benjamin F. Shumard’s contention that the Cretaceous of the innermost coastal plain was older than and had passed under the strata of the limestone pla­ teaus to the west. However, Hill erroneously credited Edward D. Cope with first reporting in 1880 that the Balcones Escarpment was the topographic expression of a fault zone.5 Ferdinand Roemer had recognized faulting in the New Braunfels area, and in 1862 Marcou had referred to Roemer s observation that the plateau limestones were older although topographically higher. Formations of Texas and Their Relation to Those of Other Portions of North America,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia [February 1887], pp. 39-47). 4 Robert T. Hill, “The Texas Section of the American Cretaceous,” American Journal of Science, 3d ser. XXXIV (October 1887), 287-309. 5 Cope reported as follows: “An abrupt elevation commences somewhere to the southwest of Ft. Worth and continues southward and westward, passing close to Austin . . . and within 20 miles of . . . San Antonio, extending westward to the valley of the Rio Grande. The portion of the limestone thus elevated is said to be older than that which occupies the adjoining lowland. . . . The fault which should exist . . . has been observed at various points along the line of elevation. I found it crossing Helotes Creek 18 miles from San Antonio at a locality pointed out to me by Mr. Gabriel W. Mamoch” ( Edward D. Cope, “On the Zoological Position of Texas,” Bulletin of the United States Museum of Natural History, no. 17 [1880], pp. 5-6).

Geological Résumé: Stratigraphers

135

However, Marcou knew that Roemer erroneously considered the whole section Upper Cretaceous.6 The Frenchman strongly criticized Shumard for not recognizing this discrepancy between topographic and Stratigraphie position in the Texas Cretaceous. In 1879 Jacob Boll had reviewed Roemers structural observation.7 Credit for giv­ ing this Balcones fault zone—Hills “Austin-New Braunfels uncon­ formity”—proper recognition and acceptance must, however, go to Hill. This structural conclusion went hand-in-hand with Hill’s "re­ discovery” of the Lower Cretaceous. Hill concluded his reconnaissance studies of the Texas Cretaceous in the following three years. In 1888 he became assistant professor of geology at The University of Texas, and in 1889 he joined the Dumble Survey on loan from the United States Geological Survey. That year he drafted “A Preliminary Annotated Checklist of the Cretaceous Invertebrate Fossils of Texas” to serve as a field guide for the state survey personnel.8 Hill conducted field work for Dum­ ble until late 1890, when he resigned because of a petty quarrel with the State Geologist.9 He rejoined the national survey that year and published his final reconnaissance study of the Texas Cretaceous in 1891.10 In this report, entitled “Comanche Series of the Texas-Arkansas Region,” he demonstrated that the fauna of the Lower Cretaceous Comanche series was quite different from the European Lower Cre­ taceous fauna. His analysis helped explain why Roemer and others who searched for established patterns on the scientific frontier over­ 6 Ferdinand Roemer, Die Kreidebildungen von Texas und ihre organischen Einschlüsse, von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem die Beschreibung von VertSteinerungen aus paläozoischen und tertiären Schichten enthaltenden Anhänge und mit 11 von C. Hohe nach der Natur auf Stein gezeichneten Tafeln, p. 19; Jules Marcou, “Notes on the Cretaceous and Carboniferous Rocks of Texas,” Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, VIII (1862), pp. 86-97. 7 Boll referred to Roemer’s structural conclusions and added the observation that “the chalk of the highlands was harder than that of the hill country [at the foot of the scarp], and as a collective mass it resisted the upheaval [of the Llano uplift], and was therefore lifted up at once with the granite, hence the steep declivity at the foot” (Jacob Boll, “Texas in Its Geognostic and Agricultural Aspect,” American Naturalist, XIII [June 1879], 380). 8 Robert T. Hill, “A Preliminary Annotated Check List of the Cretaceous In­ vertebrate Fossils of Texas,” Bulletin of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, no. 4 ( 1889). 9 For a discussion of this dispute see Appendix F. 10 Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, II (May 5, 1891), 503-528.

136

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

looked the extensive but unique Lower Cretaceous fauna in the Texas region. From this point on, the Cretaceous work of Hill and others con­ sisted of conducting progressively more detailed studies of Texas Cretaceous deposits, especially of the Comanchean series, the lower part of the Gulf Coast Cretaceous. Joseph A. Taff, whom Hill had persuaded to resign from the Arkansas Geological Survey to join the Texas survey, succeeded Hill as Cretaceous stratigrapher for the Dumble Survey in 1890. Taff explored the Cretaceous of the Trans-Pecos in 1890; Dumble, Owen, and Theodore B. Comstock joined him in a coordinated examination of the Cretaceous rocks of the Edwards Plateau in 1891; and Taff also visited the Grand Prairie. In 1892 Taff completed his sweeping survey of the entire Texas Cretaceous by making another investiga­ tion of the Grand Prairie region.11 After rejoining the national survey, Hill spent several years mak­ ing water-resource studies in the Texas region, but he returned to his studies of the Texas Cretaceous in 1894.12 That year he com­ menced the detailed mapping of the Austin quadrangle in Hays, Bastrop, and Travis counties in connection with the compilation of the Geological Atlas of the United States by the United States Geo­ logical Survey. In 1895 T. Wayland Vaughan joined Hill, and they began work on the detailed geology of the Nueces and Uvalde quadrangles in the Edwards Plateau country. 11 The publications of the Dumble Survey are listed in the Bibliography. 12 Robert T. Hill was quite interested in underground water resources, and most of his work in Texas in the eighteen-nineties was connected with investi­ gations of ground-water geology. After he rejoined the United States Geological Survey, he served as geologist for the Artesian and Ground Water Investigation of the Rocky Mountains, for the region consisting of Texas, New Mexico, and the Indian Territory. The Department of Agriculture directed this work, which commenced in 1890 in response to pressures from Westerners who objected to the dictatorial authority of the Irrigation Survey. The United States Geological Survey work had already shown this source of water to be of limited value (A. Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government, pp. 234-235). The main results of Hill's work appeared in On the Occurrence of Artesian and Other Underground Waters in Texas, Eastern New Mexico, and the Indian Territory, West of the Ninety-Seventh Meridian, 52d Gong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41, IV, pt. 3 (1892), 41-166; and “Geology of Parts of Texas, Indian Territory, and Arkansas Adjacent to the Red River," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, V (March 1894), 297-338.

Geological RSsumS: Stratigraphers

137

On the basis of their field observations in the state, Vaughan and Hill were coauthors of a study of the underground waters of south­ western Texas entitled “Geology of the Edwards Plateau and Rio Grande Embayment Adjacent to Austin and San Antonio, with Ref­ erence to the Occurrence of Underground Waters,” which appeared in 189613 as the pioneer stratigraphic study of the Cretaceous of the Edwards Plateau region. The last of Hill's monumental studies of the Texas Cretaceous appeared in 1901—“The Geography and Geology of the Black and Grand Prairies.”14 Hill considered this the crowning work of his ca­ reer. It included a review of the geology and geography of the entire state, a monographic description of the Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Grand Prairie, and a detailed analysis of the underground water resources of that region. This compendium of Texas geology is a brilliant example of the detailed stratigraphic analysis that recon­ naissance work makes possible. Edwin T. Dumble initiated the first sophisticated stratigraphic studies of the unique Permian deposits of the Texas region in 1889 by requesting Major Powell of the United States Geological Survey to permit paleontologist Charles A. White to assist William Fletcher Cummins in an investigation of the Permian deposits of the western Osage Plains. In Baylor, Archer, and Wichita counties, White dis­ covered a commingling of Mesozoic and Paleozoic marine inverte­ brate fossil beds he later labeled Permian. White perceptively inter­ preted this unique faunal assemblage as follows: This series of Texas strata is lithologically distinguishable from but blends with and is entirely conformable upon, the underlying Coal Meas­ ure series. It appears to have been the result of sedimentation which was continuous from the Coal Measures, and it passes gradually upward into 2000 or 3000 feet in thickness of gypsum-bearing strata, which are by some geologists regarded as of Triassic age, but they are probably not separable from the Permian strata upon which they rest.15

White’s faunal determinations guided Cummins in his strati­ graphic studies of these marine and terrestrial Permian sediments. 13 United States, Geological Survey, Eighteenth Annual Report, pt. 2 (1898), pp. 193-321. 14 United States, Geological Survey, Twenty-first Annual Report, pt. 7 (1901). 15 United States, Geological Survey, Tenth Annual Report, p. 163.

138

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Cummins had succeeded Jacob Boll as Professor Edward D. Cope’s collector in Texas. Between 1880 and 1883, the years of Cummins’ tenure, Cope published numerous descriptions of Texas Permian amphibians and reptiles in the American Naturalist. However, no stratigraphic knowledge of the North Texas Permian beds, either marine or terrestrial, had existed prior to the establishment of the Dumble Survey. Utilizing the paleontological work of both White and Cope, Cum­ mins discerned three major Permian subdivisions. In the sediments, he traced the encroachments and recessions of the Permian sea and noted that the water shoaled especially slowly in late Permian time, when the area of the western Osage Plains became a series of land­ locked, shallow seas, in which beds of gypsum and salt were de­ posited.16 Cummins also corroborated the paleontological evidence that these Permian beds represented a transitional period between the Carboniferous and Triassic periods. He declared that “if the Permian had first been studied at this locality it would have been put with the Coal Measures; but first being studied at Saxony [in Germany] where an unconformity exists and where it is impossible to trace a gradual passage from one to the other [as in the Osage Plains], a different series was established.”17 During the last full field season of the Dumble Survey in 1892, Cummins and Noah F. Drake discovered evidence that a large Per­ mian delta had interrupted contemporaneous marine sedimentation in the Osage Plains.18 Their discovery first indicated the complex in­ terfingerings of marine and terrestrial sediments that characterize the area and was followed by the work of independent vertebrate paleontologists. In 1895 and 1897 Charles H. Sternberg, who had collected Texas Permian vertebrates for the Museum of Compara­ tive Zoology of Harvard University as early as 1882, collected more 16 William F. Cummins, “Report on the Geology of Northwest Texas, includ­ ing Young, Montague, Jack, Wise, Parker, Palo Pinto, Stephens, Brown, East­ land, and Coleman Counties,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Second Annual Report of the Geological and Minerdogical Survey of Texas, p. 249. 17 Ibid., p. 397. 18 George P. Merrill, “Contributions to a History of American State Geologi­ cal and Natural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Mu­ seum, CIX (1920), p. 492.

Geological Resume: Stratigraphers

139

specimens for Cope in the region of the Big Wichita River.19 The American Museum of Natural History also sponsored a series of excursions into the Permian terrestrial red beds of North Central Texas by Ermine C. Case in 1896 and funded three summer trips by James W. Gidley between 1899 and 1901. On the basis of the new vertebrate data, Case concluded that the red beds represented “an enormous interval of emergence which may well have begun while Carboniferous forms still lingered in the waters and have continued until Triassic types were well established.”20 Marine and nonmarine fossil evidence led geologists to conclude that the Per­ mian beds of the Osage Plains represented continuous deposition from the Carboniferous through the Triassic. The final unraveling of the stratigraphic mysteries of the Texas Permian deposits occurred in the first decade of the twentieth cen­ tury and came as the result of coordinated efforts by the United States Geological Survey and The University of Texas Mineral Sur­ vey in the Trans-Pecos, and by the federal geologists doing ground­ water work in the Osage Plains. In September 1901 George Girty, paleontologist with the United States Geological Survey, joined Robert T. Hill's reconnaissance party in the Trans-Pecos. Girty intended to study the stratigraphic and structural relations of the Guadalupe Mountains before begin­ ning an extensive study of the Upper Paleozoic marine fauna to be found there. In 1903 John August Udden of the state Mineral Survey and George B. Richardson of the United States Geological Survey applied the preliminary results of Girty’s fossil work in their studies of the Chinati and Gaudalupe mountains respectively. In the fol­ lowing year Udden first reported finding similar faunas in the Glass Mountains, which he described in a bulletin in 1907. Finally, with the publication in 1909 of the results of his thorough study of the Guadalupe fauna, Girty demonstrated beyond question that true Permian deposits existed in North America.21 However, it was not until 1917 that Udden and his associates with The Univer­ 19 Charles H. Sternberg, The Life of a Fossil Hunter, p. 230. 20 Ermine C. Case, “On the Value of the Evidence Furnished by Vertebrate Fossils of the Age of Certain So-called Permian Beds in America,” Journal of Geology, XVI ( September-October 1908), 580. 21 George Girty, The Guadalupian Fauna, United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 58 (1908).

140

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

sity of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology first examined the Glass Mountains Permian fauna in detail and subdivided this, the most nearly complete marine Permian section in North America, into formational units.22 The details of the stratigraphic relations of the interfingering ma­ rine and continental Permian strata of the Osage Plains also re­ mained to be worked out after the turn of the century. Following the initial work by Cummins, Drake, and the independent vertebrate paleontologists who first intimated the extensive marine-terrestrial depositional interfingerings, George I. Adams of the United States Geological Survey made the next significant contribution. The na­ tional survey sent Adams to investigate the ground-water resources of the Osage Plains in 1902. As a result of his field observations, he outlined an extensive red bed delta that extended from Texas into eastern Oklahoma and obliquely cut contemporaneously deposited marine limestones.23 His discovery that all marine limestones thinned out as they approached this delta corroborated the 1892 findings of Cummins and Drake. It was 1908 before Cummins correlated the localities of the Per­ mian vertebrate fossils identified by Cope and others with definite stratigraphic horizons.24 Attempts to correlate the Permian strata of the Osage Plains with those of the Trans-Pecos lagged until the nineteen-twenties when extensive petroleum discoveries in the re­ gion where the Osage Plains, the Edwards Plateau, the Llano Estacado, and the Trans-Pecos provinces come together provided subsurface information that indicated the existence of an extensive subsurface Permian basin between the two Permian surface outcrop areas. Joseph A. Taff and Ralph S. Tarr of the Dumble Survey made the first systematic studies of the complex structural features of the Trans-Pecos and began to recognize some broad patterns in the 22 J. A. Udden, “Notes on the Geology of the Glass Mountains,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 1753 (1918), pp. 3-^59. 23 George I. Adams, “Stratigraphic Relations of the Red Beds to the Carbon­ iferous and Permian in Northern Texas,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XIV (May 15, 1903), 191-200. 24 William F. Cummins, “The Localities and Horizons of Permian Vertebrate Fossils in Texas,” The Journal of Geology, XVI (November-December 1908), 737-745.

Geological R6sum6: Stratigraphers

141

complicated mosaic.25 Taff discovered that thrust faults dipping to the southwest had caused the sharp isoclinal and overturned folds that appear in the Malone Mountains near Sierra Blanca where the Texas and Pacific and the Southern Pacific railroads meet.26 Ralph S. Tarr observed that the Guadalupe Mountains to the north were the eroded remnants of a large monocline or gentle fold.27 In the first decade of the twentieth century, Robert T. Hill con­ ducted a more complete reconnaissance of the Trans-Pecos. Al­ though much of his work is no longer valid, he did first outline structural trends within the region and thereby brought some de­ gree of organization to the study of the complex structural geology of this arid district. One of his most significant observations was the discovery of a northwest-southeast-trending graben, or trough bounded by highangle normal faults, in the Big Bend country south of the Davis Mountains. The main graben was bounded on the west by faults flanking "the Santa Helena plateau [Mesa de Anguila]), an un­ mapped and undescribed relief feature through which the so-called Grand Canyon of the Rio Grande [Santa Elena Canyon] cuts its way.”28 Hill also observed that the Glass Mountains and the Caballos 25 Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz did not accurately describe the structures of any of the Trans-Pecos mountains. He merely attributed their formation to igne­ ous intrusion and discounted any evidence of horizontal thrusting in the area ("Trans-Pecos Texas,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Third Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, p. 336). In addition to this lack of modem structural methodology, the Austrian was something of an extreme catastrophist. He stated that the mountain-building forces “rent obliquely the mountains of West Texas and Mexico, opening the channel by which the Rio Grande emptied the Cretaceous basins of Texas and Mexico through a canyon 16 to 1800 feet deep and 20 miles long” (“Report on the Geology and Mineral Resources of Trans-Pecos Texas,” in Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. 686). The stratigraphic observations by Streeruwitz were very disconnected. 26 Joseph A. Taff, in Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. 737. 27 Ralph S. Tarr, “Reconnaissance of the Guadalupe Mountains,” Bulletin of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, no. 3 (1892), pp. 33-34. 28 Robert T. Hill, “Physical Geography of the Texas Region,” Topographic Atlas of the United States, no. 3 (1900). On the basis of fossils collected in the Malone Mountains and of his own field work in 1897-1898, Francis W. Cragin of the United States Geological Survey was able to announce the Jurassic age of strata found in these mountains (United States, Geological Survey, Twenty-first Annual Report, p. 90). His superior, T. W. Stanton, compiled the results of

142

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Ridges south of Marathon were exposures of ancient post-Paleozoic structures of the Appalachian type. Although much of his work has been revised, he had made the first bold attempt to outline the broad structural features of the Trans-Pecos. In 1902 and 1903 Benjamin F. Hill and John August Udden o£ The University of Texas Mineral Survey explored the geology of the Terlingua quicksilver district and the Shatter silver district.29 Their descriptions of the Cretaceous stratigraphy and the more local structural features of their areas represented the first detailed studies in the Trans-Pecos. They compiled the first reconnaissance geologi­ cal map of the region—“Geologic Map of a Portion of West Texas Showing Parts of Brewster, Presidio, JeflE Davis, and El Paso Coun­ ties, and South of the Southern Pacific Railroad.”30 The southern border of this map was the Rio Grande. George B. Richardson of the United States Geological Survey con­ centrated on Paleozoic stratigraphic studies north of the Texas and Pacific Railroad, from the Franklin to the Guadalupe mountains. Richardson worked in the region for a decade beginning in 1903. He compiled a University of Texas Mineral Survey Bulletin on his reconnaissance of the entire area north of the Texas and Pacific Rail­ road31 and also described the geology of the El Paso and Van Horn quadrangles for the Geological Atlas of the United States, published by the national survey 32 His most significant structural observation was his excellent description of the structure of the Franklin Moun­ tains, which he compared to the fault block mountains of the Great Basin. In 1904 John August Udden conducted the last field study for Cragin’s work in his study of the stratigraphy of the Malone Mountains (“The Mesozoic Section at Sierra Blanca, Texas,” Science, n.s., VII [March 25, 1898], 429). 29 Benjamin F. Hill, “The Terlingua Quicksilver District,” Bulletin 4 (Octo­ ber 1902); J. A. Udden, “The Geology of the Shafter Silver Mine District, Pre­ sidio County, Texas,” Bulletin 8 (June 1904). 30 This map accompanied the report by George B. Richardson, “Report of a Reconnaissance in Trans-Pecos Texas North of the Texas and Pacific Railway,” Bulletin 9 (November 1904). n Ibid. 32 George B. Richardson, “Description of the El Paso District,” Geological Atlas of the United States, El Paso Folio, no. 166 (1909); and “Description of the Van Horn Quadrangle,” Geological Atlas, Van Horn Folio, no. 194 (1914).

Geological R6sum£: Stratigraphers

143

the Mineral Survey by exploring the geology of the Chisos Moun­ tains and the Terlingua mineral district. His work included investi­ gations of the Paleozoic strata of the highly thrusted Marathon uplift area and the dome-like Solitario uplift.33 After observing that the rocks in the two areas were similar and that the structural trends in the Marathon region extended toward the Solitario, Udden con­ cluded that uplifting in the two areas had been contemporaneous. He also postulated that the folding in the Ouachita Mountains of Oklahoma had occurred at the same time. Over a decade earlier, Robert T. Hill had theorized that the beveled Appalachian-like folds of the Ouachita Mountains extended beneath the Balcones Escarpment bordering the Grand Prairie.34 Hill's conclusion seemed to corroborate that of William Fletcher Cummins and Noah F. Drake, who reported that the sediments of the eastern Osage Plains had been transported from some land area to the east.35 Subsequent subsurface drilling would provide the information necessary to support these observations and show that a beveled Paleozoic mountain range extended in the subsurface beneath the Balcones Escarpment from the Ouachita Mountains to the outcrops in the Marathon and Solitario uplifts.36 By the early eighteen-eighties sufficient studies had been made of Pre-Cambrian outcrops throughout North America to enable geolo­ gists to attempt to relate the Llano uplift to the nearest similar geologic provinces. In 1884 and 1886 Charles D. Walcott of the United States Geo­ logical Survey conducted the first thorough stratigraphic investiga­ tions of this Llano uplift area. He ascertained that the oldest rocks in the area were a series of metamorphosed Pre-Cambrian sedi­ 33 J. A. Udden, “A Sketch of the Geology of the Chisos Country, Brewster County, Texas,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 93 (April 1907), p. 72. 34 Robert T. Hill, "Geography and Geology of the Black and Grand Prairies,” Annual Report 21, pt. 7 (1901), p. 364. 35 Cummins, “Report on the Geology of Northwest Texas,” in Dumble, Sec­ ond Annual Report, p. 370; and Noah F. Drake, “Report on the Colorado Coal Fields of Texas,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Fourth Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, pp. 373-374. 36 For a recent discussion of this structural belt see P. T. Flawn, August Gold­ stein, Jr., P. B. King, and C. E. Weaver, “The Ouachita System,” University of Texas Publication, no. 6120 (1962).

144

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

mentary strata similar to those in the Grand Canyon.87 After a Lower Cambrian sea peneplained the region, Walcott theorized, an Upper Cambrian sea deposited the fossiliferous Potsdam-equivalent beds. Walcott also noted that Lower Ordovician strata overlay these beds. Theodore B. Comstock of the Dumble Survey was the next geolo­ gist to study these rocks, and his findings contradicted those of Walcott.38 Walcott had dated the altered or metamorphosed sedi­ mentary beds in the area as uppermost Pre-Cambrian on the basis of the presence of carbonaceous matter and some organic limestone. Comstock claimed that rocks of lowest Pre-Cambrian or Archean age outcropped there. He considered this an important point because Archean rocks were known to be rich in mineral deposits in the Great Lakes region. Whereas Walcott found only Upper Cambrian rocks in the area, Comstock reported finding a complete Cambrian section. Finally, in the first decade of the twentieth century, United States Geological Survey geologists compiled an authoritative report end­ ing the confusion. In September 1902 E. O. Ulrich and Bailey Willis, Paleozoic stratigraphers for the national survey, and J. W. Beede investigated the Paleozoic rocks of the Llano uplift. By extending studies in Oklahoma across into Texas, they determined that the Cambro-Ordovician section in the Llano uplift was identical to that in the Arbuckle and Wichita mountains of Oklahoma. The following field season, Ulrich spent five more weeks in the area with George I. Adams, studying the Pre-Cambrian rocks. Then in 1906 Frank L. Hess of the national survey made a reconnaissance examination of the Burnet and Llano quadrangles. In 1907 A. C. Spencer and Sidney Paige, after carefully studying the reconnais­ sance work of their predecessors, began a detailed stratigraphic ex­ amination. By the end of the first year they had finished work on the Llano quadrangle and had started on the Burnet quadrangle. The United States Geological Survey published their work in 1912 as the 37 Charles D. Walcott, “Classification of the Cambrian System of North Amer­ ica,” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXII (August 1886), 138-157. 38 Theodore B. Comstock, “Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Central Mineral Region,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Annual Report of the Geo­ logical and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, pp. 239-391.

Geological R6sum6: Stratigraphers

145

Llano-Burnet Folio of the Geological Atlas of the United States 39 It is noteworthy that Paige s work upheld the basic observations Walcott published in 1886 and underlined Comstocks erroneous conclusions. Perhaps the main reason for State Geologist Dumble’s decision to concentrate much of the energies of his survey on the study of the geology of the coastal Cenozoic deposits was the fact that Dumble was an astute politician. He realized that the state survey would have to produce work of a practical nature in order to appease legislators. He also recognized that the political and economic strength of the state lay in East Texas. Thus, Dumble directed much attention to the study of the iron ore and lignite deposits of this region. Furthermore, Texas had increased its transportation facilities so markedly and had progressed sufficiently along the road to industrialization to make the consideration of out-of-state ship­ ment or local utilization of these low-grade ores feasible. The men of the Dumble Survey, especially Dumble and William Kennedy, had also developed a keen interest in the geology of the coastal sediments. They were familiar with the pioneer Cenozoic work of Michael Tuomey and Eugene W. Hilgard and developed something of a regional pride in unraveling the complex coastal geology. They pioneered the study of the Gulf Coastal Plain—a unique Southern feature—in Texas. Dumble first assigned R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., to survey the Cenozoic geology and iron ores of the coastal province. While with the Arkan­ sas State Survey Penrose had studied sedimentary metallic ores in the Tertiary. Penrose had some initial difficulties in his field work which he attributed to the fact that, at Harvard, he had only made occasional field excursions and had not been trained to explore the geology of an unfamiliar region.40 However, Penrose proved to be highly adaptable and soon ascertained that he must find his out­ crops in erosional cuts. Furthermore, in Texas, all Gulfward-flowing rivers cut the coastal formations perpendicularly, and Dumble and Penrose made a series of basic surveys of the dip-sections exposed 89 Sidney Paige, “Description of the Llano and Burnet Quadrangles,” Geological Atlas of the United States, Llano-Burnet Folio, no. 183 (1912). 40 Helen R. Fairbanks and Charles P. Berkey, Life and Letters of R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., pp. 109-110.

146

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

in the valleys of the Brazos, Colorado, and Rio Grande rivers. On the basis of these nautical reconnaissances, Dumble and Penrose divided the littoral strata that characterized this province into three groups, which roughly corresponded to the units Hilgard described in Mississippi.41 After one years work, Penrose left the survey, and Dumble as­ signed William Kennedy, a Scot adventurer who had also been a member of the Arkansas Geological Survey, to continue the Cenozoic work. He and Dumble conducted reconnaissance trips down rivers and along railroad profiles and then initiated a series of de­ tailed county studies, concentrating on the iron ores and lignites of East Texas.42 In addition to his fine reconnaissance work, which Dumble and Kennedy found no need to correct, Penrose had discovered that ma­ rine characteristics were more prevalent in the Tertiary beds along the Rio Grande. His was the first intimation of the existence of a Tertiary embayment in that region 43 Robert T. Hill first specifically reported the presence of such a feature in 1899 in his water-resource studies of southwestern Texas. Hill attributed the formation of his "Rio Grande embayment” to subsidence caused by an ex­ cessive load of sediments in this coastal region, and he postulated that the subsidence had accentuated movement along the Balcones fault trend in the latter part of the Tertiary.44 Gilbert D. Harris, a prominent Tertiary paleontologist at Cornell who spent his summers working for the state of Louisiana, discov­ ered the presence of another prominent structural feature in the coastal province in 1896. On the basis of detailed stratigraphic studies in the Sabine River area he discerned a dome-like outcrop pattern, 41 Penrose, “A Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Gulf Tertiary of Texas,” in Dumble, First Annual Report, pp. 5-101. 42 William Kennedy, “Report on Houston County,” in Dumble, Third Annual Report, pp. 7-40. 43 R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., “A Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Gulf Tertiary of Texas,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Report of Progress of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, p. 40. 44 Robert T. Hill and T. W. Vaughan, “Geology of the Edwards Plateau and the Rio Grande Plain Adjacent to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, with Refer­ ence to the Occurrence of Underground Waters,” in U.S., Geological Survey, Eighteenth Annual Report, pt. 2 (1898), p. 260.

Geological Resume: Stratigraphers

147

which indicated that a structural high existed in the upper TexasLouisiana boundary region.45 In addition to his astute analyses of the Texas Tertiary strata, Dumble, in a study of well samples, made one of the first contribu­ tions to an understanding of the subsurface geology of the region. After studying the samples and fossils taken from the water wells drilled at the Huntsville Penitentiary and at Galveston, the State Geologist observed that "the various beds thicken toward the coast, being in one case nearly double the thickness in the Galveston deep well section than they are at the south edge of the outcrop.”46 Unfortunately, Dumble did not pursue this point any further. It is similarly unfortunate that he had only limited interest in the sub­ surface occurrence of oil. In an 1890 survey report, he had com­ mented on the close relationship between oil deposits and those of gas, sulfur, and salt in southwestern Louisiana. He had then specu­ lated that "the existence of similar areas and conditions in East Texas, and the discovery of rock salt underlying the Grand Saline [salt works] are ample encouragement for the expenditure of money necessary to sink trial wells in every such locality in the State.”47 However, Dumble did not choose to emphasize this observation and made no subsequent suggestions with regard to oil prospecting. Instead, he concentrated his attentions on the study of East Texas lignite deposits. He felt that these were the fossil fuels that would be the basis of future industrial development in Texas. William Kennedy went even further and actually discouraged the drilling of oil wells in the coastal plain. In the summer of 1893 he had spent two months "without result” running the samples of the exploratory well that the Gladys City Oil Company was drilling on the site where the Spindletop field was to be discovered in 1901.48 At this time Kennedy found nothing significant to report. Several 45 Gilbert D. Harris, “The Lignitic Stage,” Bulletin of American Paleontology, II (June 15, 1897), pt. 1: “Stratigraphy and Pelecypoda,” p. 9. 46 Edwin Theodore Dumble, “Notes on the Texas Tertiaries,” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, I (1895), 26. 47 Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. 317. Throughout the publications, the various geologists mentioned the oil production within their regions of study, but no one made recommendations for future prospecting. 48 Merrill, “History of State Geological Surveys,” pp. 491-492.

148

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

years later, Dumble belatedly sent Kennedy back to investigate the oil potential of the same area upon the request of Captain Anthony F. Lucas. Despite the fact that Lucas, the foremost American au­ thority on salt domes, postulated that the surface conditions at Spindletop indicated the presence of a dome with associated oil, neither Dumble nor Kennedy encouraged him. In fact, Kennedy publicly discouraged this and other coastal oil-prospecting ventures by declaring that petroleum only accumulated in pores in solid rock.49 It took the discovery of oil at Corsicana in 1896 to demonstrate the existence of significant oil reserves in Texas. This new field boosted the annual Texas oil production from 50 barrels in 1895 to 65,955 barrels in 1897.50 By this time, however, the state had ter­ minated the Dumble Survey, and Dumble had joined the Southern Pacific Railroad Company as a consulting geologist. He immediately began to formulate the first geological research bureau in private industry, and Kennedy soon joined him. At this time the geologists of the Louisiana Geological Survey, new Texas State Geologist Gilbert D. Harris, and Arthur V. Veatch, assumed the leadership of both surface and subsurface geological research in the western Gulf Coastal Plain. Private consulting geol­ ogists also began to make their contributions to Cenozoic geological research in Texas. In 1899 Veatch produced the most perceptive study of salt domes ever written by an American.51 Later that year Captain Anthony F. Lucas reasserted his observation that petroleum was often associated with salt domes in Louisiana.52 The following year, Professor Wil­ liam Battle Phillips of The University of Texas finally gave Lucas the official scientific backing he had been seeking and even directed him to the developers of the Corsicana field for financial support.53 The rest of the history of Spindletop is legend, but of particular importance for this study was the stimulation of interest in the 49 James A. Clark and Michel T. Halbouty, Spindletop, pp. 24-26. 50 U.S., Geological Survey, Eighteenth Annual Report, p. 848, and Nineteenth Annual Report, p. 102. 51 Arthur C. Veatch, “The Five Islands,” A Preliminary Report on the Geology of Louisiana ( 1899), Special Report 3, pp. 199-362. 52 Anthony F. Lucas, “Rock Salt in Louisiana,” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXIX (1899), 466. 53 Clark and Halbouty, Spindletop, pp. 37-38.

Geological Résumé: Stratigraphers

149

Cenozoic deposits of the coastal plain caused by the discovery of oil there. The United States Geological Survey immediately launched a program to collect and digest all available stratigraphic information on the coastal province. Spindletop also immeasurably increased support for the creation of The University of Texas Mineral Survey. Phillips, who had become the first director of this new state survey in 1901, promptly sent a man to study the geology of the Spindle­ top region, and the first official publication of the survey was a study of the development of the oil industry in Texas. In 1901 the national survey hired William Kennedy to investigate the stratigraphic conditions surrounding oil accumulation in the coastal plain under the nominal supervision of C. W. Hayes. Ken­ nedy made amends for his earlier error of discouraging drilling at Spindletop by conducting extremely perceptive subsurface studies.54 He reasserted the phenomenon of subsurface thickening of Tertiary beds which Dumble had noted in 1895 and which Veatch had ob­ served in 1899. Kennedy accompanied his conclusions with a wealth of illustrative examples. He reported that the chief oil reservoir at Spindletop was in a one-thousand-foot marine Miocene section that had no surface equivalent. He attributed the formation of this unique section to movement along the Balcones fault trend during Miocene time. Although these marine Miocene beds are probably equivalents of terrestrial outcrops, their discovery stimulated similar subsurface investigations. Furthermore, after an exhaustive study of the sub­ surface geology of the various coastal oil fields Kennedy concluded that the fields were located along linear structural trends parallel to the Balcones trend. Another aftermath of Spindletop was the captivation of the ener­ gies of geologists with theories of salt dome formation. Unfortu­ nately, after Kennedy’s excellent subsurface studies had stressed the significance of downdip thickening, no geologists concerned them­ selves with speculating about this feature for many years. Instead they concentrated on salt domes, which were more closely associated with oil accumulation.55 This study absorbed the energies of the 54 William Kennedy and C. W. Hayes, “Oil Fields of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coastal Plain,” Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey 212 (1903). 55 The history of theories of salt dome origin and growth is traced in Raymond C. Moore, ed., The Geology of Salt Dome Oil Fields.

150

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

men of the national survey and the Louisiana survey during the first decade of the twentieth century. The Texas survey was also mainly concerned with evaluating the mineral potential of public school and University lands in the Trans-Pecos. Since private oil companies did not feel a need to develop geological bureaus until the second decade after Spindletop, the resumption of subsurface stratigraphic studies awaited the creation of the Bureau of Economic Geology of The University of Texas in 1909. Under the guidance of John August Udden, who became director in 1911, this research bureau led the way in collecting and analyzing subsurface well data. This type of subsurface information and the type provided by the advent of geophysical exploration finally made possible the unraveling of the geosynclinal history of the coastal plain in the nineteen-thirties. In final analysis, the subsurface information provided by oil pros­ pecting led the way to the solution of the geological history of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Since that time, the immense resources placed in the hands of the geological research bureaus of private industry have enabled them to dominate subsurface research. How­ ever, the Bureau of Economic Geology has provided much invalu­ able guidance and support and has especially stimulated the public interchange of information. Moreover, Uddens investigations led the way to the important discovery of Permian oil on the University lands in Reagan County in the northwestern portion of the Edwards Plateau. Finally, the study of the geological exploration of the Gulf Coastal Plain has evidenced the emergence of a new investi­ gational methodology. New sources of information, from Hilgards association of vegetation with the underlying lithology to subsurface well logs and geophysical information, were necessary for the in­ vestigation and interpretation of the complex Cenozoic geology of this province. During the last decade of the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth century, stratigraphic geologists finally began to un­ ravel the complex Cenozoic geological history of the Llano Estacado and began to analyze the effect of Northern glaciation upon Quater­ nary climates in the Texas region. Almost simultaneously, Robert T. Hill and William Fletcher Cum­ mins discovered that the strata of the Llano Estacado were pre­ dominantly Cenozoic. In the summer of 1890, Cummins discovered beds in the eastern scarp face of the Llano Estacado in Dickens

Geological ResumS: Stratigraphers

151

County which he identified as Triassic on the basis of stratigraphic position and fossil Unionidae.56 Two years later Cummins made a geological reconnaissance around the entire Llano Estacado in con­ nection with studies of artesian well prospects in the region for the Dumble Survey. In the survey s Second Progress Report, which appeared in February 1892, Cummins reported that in the vicinity of Big Spring, on the headwaters of the Colorado River, he had discovered Lower Cretaceous beds overlaying the Triassic strata.57 He also discerned that Tertiary deposits overlapped the Cretaceous beds and mantled the entire surface of the Llano. He found that north of Garza County the Lower Cretaceous beds had “pinched out” and the Tertiary mantle lay directly upon the Triassic. Further­ more, he announced that the Permian beds of the western Osage Plains extended underneath the Triassic strata of the Llano. Robert T. Hill had been investigating the geology of the Llano Estacado region as part of his artesian well survey for the Depart­ ment of Agriculture concurrently with Cummins' work there. Hill's final report, which appeared in May 1892, corroborated Cummins’ findings.58 However, Hill concentrated on the geological relations of the unconsolidated Tertiary sediments that mantled the Llano. He 56 Cummins, “Report on the Geology of Northwest Texas,” in Dumble, Second Annual Report, p. 429. 67 William F. Cummins, “Report on the Staked Plains,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Second Report of Progress of the Geological and Minerah gical Survey of Texas, p. 27. 68 Robert T. Hill, On the Occurrence of Artesian and Other Underground Waters in Texas, Eastern New Mexico, and the Indian Territory, West of the Ninety-seventh Meridian, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41, IV, pt. 3 (1892), 124. Hill reported that, because he had anticipated Cummins' work on the Llano Estacado, Cummins had led a vicious attack upon him (“Some Geo­ logical Recollections of a Young Man,” p. 57, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas). However, Dumble related that both Hill and Cummins had dis­ cussed the solution of the geological relations of the Llano in lobbying for the state survey before the legislature (Introduction to Edward D. Cope, “Prelimi­ nary Report on the Vertebrate Paleontology of the Llano Estacado,” in Dumble, Fourth Annual Report, p. 8). Francis W. Cragin commented that he had “in­ formed Hill some six months before he announced it in the American Geologist, June 1891, as his own discovery, that [Cragin] had determined the rim rock of the Llano Estacado of Canadian, Texas to be Loup Fork by fossils” (Francis W. Cragin to E. T. Dumble, December 29, 1891, Dumble Papers, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas).

152

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

postulated that this sheet of sediment probably once covered the entire Edwards Plateau and might even have been continuous with the Quaternary alluvial gravels in South Texas. In the summer of 1892, Edward D. Cope resumed field activities after a ten-year layoff, and with Cummins he collected vertebrate fossils in the Triassic and Tertiary outcrops along the eastern scarp of the Llano. Cope volunteered his services in return for field ex­ penses, and his excursion marked the beginning of his pioneer studies of the fossil mammals of the Llano Pliocene beds.59 In 1893 on the basis of vertebrates collected in the Panhandle of Texas under the direction of the Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia, Cope also con­ cluded that the faunal assemblages on the headwaters of the Red River were similar to those on the headwaters of the Brazos, where he had collected with Cummins.60 In the latter part of the decade, Professor Henry F. Osbum of the American Museum of Natural History, the foremost authority on Cenozoic vertebrates, sent his former student, James W. Gidley, to Texas to explore the beds Cope and Cummins had identified as Pliocene. Gidley conducted the first precise stratigraphic studies of the Tertiary strata of the Llano by associating the vertebrate fossils with definite lithologic horizons.61 He concluded that the bulk of the Tertiary beds were Miocene. Just before Gidley published his work, Willard D. Johnson issued the final results of his ground-water study of the High Plains for the United States Geological Survey in 1900.62 Johnson was one of the first geologists to emphasize the effect of northern glaciation upon southern Quaternary geography and was also a pioneer in determin­ ing the history of terrestrial deposition through the study of sedi­ mentary characteristics. He concluded that the Tertiary strata of 59 Cope, “Preliminary Report on the Vertebrate Paleontology of the Llano Estacado,” in Dumble, Fourth Annual Report. 60 Edward D. Cope, “Observations on the Geology of Adjacent Parts of Okla­ homa and Northwest Texas,” Proclamation of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 1894 (1895), pp. 63-68. 61J. W. Gidley, “The Fresh Water Tertiary of Northwestern Texas, American Museum Expedition of 1899-1901,” Bulletin of the American Museum of Nat­ ural History, XIX (1903), 617-635. 62 Willard D. Johnson, “The High Plains and Their Utilization,” in United States, Geological Survey, Twenty-first Annual Report, p. 655.

Geological Resume: Stratigraphers

153

the High Plains were deposited by intermittent streams under desert conditions. Robert T. Hill was the first to study closely the Cenozoic alluvial deposits of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In 1891 he announced the dis­ covery of remnants of a vast alluvial gravel deposit in the upper portion of the Rio Grande embayment.63 He asserted that increased movement along the Balcones fault zone had caused the increase in stream gradient necessary to transport the coarse sediments of this alluvial formation. In the closing years of the Dumble Survey, Dum­ ble had conducted a series of explorations in South Texas and had discovered that these coarse gravels formed "the crest of divides, and south of the great bend of the Nueces spread out in a plateau closely homologous to that of the Llano Estacado.”64 In channels cut into these beds he found vertebrate fossils, which led him to conclude that deposition of these gravels had been contemporaneous with the deposition on the Llano.65 Although Dumble’s correlation is now known to be in error, he and Hill and others helped lay the foundations for the study of Cen­ ozoic terrestrial sedimentation in Texas and for analysis of the possible effects of glacial climates on Texas Quaternary geography. This evaluation of investigations and contributions during the stratigraphic stage of geological surveying in Texas has illustrated the combination of lithological and paleontological studies which enables geologists to determine the basic history of geological provinces. Most simply, this process involves interpreting the rock record to determine the variations in geographical conditions throughout the geologic past in any geological province. In several instances stratigraphic geologists had to carry out some unfinished reconnaissance work during the last two decades of their study, but by 1909 sophisticated geological histories of most of the geological provinces of Texas had begun to emerge. These histories did not, however, include the Gulf Coastal Plain province, and the basic 63 Robert T. Hill, “Notes on the Geology of the Southwest,” American Geolo­ gist, VII (June 1891), 368. 64 Edwin Theodore Dumble, “The Cenozoic Deposits of Texas,” The Journal of Geology, II (September-October 1894), 561. 65 Ibid., p. 567.

154

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

understanding of its geological history awaited the accumulation of subsurface information. Through combined efforts, William F. Cummins of the Dumble Survey and private vertebrate paleontologists from the East unrav­ eled some of the major complexities of the Permian terrestrial and marine stratigraphy of the western Osage Plains. George H. Girty had described the marine Permian fauna of the Guadalupe Moun­ tains in detail. Robert T. Hill, his United States Geological Survey associate, Thomas W. Vaughan, and the geologists of the Dumble Survey established the basic features of the Lower Cretaceous stra­ tigraphy of the Texas region. Hill also first attempted to draw the structural outlines of the Trans-Pecos. Finally, he, Edwin T. Dum­ ble, and the geologists of the United States Geological Survey began to interpret the history of Quaternary alluvial deposition in the coastal plain and the Llano Estacado and to study its relation to Northern glaciation. Two evolutionary stages occur in the acquisition of geological knowledge concerning a typical undeveloped frontier region. Initial­ ly, reconnaissance geologists determine the presence of strata of the various geologic time periods and attempt to outline their areal ex­ tent. The main objective at this stage is the determination of the gen­ eral features of the broad geological provinces or districts in which the rocks experienced a common history. Subsequently stratigraphic geologists interpret the rock record by means of local studies and small-scale mapping in order to discover the detailed geological history of the various geological provinces. At both stages in Texas, a combination of federal, state, and private efforts led to the understanding of the basic geological his­ tory of the provinces. The typical combination of reconnaissance paleontological discoveries and the determination of the broad out­ lines of geological provinces, followed by the stratigraphic studies and subdivision of these provinces, led to the understanding of the geological history of the Texas Lower Cretaceous and the Permian of the Osage Plains and the Trans-Pecos. In addition to tracing the process by which geological information was accumulated, the Dum­ ble and Phillips surveys and the United States Geological Survey illustrated the advantages and drawbacks of the nineteenth-century approach to the evaluation of the mineral and agricultural resources of undeveloped and scientifically unexplored public lands.

Geological Rdsumd: Stratigraphers

155

The most effective feature of these evaluative studies was illus­ trated in the work in the first decade of the twentieth century. The basic division of geological surveying duties between the United State Geological Survey and The University of Texas Mineral Sur­ vey—the federal survey conducting broad geological reconnais­ sances, paleontological studies, and topographic work; and the state survey carrying out the detailed stratigraphic studies of mineral districts—represents the most effective allocation of federal and state research resources. The Mineral Survey could not afford to undertake work similar to that performed by the United States Geo­ logical Survey because the state legislature sought short-run, practi­ cal objectives and could not comprehend the need for more basic research. However, this well-planned format usually did not operate smoothly in practice. The United States Geological Survey per­ formed its reconnaissance and paleontological duties, but it often failed to coordinate its topographical work with the needs of the state. The Dumble Survey s need for topographic base maps was most urgent in the complex Trans-Pecos province, but Major Pow­ ell s topographic crews concentrated their efforts on the work for the Irrigation Survey until the state survey was two years old. Powell's emphasis forced Dumble to organize his own topographic crews in this region. The main breakdown in federal-state cooperation was the in­ ability of the Texas General Land Office to provide accurate land maps upon which the national survey could superimpose its topog­ raphy and the state survey its geology. Indeed, this is the main point over which the scientists and the politicians parted ways. The leg­ islature had given the Dumble and Phillips surveys the duty of classifying those unsold reserved lands that were potentially mineralbearing. State Geologist Dumble had been a strong advocate of this classification scheme. However, the Land Office could not provide the necessary accurate land maps, and so the geological investigation in the regions containing reserved lands could not serve their po­ litical function of revealing which sections of public land were po­ tentially mineral-bearing. Unfortunately, Dumble and other state officials who promoted this utopian scheme of land classification did not consider the woeful lack of accurate land surveys in the TransPecos.

156

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Furthermore, the plans for constructing storm-water storage res­ ervoirs on the semiarid Trans-Pecos reserved lands, which Dumble originated and Phillips advocated, were equally unrealistic. Although both the classification and state reservoir construction schemes were well-intended, their basic feature of a planned or govemmentally controlled developmental scheme for the reserved school lands was alien to the American concept of free enterprise. Traditionally, American governmental bodies had not only removed all impedi­ ments to the operation of private enterprise in undeveloped lands but had actually assisted this exploitation in every way they could.

NI N E

The Bureau of Economic Geology: Geological Research Leaves the Political Arena

T h e University of Texas Mineral Survey, which the legislature created as a reform instrument to help the state realize the full economic potential of the school and University lands, was super­ seded by legislation that provided a more practical approach to the problem of protecting public mineral lands from being exploited at the expense of the school funds. At the same time, the tremendous growth of the oil industry led some state leaders to consider estab­ lishing as part of the University a permanent geological bureau designed to help meet the practical needs of private enterprise. University President Sidney Edward Mezes was very interested in extending the benefits of the University to as many Texas citizens as possible. This concern underlay his proposal to the Board of Regents in June 1909 that the University establish a Bureau of Economic Geology: The Mineral Survey attached to the University was very useful to the people of the State, and did much to convince them of the University’s ability to give useful and practical information. Its weakness was that it had to stand on its own feet instead of being a part of the University, and for a variety of reasons it proved incapable of sustaining itself before the Legislature. A further weakness was the insufficient specification of the services the Survey was prepared to render. This aroused expectations that

158

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

could not be met, and led to disappointments and hostilities. I believe that a Bureau of Economic Geology, with carefully defined aims, which it would be possible to compose, would escape both these dangers and would in its usefulness justify its existence and bring support to the University.1 The board immediately approved the recommendation and placed $3,500 in the budget to cover the salary and expenses of a director. William Battle Phillips, who had returned to private consulting work after the termination of the Mineral Survey, may have orginally suggested the idea of creating a bureau to Mezes.2 But whereas Mezes foresaw the increased public support for the University which such a bureau might create, Phillips emphasized the contributions that the bureau would make toward stimulating the Texas economy. He praised the regents' action and noted that "no other institution of higher learning in the country has taken upon itself the duty of providing, at its own expense, an office to which one may apply for information” on the mineral resources of a state.3 The board did not clearly outline the functions of the bureau as Mezes had recommended in his message. However, a press release in July announced the appointment of Phillips as the bureaus di­ rector and vaguely defined its duties.4 The regents proposed that the bureau serve as an agency to provide information that could be 1 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. C (June 7, 1909), p. 463, The Uni­ versity of Texas, Austin, Texas. 2 The ever-present Robert T. Hill also appears to have had some influence upon the creation of the bureau. In a letter to University of Texas President H. Y. Benedict several decades later, Hill mentions having addressed the Board of Regents late in 1909 on the subject of reestablishing a geological bureau un­ der the control of the University (Robert T. Hill to H. Y. Benedict, November 30, 1934, Benedict Collection, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas). 3 Catalogue of The University of Texas, 1909-1910, p. 209. * See Appendix H. Oddly, many people misunderstood the objectives of the bureau and probably felt that it would be an academic institution only. On Sep­ tember 1, 1909, the Galveston Daily News ran the following editorial (p. 43, col. 7): “In the minds of many the most important mission of the next Legislature is to provide for an accurate survey of Texas for the purpose of locating and meas­ uring the various deposits of minerals within the borders of the State. When this is done, corporations and individuals will have the information and the induce­ ment to enter upon the development of one of Texas* richest resources, a work which will bring thousands of skilled laborers into the State and add millions to the total wealth of the people.”

The Bureau of Economic Geology

159

freely consulted by geologists, engineers, and landowners alike—*a sort of clearing house of information.” Mezes stressed the practical benefits that would be forthcoming and advocated the conversion of the old power house into "a testing laboratory of economic geolo­

gy”5

The board officially activated the bureau on October 21, 1909.6 During the infancy of the Texas oil industry, the bureau served as a clearinghouse for much valuable geological information that might otherwise have been lost The most significant work of the bureau in these early years was the examination, identification, and storage of subsurface well samples. In time the oil companies established their own laboratories for this purpose, and consulting geologists entered the field, freeing the bureau for other work. The Board of Regents proved to be more flexible than the legis­ lature, and after the fast-developing geological departments of private oil companies had assumed the more practical duties of the bureau, the regents permitted the bureau to devote much of its time to basic geological research. The Bureau of Economic Geology has, therefore, developed into one of the most basic research-oriented public geological organizations in the world. It is noteworthy that as a research institution the bureau has contributed more to the development of the state’s resources than have any of its predeces­ sors. Especially illustrative is the work of the bureau which led directly to the discovery of oil in the Permian beds under University lands in Reagan County.7 The creation of the Bureau of Economic Geology in 1909 brought the ad hoc epoch of state geological surveys to an end. The Texas legislature launched four surveys between 1858 and 1909 which were active for more than one-third of this half-century. Even though Texas' financial condition was never strong the legislature appro­ priated over $280,000 to underwrite these surveys. Through the eighteen-seventies, the decade in which Texas first boomed economically, the spirit of expectant capitalism so common to the western American also engulfed Texans. A post-Civil War dedication to rebuild a more balanced Texas economy reinforced 5 Minutes of the Board of Regents, Vol. D (June 11, 1910), p. 49. 6 Ibid., Vol. C (October 21, 1909), p. 476. 7 See J. A. Udden, “Notes on the Geology of the Glass Mountains,” Bulletin of the University of Texas, no. 1753 (1917), pp. 56-58.

160

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

this mood. State legislatures actively assisted the development of the natural resources of Texas by bestowing generous land subsi­ dies and by launching several geological surveys with the aim of officially advertising the mineral and agricultural wealth of the state. The absence of surface mineral deposits of sufficient richness to warrant exploitation in '‘unindustrialized,, nineteenth-century Texas prevented these surveys from effectively encouraging mineral re­ source development. However, the often naive reports of these early surveys extolled the richness of the states mineral resources, and thereby undoubtedly stimulated both the agricultural and railroad expansion that was characteristic of the boom years of the seventies. But the economic and political atmosphere changed abruptly. Declining agricultural prices in the eighties fostered an agrarian reform movement directed against railroads, land speculators, and capitalists in general. Concurrently, a more intellectual brand of reformer became alarmed by the squandering of the state’s public domain and the unchecked power of railroad companies within Texas. These men and the agrarian reformers temporarily united on the issue of railroad and land reform and helped launch two state geological surveys to assist in carrying out the land reforms. Aid to agriculture remained a central goal of these third and fourth surveys established in 1888 and 1901. At the same time both surveys still had to concern themselves with uncovering mineral wealth. The farmers benefited by the water resource work of these surveys, and survey geologists also made detailed mineral investi­ gations. The most significant mineral studies were Noah F. Drake's observations of the coal-bearing strata in the southern Osage Plains for the Dumble Survey, and J. A. Udden's report on the quicksilver deposits of the Big Bend for the Phillips Survey.8 However, these classical mineral studies did not stimulate capital investment appre­ ciably. The legislatures also assigned the 1888 and 1901 surveys the unique function of guiding the administration and distribution of 8 Noah F. Drake, “Report on the Colorado Coal Fields of Texas,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Fourth Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (1893), pp. 357-446; and J. A. Udden, “A Sketch of the Geol­ ogy of the Chisos Country, Brewster County, Texas,” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 93 (April 1907).

The Bureau of Economic Geology

161

the lands reserved for the benefit of the public school, asylum, and University funds. The legislators created these surveys to serve as instruments of land reform similar to the United States Geological Survey and the Irrigation Survey, which Major John Wesley Powell had promoted on the national level in 1879 and 1888. The primary reform function of the state survey was to classify the potential min­ eral-bearing reserved lands so that they might be sold at realistic prices. Unfortunately, the plan was politically impractical as well as scientifically unrealistic, for it was contrary to the western de­ mand for unfettered exploitation of undeveloped lands. A secondary function to which the surveys devoted much effort was the application of the Jeffersonian scheme for distributing lands to as many genuine settlers as possible. Because the bulk of the reserved lands were in the semiarid Trans-Pecos region, the surveys made their most notable efforts in this area of endeavor in the form of water-resource studies. The major contribution was State Geologist Edwin T. Dumbles scheme for state construction of storm-water storage reservoirs in the Trans-Pecos. Dumble felt this program would enable Texas to distribute water in a more demo­ cratic fashion and break the cattle barons’ control of the open lands which their domination of the sparse natural water sources made possible. This utopian plan, which Dumble may have taken directly from Powell, illustrates the political naivete and impatience often exhibited by nineteenth-century scientists. Neither Dumble nor Powell worried about where the money to carry out their expensive schemes would come from. Given the financial plight of the state at the time Dumble officially proposed his plan, it is understandable that he received slight official consideration. The last two surveys failed, therefore, to function effectively as instruments of land reform. Subsequent legislation provided for the creation of irrigation cooperatives and established a policy whereby the state reserved a mineral interest in all reserved lands. No longer was there any demand for a state survey to classify mineral-bearing reserved lands to protect them from exploitation or to facilitate the democratic distribution of water resources on the arid public domain. By 1909 the geological efforts of the state surveys apparently had little noticeable direct effect on stimulating the development of the state’s resources. Geologists employed by the state were futilely absorbed in the search for valuable metallic ore deposits in Trans-

162

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Pecos Texas, in evaluations of the abundant low-grade lignites and iron ores in East Texas, or in studies of the noncommercial carbona­ ceous deposits of the Osage Plains and the Rio Grande embayment. Indeed, Edwin T. Dumble, the head of the most adequately financed survey, felt that the future industrial growth of Texas could be based on lignite fuels. It seems ironic that Dumble and other geologists active in the state during the closing years of the nineteenth century failed to pay adequate attention to the abundant indications of oil resources in Texas. With the notable exception of William Battle Phillips, state geologists discouraged Captain Lucas’ drilling efforts at Spindletop. However, it would be completely misleading to come to the con­ clusion that the Texas oil industry experienced its spectacular development in spite of the efforts of previous state geological agencies. The men who guided this industrial development and the geological knowledge they utilized were both directly affected by the Dumble Survey. The geologists who began their geological ex­ ploration careers on the Dumble or Phillips Surveys, or on the industrial geological research bureaus of the type pioneered by Dumble for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, quickly took the leading roles in making oil exploration a professional endeavor. By the nineteen-twenties the most capable exploration geologists in the world were to be found working in the oil industry in Texas and Mexico. Just as the geologists who had trained under Dumble had gained enough experience to become leaders in the field of oil exploration geology by the twenties, so had the knowledge of Texas Gulf Coastal Tertiary geology, the basic features of which had been provided by the Dumble Survey, been sufficiently tested and extended to make possible the development of subsurface exploration techniques. Dumble’s The Geology of East Texas, published in 1920, was a com­ pendium of Gulf Coastal Tertiary geology which, with Robert T. Hill’s Geography and Geology of the Black and Grand Prairies, Tex­ as, published back in 1901, became the “bible” of the pioneer Texas oil geologists. However, although this Tertiary geological knowledge, which was an outgrowth of the work of the Dumble Survey, had by far the most notable impact upon resource development, the contributions to geological knowledge in other areas made by the Dumble Survey

The Bureau of Economic Geology

163

and other state surveys were no less significant scientifically and in time became important economically as well. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century the geolo­ gists in this story had erected the enduring framework of the geology of an area one-twelfth the size of the United States. In the process, they discovered and interpreted the basic geological history of the typical Permian and Lower Cretaceous sections of North America. It must be added that this monumental geological effort could not have been accomplished without the cooperative efforts of the na­ tional surveys—the pre-Civil War military expeditions and, especial­ ly, the United States Geological Survey. Despite the fact that Texas had no federal lands, it received a great deal of assistance from the national government. This aid was made possible first because of the urgent need for strategic military information in Texas, and later because of expanded national research interest through the United States Geological Survey under the leadership of Major John Wesley Powell. Finally, the geologists in this story were heroic figures. De­ spite physical hardships, Indian dangers, and political opposition they succeeded in leading the vanguard of science into Texas and establishing the roots of a local scientific tradition.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDICES

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A P P E N D IX A

T h e G eo l o g ic a l

and

A g r ic u l t u r a l S u r v e y A c t

of

1858

An act to provide for a geological and agricultural survey of the State. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the governor is hereby authorized to appoint, as soon as possible some suitable and competent person as State geologist, who shall hold his office for two years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless removed by the Governor for neglect to perform the duties of his office, or for malfeasance in office, and who shall perform the duties herein prescribed, and during the period of his service shall hold no other office. And before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office he shall enter into bond, with security, to be approved by the Governor, in the sum of $20,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office. Section 2. That said State Geologist shall, as speedily as possible, make a thorough and complete geological survey of the State, so as to determine accurately the quality and characteristics of the soil, and its adaptation to agricultural purposes; the species of produce to which the soil, in different sections, is best adapted; its mineral resources, their location and the best means for their development; its water powers, their localities and capa­ bilities; and generally everything relating to the geological and agricul­ tural character of the State. And for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act said geologist shall have power to appoint assistants, with the approbation of the Governor: provided, that not more than two assistants shall be appointed. Section 3. That said State Geologist shall keep his office at the city of Austin; and shall not be required to remain in said office except as his duties allow; and shall keep in said office such specimens as he shall deem necessary to convey to such office. He shall also forward to the Governor, from time to time, during the progress of the survey, specimens of rocks, ores, coals, soils, fossils, and other mineral substances as may be necessary and proper to form a complete cabinet of specimens of the geology and

168

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

mineralogy of the State; and the Governor shall cause the same to be deposited, in proper order, in some convenient room at the capitol of the State, there to be preserved for public inspection. And said geologist shall make a report to the Legislature, at its regular sessions, of his surveys, explorations and examinations into the mineral and other natural re­ sources of the State, its climate and agricultural adaptability, accompanied by illustrative maps, charts, and drawings, with reference to the same, which report shall be the exclusive property of the State: Provided, How­ ever, That the said geologist shall not be prohibited from publishing any such facts, maps, charts, and drawings, which it is his duty to report; and that in making any survey upon the frontier the Governor or said State geologist is authorized to request the cooperation of any scientific corps of the United States Army or Navy, and an escort of United States troops. Section 4. That the said State geologist, for the performance of said service, shall receive an annual salary of $3,000, to be paid to him quar­ terly, after he enters upon the duties of his office; and that the sum of $20,000 be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended under the direc­ tion of the Governor, for the purposes of carrying into effect this act, by employing assistants and defraying the incidental expenses of his office; and upon presentation by the State geologist of the proper vouchers, approved by the Governor, the comptroller is hereby authorized to draw his warrant upon the treasury for the cost of any chemical apparatus or other outfit deemed necessary by the Governor, as well as other expenses of said survey: Provided, That amount expended shall not exceed the amount herein specified and appropriated: And provided further, That the salary of each assistant shall not exceed $1,500 per annum for the time he may be engaged. Section 5. That said State geologist and his assistants, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall make oaths, before some competent officer, that they will not purchase any lands in this State, with a view to speculation, during the time they hold their said offices, and that they will not conceal or suppress any information relative to any valuable discovery which they may make, pertaining to the objects of said survey, whether from the State or from individuals upon whose lands said discovery shall be made, and will so conduct the survey as to give as much publicity as possible to the important results of said survey. Section 6. That the chief geologist and his assistants, upon their re­ moval or resignation, or at the expiration of his office, shall turn over to his or their successors or to the Governor all the minerals, shells, maps, plats, and diagrams which they may collect or make during their term of

Appendix B

169

office, and shall communicate all important geological information to their successors acquired during such geological survey. Section 7. That this act shall take effect from its passage. Approved February 10, 1858.

APPENDIX B T h e R e s o l u t io n S u s p e n d in g t h e G e o l o g ic a l A g r ic u l t u r a l S u r v e y in 1861

and

Be it resolved: (1) That the geological survey be suspended, with the exception of the State Geologist and chemist, who shall continue in the survey only so long as it may be necessary to make out the report here­ after provided for. (2) That B[enjamin]. F. Shumard, the State Geologist, be requested to make a report of his survey so far as the survey has been completed, and for that purpose shall have control over the cabinet and rooms and his notes and the services of the chemist, and he shall receive a like salary heretofore paid the State Geologist until the work be completed: Provided, said report shall be made by the 1st of July next; which compensation shall be paid out of the appropriations heretofore made for the support of the geological bureau. (3) That Dr. Francis Moore, present State Geologist, be requested to make out a report of the work executed up to the present time. Approved, April 8, 1861.

170

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

APPENDIX C T h e G eo lo g ic a l S u r v e y A c t

of

1870

An act providing for a geological survey of the State of Texas. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, that the Governor is hereby authorized and directed to appoint, by and with the consent and advice of the Senate, some suitable and competent person as State Geologist, who shall hold his office until the completion of the geo­ logical survey of the State by this act authorized, or until his successor is appointed and qualified, in case of his removal as herein specified, and who shall perform the duties herein prescribed, and during his occupancy of said office shall hold no other office; and before entering upon his du­ ties as State Geologist, shall enter into bond, with security to be approved by the Governor, in the sum of five thousand dollars, for the faithful per­ formance of the duties of said office. Section 2. That said State Geologist shall, as soon as possible after his appointment and qualification, appoint two principal assistants, one of whom shall be an expert, practical and scientific chemist and mineralogist, and the other a competent geologist, and shall have full authority to ap­ point such sub-assistants as may from time to time become necessary. Section 3. That said State geologist shall, with the aid of his assistants, make as rapidly as may be consistent with accuracy, a thorough geological, mineralogical, and agricultural survey of the State, embracing a scientific and descriptive survey of the rocks, minerals, mineral waters and fossils of the same, full and complete assays of the ores and minerals, and analysis of the soils and sub-soils, with a classification of the same, stating their adaptation to particular crops, and the best methods of preserving and in­ creasing their fertility. They shall also determine the relative ages, order of succession, thickness, dip, strike, and composition of the various build­ ing stones, ores, minerals, fossils, fertilizers, and mineral waters, with speci­ mens of the useful native and introduced plants, and all other substances and objects that may be necessary to illustrate the economic and scientific geology, and render the collection a complete museum of practical geology.

Appendix C

171

Section 4. That the Governor shall procure safe and suitable rooms at the capitol of the State, for the permanent deposit and arrangement of the collections above mentioned; that said collections shall be arranged and classified in the same by the said State Geologist and his assistants, and that this museum shall be the office and headquarters of the survey, and always kept open and freely accessible at reasonable hours to the public, excepting when the members of the geological corps are all absent attend­ ing to field duties. Section 5. That all duplicate specimens collected by the survey shall be classified and labeled, when called for, to be distributed to each of the colleges of the state that have been duly authorized to grant diplomas; provided that each distribution shall only be made after due application of said colleges had been made to the Governor. Section 6. That the said State Geologist shall present to the Governor, at each regular session of the Legislature, a report of progress made up to that time, including an account of the more important results accom­ plished, and that said preliminary reports, if desirable or necessary to the proper understanding, shall be accompanied with maps and other illustra­ tions, and that these, as well as the other reports of said survey that may be made and presented by the State Geologist and assistants shall be the exclusive property of the State; provided, that said State Geologist shall not be prohibited from publishing any such facts, with maps and illustra­ tions, that it may be his duty to present. Section 7. That the salary of said State Geologist shall be three thou­ sand dollars per annum, and that of his principal assistants each eighteen hundred dollars per annum, together with all traveling and incidental ex­ penses of the said State Geologist and his assistants while engaged in field explorations, to be paid quarterly after they enter upon the duties of their office. All money hereafter appropriated to carry into effect this act, shaD be expended in the payment of the salaries of the State Geologist and principal assistants, and of such sub-assistants and others as it may be nec­ essary to employ, in the purchase of the necessary chemical apparatus, chemicals and instruments, the transportation of specimens, and the pay­ ment of incidental expenses; and upon the presentation by said State Geologist of proper vouchers, approved by the Governor, the Comptroller is hereby authorized to draw his warrant upon the Treasury for all bills for sums due or expended as above specified; provided that the whole amount expended shall not, during any one year, exceed the sum of twen­ ty thousand dollars. Section 8. That the said State Geologist and his assistants, before en­ tering upon the duties of office, shall take oath before some competent of­ ficer that they will not purchase any lands or mining interest in the State

172

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

with the view of speculation, during the time they hold office, and that they shall not conceal or suppress any information relative to any discovery which they may make pertaining to the objects of the survey, either from the State or from individuals upon whose lands said discovery may be made, and that they will so conduct the survey as to give as much pub­ licity as possible to the important results of the same. Section 9. That on the completion of said survey, or at proper inter­ vals during its progress, as facts may accumulate, said State Geologist shall prepare and present to the Governor more complete reports, to be considered final as far as they go, if presented during the progress of the survey, or final and complete if presented after the whole State shall have been surveyed, which reports shall embody the results of the entire survey, or of that portion of it completed, and shall be accompanied by all such maps, sections, diagrams and other drawings, as may be necessary for a full and complete understanding of the same. And the Secretary of State is hereby directed to secure a copyright in the name of the State for all reports presented by the State Geologist, and published at the ex­ pense and by die authority of the State. Section 10. That whenever any such reports are published, the Gov­ ernor may cause them to be sold to the citizens of die State, at a price not exceeding the cost of paper, printing, and binding, and to others on such terms as may be advantageous to the interests of the State, and all moneys that may be derived from the sale of said reports shall be placed in the common school fund of the State. Section 11. That said State Geologist shall be allowed fifty copies of all reports of said geological survey for distribution to scientific men in this country and in Europe; and that twenty copies of the same shall be in like manner allowed to each of the principal assistants in said survey, in accordance with the usual custom in such surveys. Section 12. That the State Geologist shall superintend the publication of his report provided for in this act, and shall present to the Legislature an estimate of the cost of publication of the same, at the time such reports are presented. Section 13. That in the case of the death or resignation of said State Geologist before the completion of said survey, the Governor may appoint his successor; and the Governor shall have the power to remove said State Geologist from office for neglect of duty, incompetence, dishonesty, or any kind of malfeasance in office, should he be found guilty of such charges brought against him; provided due notice has been given to him that such charges have been made, and he shall be allowed full opportunity to confront his accuser and make his defense; and in case of such removal of the State Geologist, he shall deliver over to the Governor, or to his

Appendix D

173

successor in office, all specimens, instruments, apparatus, maps, sections, diagrams, and other property belonging to the State and relating to the Survey. Section 14. That all former laws of the State relating to a State geo­ logical survey are hereby repealed; and that this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Approved August 13, 1870.

APPENDIX D T h e U n it e d S t a t e s G e o l o g ic a l S u r v e y C o o p e r a t e s

w it h t h e

States

In the Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, Director John Wesley Powell reported that on August 7, 1882, the survey had extended its operations to include private and state lands. The os­ tensible purpose behind this expansion of jurisdiction by the Congress was to facilitate the compilation of a geologic map of the country. The first cooperative agreements with the states consisted of topographic mapping by the national survey with financial support from the states. The United States Geological Survey commenced triangulation and topo­ graphic work in Texas in 1884, and by June 1888, just prior to the creation of the third Texas state geological survey, the national survey had pub­ lished maps covering 12,800 square miles on a scale of one inch for two miles, with a contour interval of 50 feet. Unfortunately, these maps only covered the Central Texas region where Robert T. Hill of the national survey was conducting his significant Cre­ taceous studies. State Geologist Edwin T. Dumble felt that topographic coverage was more desperately needed in the topographically and struc­ turally complex Trans-Pecos region. In a letter to Trans-Pecos district geologist Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz in November 1888, Dumble de­ clared that he would urge Director Powell to place a topographic party in this rugged region immediately. For the time being, Dumble informed Streeruwitz that the Houston and Texas Central Railroad had a topograph­ ic party conducting an irrigation survey on the east bank of the Pecos

174

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

River, and that the company would contribute all of their maps to the state survey.1 Dumble was unsuccessful in prompting the United States Geological Survey to commence topographic work in the Trans-Pecos. The State Geologist protested through Texas Representative Joseph D. Sayers, but Major Powell countered in April 1889 with the reply that the national survey had spent $15,000 on topographic work in Texas annually since 1884.2 Furthermore, the Director emphasized that two of his topographers were currently mapping the iron ore region in Cherokee County at Dumble’s request. Dumble was forced, therefore, to authorize Streeruwitz to organize a topographic team to map the Trans-Pecos that summer in order to pro­ duce some accurate base maps for the geologists to use. The following winter he also attached a topographic party under J. C. Nagle to Theo­ dore B. Comstock's geological party in the Central Mineral Region, and he ordered Noah F. Drake to do some topographic work for William F. Cummins in the Osage Plains.3 The State Geologist then traveled to Washington to confer with Powell in an attempt to coordinate the national survey's topographic work more closely with the needs of the state geological parties. Powell seemed agreeable at the time, but in June 1890 he apologized to Dumble that “the addition of the irrigation investigation to the work of the Geological Sur­ vey has led to the assignment of all general topographic work in the arid region to the Irrigation Survey.”4 Although the United States Geological Survey did not work in the Trans-Pecos in 1890, it did extend its topographic coverage into the coal region of the southwestern Osage Plains at Dumble’s request. At least Dumble had succeeded in getting topographic coverage in two areas of paramount economic importance—the iron ore region of the upper coastal plain and the “Coal Measures” of the southern Osage Plains. Streeruwitz and Nagle continued their topographic efforts in the Diablo and Carrizo Mountains and the Central Mineral Region respectively. Thomas C. Mendenhall, the director of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1 Edwin Theodore Dumble to Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz, November 1, 1888, Dumble Papers, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas. 2 Major John Wesley Powell to Representative Joseph D. Sayers, April 12, 1889, Dumble Papers. 3 Some of their work was published with the annual reports of the Dumble Survey. 4 Major John Wesley Powell to Edwin Theodore Dumble, June 9, 1890, Dumble Papers.

Appendix D

175

agreed to take up preliminary triangulation studies in the Trans-Pecos.5 Finally, in 1891, Streeruwitz announced the initiation of topographic work by the national survey in the Trans-Pecos: Having met Mr. [Robert U.] Goode of the U. S. Geological Survey with two topographic parties in the field to work up the country between the 31st and 32nd degrees of latitude, and the 105th and 106th degrees of longitude [present El Paso County], I took advantage of this, stopped the topographic parties [under my supervision] inside of these boundaries, and commenced to work up the mineral district of the Carrizo Mountains and the southern part of the Sierra Diablo, with the Hazel Mine.6 Streeruwitz’s parties constructed excellent topographic maps, which were on a smaller scale and superior to those of the national survey.7 However, their work volume did not approach that of the federal topo­ graphic crews. Only the United States Geological Survey could hope to keep abreast of the state's demands for topographic maps. By 1893 its parties had published six topographic quadrangle sheets in the TransPecos, and in the following seven years it published seven more. However, topographic work always lagged behind geologic work. The cooperative topographic work of the United States Geological Survey was directed toward facilitating the construction of geological maps. To guide these projected geological mapping efforts, Director Powell thought it wise to gather the results of all previous work. The outcome of this program was the “Map of the United States, Exhibiting the Present Status of Knowledge Relating to the Areal Distribution of Geologic Groups,” which accompanied the Fifth Annual Report of the national survey.8 W. J. McGee directed the compilation of this map with the assistance of Charles W. Hitchcock, who had drawn a similar map for the Ninth Census.9 McGee utilized a manuscript map by Dr. Robert Hill Lough5 Thomas C. Mendenhall to Edwin Theodore Dumble, November 25, 1890, Dumble Papers. 6 Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz, “Report on the Geology and Mineral Resources of Trans-Pecos Texas,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, Second Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, p. 20. 7 Streeruwitz’s topographic staff was described as a force of German noble­ men who had fought with General Franz Siegel in the Union Army. To avoid getting lost and to provide a means of tracking individuals, each member of the crew had hobnails driven into the soles of his boots in distinctive patterns. De­ spite the precautions, one man strayed out of camp one night and was not heard of again (letter from Charles Lawrence Baker to the author). 8 United States, Geological Survey, Fifth Annual Report, p. xxviii. 9 Charles H. Hitchcock, “Description of the Geologic Map,” Ninth Census, II

176

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

ridge for information on the areal geology of Texas, the Indian Territory, Arkansas, and Louisiana. McGee observed that there was a dearth of material on the geology of this region so he arranged for Loughridge to compile a more accurate map. In 1885 Loughridge, who had just finished a survey of the geology of this region which was included in the Tenth Census, began constructing this map, a text that described all previous geological work, and a bibliography of the geological literature pertaining to this region. Unfortunately, Loughridge joined the Kentucky Geological Survey soon after, and McGee took over his preliminary work to prepare it for publication.10 In the Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, McGee commented that the map and text were ready for publication, but he added that he had decided to make the bibliography an exhaustive one. Furthermore, upon Powells request he undertook the writing of a history of American state geological surveys11 In January 1886 John Belknap Marcou assumed the direction of the bibliographical work, while McGee continued his work by collecting information from the various state geologists for the projected history of state surveys.12 McGee recorded in the Eighth Annual Report of the national survey that Marcous ‘exhaustive annotated and elaborately indexed bibliography of the geology of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and the Indian Territory, embracing about 2,500 bibliographical entries, will form a volume of 700 to 800 pages,” and stated that it would be ready for press in a few months. McGee added that the compilation of the history of previous geological investigations in this region had been turned over to men more familiar with the region. “Important questions relating to the structure of Texas remain unsolved . . . During the year [1887] extensive field operations were carried on in Texas by the Mesozoic Division of Invertebrate Paleon­ tology [which included Dr. Charles A. White and his assistant, Robert T. Hill], and exceedingly important results were secured; and it became evident that the best disposition to make of this memoir was to place it in the hands of Dr. White.”13 The important discovery to which he re­ ferred was the discovery of an extensive Lower Cretaceous marine section in the state. (1872), 754-755. For the geology of the eastern part of Texas, Hitchcock used a manuscript map drawn by Samuel B. Buckley. Hitchcock used maps made by the various federal governmental geologists for information on the TransBalcones country (ibid., p. 755). 10 U.S., Geological Survey, Fifth Annual Report, p. 41. 11 United States, Geological Survey, Sixth Annual Report, p. 29. 12 United States, Geological Survey, Seventh Annual Report, pp. 107-109. 13 United States, Geological Survey, Eighth Annual Report, p. 172.

Appendix D

177

These are the last official references made to these projects, but their future fate can be surmised with some accuracy. It is fairly certain that the manuscripts in the files of the United States Geological Survey which George P. Merrill used in writing his monumental "Contribution to a History of American State Geological and Natural History Surveys” were those McGee had compiled.14 It is also probable that the materials com­ piled for the sketch of previous geological investigations in Texas and the surrounding regions, which Loughridge had begun and later turned over to McGee, were used by Robert T. Hill in writing his 1887 article on “The Present Condition of the Knowledge of the Geology of Texas.” The fate of the “exhaustive annotated and elaborately indexed” bibli­ ography was unknown until three boxes of manuscripts were discovered in the vault of the Texas State Historical Association in February 1967. These papers proved to be John Belknap Marcous “Annotated Catalogue of Descriptive Works of the Southwest, Including Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and the Indian Territory.” Although it is not known exactly how these papers finally arrived at The University of Texas, Robert T. Hill may have brought them with him when he joined the University faculty in 1887. He probably used the material in writing his article mentioned above. The bibliography has about 1,950 entries, the most recent of which was published in 1885. Some of the works mentioned are not found in any other bibliographies of geological works relating to Texas, but they do not offer any significant original information. The map of the Texas region is the only project unaccounted for.15 It would have been quite useful in determining the knowledge of the areal geology of Texas prior to the work of the third state survey in 1888. 14 George P. Merrill, "Contributions to a History of American State Geologi­ cal and Natural History Surveys,” Bulletin of the United States National Mu­ seum, CIX (1920), iii. 15 In 1887 Charles H. Hitchcock compiled another national geological map, and he reported that he had used manuscript maps of the Texas region which had not been available to W. J. McGee. However, he does not cite these maps (“The Geological Map of the United States,” Transactions of the American In­ stitute of Mining Engineers, XV [February 1887], 465-488).

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

178

APPENDIX E

T h e G eo l o g ic a l

and

M in e r a l o g ic a l S u r v e y A c t

of

1888

An act to authorize the commissioner of agriculture, insurance, sta­ tistics, and history to have a geological and mineralogical survey made of the State of Texas, and to make an appropriation therefor. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That it shall be the duty of the commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history to have a geological and mineralogical survey made of the State of Texas, and for that purpose he shall employ such a number of competent persons skilled in the science of geology and mineralogy as shall be necessary to properly and expeditiously execute said work. The persons so employed shall be under the supervision and control of the said commissioner, and shall receive such compensation as the commis­ sioner may direct, not to exceed $2,000 per year. The commissioner shall provide all necessary chemical apparatus, books, maps, and stationery to carry out the provision of this act, and may employ such additional clerks as shall be requisite to a proper execution of this act, which clerks shall receive such compensation as he may deem proper, not to exceed $900 each per year. Section 2. The commissioner shall cause to be made assays, analyses, or other scientific examination of all beds or deposits of ores, coals, clays, marls, and other mineral substances situated in this State as shall be requisite to the correct knowledge of the extent and value thereof. He shall also in all proper cases upon application require like examinations, assays, or analyses to be made of deposits, mines, and lands situated in this State, and shall furnish proper certificates of the result of such examination, assay, or analyses. He shall also upon the request of any person require assays or analyses to be made of any specimen of soil or mineral deposits in this State, and shall also furnish to the party requesting it a certificate thereof: Provided, That in all cases when assays or analyses are made upon request of any person the party making the request shall

Appendix E

179

be required by the commissioner to make affidavit that the specimen of­ fered was found upon the land of the party making the request, or that said request is made at the instance or with the full knowledge and con­ sent of the owner of the land upon which said specimen was found. Section 3. The commissioner shall preserve a record of this department of his office, and the information therein collected and preserved shall be reported to the governor as in the case of other matters relating to his office. He shall also report to the governor before each session of succeed­ ing legislatures, for information of the governor and such legislatures, all money expended under this act, and how and for what purpose such money was expended. He shall also report the amounts of money received from persons, corporations, or syndicates for services rendered, specifying the amount so received. He shall also preserve specimens of minerals, coals, stones, and other natural substances useful in agriculture, manufac­ turing, or the mechanical arts, and shall from time to time as far as prac­ ticable add specimens of organic remains and other objects of natural history peculiar to this State. Section 4. The commissioner shall proscribe a schedule of reasonable fees to be charged and collected from all persons having scientific examina­ tions, assays, or chemical analyses made, and for certificates furnished under this act, which fees shall when collected be paid into the State treasury to the credit of the general revenue fund. Section 5. It shall be unlawful for the commissioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history, or any other person employed by him or connected with his office, to purchase all or any part of any mine or mineral lands, or be in any manner interested in such purchase, during the term of his office or employment. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by fine not less than $1,000, and shall be removed from his office or employment as the case may be. Section 6. That the sum of $15,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the State treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act: Provided, That no expense in excess of the amount hereby appropriated shall be incurred under the provisions of this act. Section 7. The great necessity for gathering and collecting useful and valuable information concerning the mineral and other natural resources of the State, and the present lack of means to ascertain the same, creates an imperative public necessity, and an emergency exists requiring that the constitutional rule which requires bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and said rule is so suspended, and it is enacted that this act take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

180

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Note. The foregoing act originated in the house, and passed the same by a vote of 45 yeas, 37 nays; and passed the senate by a vote of 24 yeas, 4 nays. Approved May 12, 1888.

APPENDIX F

T h e H il l -D u m b l e C o n t r o v e r sy

In 1890 Robert T. Hill resigned from the Texas Geological Survey be­ cause of a personal disagreement with State Geologist Edwin T. Dumble. Hill described the episode in his memoirs: In the spring of [1890], I had been working hard out of Denison on the North Texas cretaceous section. While doing this I received a copy of the [First] An­ nual Report of this survey, which contained undue strictures upon my work by one Dr. T. B. Comstock, . . . [which were] made without consultation with me. This form of attack rendered me sensitive, and then, Mr. Ralph S. Tarr, at the time an assistant on the survey, who had been working in the Guadalupe Moun­ tains, came to me with a complaint that he had been wronged by Mr. Dumble by charging to his account and withholding from his pay the value of some horses which had been stolen while he was on official duty. Feeling that I had in a degree been responsible for Tarr’s coming to the survey, I immediately went down to the State Capitol for the purpose of protesting to Dumble.1 Tarr had conducted his reconnaissance of the Guadalupe Mountains partly in company with Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz, who appears to have been quite authoritarian. When Joseph A. TaflF was working in the Cre­ taceous rocks of the Trans-Pecos late in the summer of 1890, he wrote to Dumble that district geologist Streeruwitz had declared that he (TaflF) was expected “to climb the hills and get the dips of rocks so that he [Streeruwitz] might be saved the labor.”2 The affair of the stolen horses probably stemmed from an equally poor relationship between Tarr and 1 Robert T. Hill, “Some Geological Recollections of a Young Man,” p. 51, The University of Texas Archives, Austin, Texas. 2 Joseph A. TaflF to Edwin Theodore Dumble, September 12, 1890, Dumble Papers, Texas State Archives, Austin, Texas.

Appendix F

181

Streeruwitz. The latter informed Dumble that he had arranged to supply Tarr with more horses after his had been lost, and Tarr had promised to send the money to pay for them to Mr. C. A. Tomason of Pecos.3 Un­ doubtedly, Dumble had to pay Tomason upon demand and simply de­ ducted the charges from Tarr s salary. Hill's protest to Dumble had no effect, and the affair stretched into March 1891, at which time Tarr, who had since resigned from the state survey, was still seeking reimbursement.4 The truth may never be ascer­ tained, but Professor Nathaniel S. Shaler revealed something of Tarr's character in a letter to Dumble in June 1890 in which he discussed the reasons for the exodus of his former students at Harvard from the survey. “I am chagrined that my boys have not stayed with you . . . Penrose I hardly expected would stay long with you, because he is of a roving temperament, and the continent is not big enough for him. It will require a number of years to wear out his magnificent energy, and make him will­ ing to stay on one bit of earth . . . [George L.] Ladd got an opportunity of promotion in pay and I can justify him in his change. Tarr is I fear, a figety person.”5 However, Hill did not tender his resignation because of Tarr’s misfor­ tune. He resigned because Dumble had permitted Theodore B. Comstock to censure Hill's reconnaissance work in the Central Mineral Region in an official survey publication.6 Hill imagined that Comstock had made the stricture because he was part of a conspiracy against Hill—“the Arkansas group”—which included Comstock, Gilbert D. Harris, Noah F. Drake, Joseph A. Taff, and later Dr. Frederick W. Simonds, all of whom had been associated with Dr. J. C. Branner's Arkansas Geological Survey. In his memoirs Hill declared that "it was undoubtedly Dr. Comstock's un­ suspected personal dislike of me in these days which proved the wedge between the friendship between Dr. Dumble and myself.”7 It is highly probable that the controversy prompted Hill, who labored under a strong persecution complex because of his small stature, to make unfounded charges against Dumble. This could explain the fact that the 3 Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz to Edwin Theodore Dumble, September 4, 1890, Dumble Papers. 4 Ralph S. Tarr to Edwin Theodore Dumble, February 5, 1891, and March 17, 1891, Dumble Papers. 5 Nathaniel S. Shaler to Edwin Theodore Dumble, June 18, 1890, Dumble Papers. 6 Theodore B. Comstock, “Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Central Mineral Region,” in Edwin Theodore Dumble, First Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, pp. 240-251. 7 Hill, “Recollections,” pp. 52-53.

182

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

survey chemist, J. H. Herndon, a graduate student of Hill at The Uni­ versity of Texas, brought charges of maladministration and plagiarism against Dumble in a letter to Governor James S. Hogg on April 2, 1891.8 Hogg took no action until he received a letter three weeks later from the chemist's father, W. S. Herndon, who was a Democratic stalwart from Hogg’s hometown of Tyler. The elder Herndon wrote: There is and has been trouble in the Geological Department—a smothered dis­ gust, ready to burst for a year or more. The best men on the work quit and left the State, all denouncing Dumble as an Ass. . . . And all of the men on the Sur­ vey save two it seems, are of the opinion that Prof. Dumble ought not to con­ tinue to hold sway when he knows so little of his business. Many joined in the request of [my son] Henry to prepare and file a statement showing by proof the incompetency of Prof. Dumble, which I hear he did early this month.9

Hogg promptly replied that he had no jurisdiction over the survey and therefore was turning the matter over to John E. Hollingsworth, commis­ sioner of agriculture, insurance, statistics, and history. Hogg ordered Hol­ lingsworth to investigate the charges in the proper manner,10 and on May 9, the Galveston Daily News announced that the Commissioner had commenced the investigation. The charges against the State Geologist enumerated by the newspaper included incompetency, plagiarism in re­ ports and contributions to the press, misleading and deceiving the legisla­ ture and people of Texas by presenting optimistic reports of tin, platinum, and other mineral deposits which were not warranted by the evidence, and maladministration and profligate expenditure of the public monies on matters that required no investigation.11 During the investigation Dumble informed Hogg that “in regard to my competency I submit in evidence the letter of Major Powell on which the 8 J. H. Herndon to James S. Hogg, April 2, 1891, printed in J. H. Herndon, Plea for the Life of the Geological and Minerdogical Survey of Texas, and Re­ view of Charges Preferred against Professor E. T. Dumble, State Geologist, for “Incompetency, Plagiarism, and Maladministration in Office,” and the Sham Trial Thereof, pp. 23-26. Also see Catalogue of The University of Texas for 18881889, p. 9. When appointed chemist, Herndon had written to Dumble giving thanks “for the personal interest you took in me by . . . giving me a fair start” (J. H. Herndon to Edwin Theodore Dumble, March 7, 1890, Dumble Papers). 9 W. S. Herndon to James S. Hogg, April 24, 1890, Hogg letter Record, XII, 365-366, James Stephen Hogg Papers, The University of Texas Archives. 10 James S. Hogg to John E. Hollingsworth, April 28, 1891, Hogg Letter Rec­ ord, II, 26-27. 11 Galveston Daily News, May 9, 1891, p. 2, col. 2. Also see footnote 51, Chapter 4.

Appendix F

183

Texas survey was originally founded.” At the hearings, E. S. Ellsworth, William Kennedy, and William Fletcher Cummins testified in Dumble’s behalf, and the State Geologist presented favorable letters of resignation from R. A. F. Penrose, Jr., G. E. Ladd, Josiah Owen, and Gustav Jermy. Strangely, Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz dodged all questions and pleaded ignorance of the whole affair, and Theodore B. Comstock, Hill's tormentor, spoke out against Dumble.12 The state press supported Dumble, After Hollingsworth dismissed the charges following the two-day investigation on May 8 and 9, the Austin Weekly Statesman printed the following editorial: The report of Commissioner Hollingsworth on the charges made against State Geologist Dumble, while thoroughly exonerating Mr. Dumble, is an indication of the Commissioner's own good sense. . . . It was well known before among per­ sons familiar with the affairs in the State House that persons whom Mr. Dumble had removed from duty in his department were seeking to “get even.” Mr. Dumble’s ability and competence have already been acknowledged by some of the leading scientists of the country, and he has received from distinguished savants in Berlin, as well as Washington, such compliments as never before fell to any native Texan. This attempt to throw mud on Mr. Dumble appears to have been a piece of dirty work, which has been fittingly rebuked by the Commissioner.13

Unfortunately, six months after the investigation, the younger Herndon proceeded to publicize the charges against Dumble again, in a privately printed pamphlet entitled Plea for the Life of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas, and Review of Charges Preferred Against Prof. E. T. Dumble, State Geologist, for “Incompetency, Plagiarism, and Mal­ administration in Office,” and the Sham Trial Thereof (Austin, 1891). Herndon roundly attacked those geologists who had remained with the survey. He declared that “these men [William F. Cummins, William Ken­ nedy, and Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz] held about the same position as myself when the charges were preferred, but after the charges had been presented, the salary of each was raised before they testified for Dumble.” Professor W. H. von Streeruwitzs Answer to Mr. J. H. Herndon, which was privately printed in Austin in March 1892, retorted that the legisla­ ture had raised their salaries and that Dumble had even tried to com­ promise with the geologists on lower salaries during the investigation. Robert T. Hill also proved as obstinate as Herndon. Evidently he started the rumor that Ferdinand Roemer, the pioneer Texas geologist, had been critical of the work of the Dumble Survey. However, when Dumble ques­ tioned Roemer, the German replied in June 1891: “Your communication 12 “The Record of Testimony,” Dumble Papers. 13 Austin Weekly Statesman, May 14, 1891, p. 2, col. 2.

184

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

in regard to my having criticized your geological survey [baffles me]. I cannot comprehend what can be meant by it. I never mentioned your survey to anybody except in some letters to Prof. Hill and have always ex­ pressed my satisfaction that this useful work made good progress and my regret that Prof. Hill left his collaboration in the Survey.”14 While Dumble was in Europe studying the lignite industry later in 1891, Allen Charles Gray, editor of the Houston Telegraph, took charge of the home office of the survey. Gray’s letters to Dumble recorded that Hill had continued “shooting off his mouth.”15 As late as January 1893 N. H. Winchell, state geologist of Minnesota, wrote Dumble that he could not understand Hill’s “severe and almost personal hostile attitude toward the Texas Survey.”16 The following month, Edward D. Cope contributed some sage advice, which he had learned from personal experience: Now that Governor Hogg is re-elected, I hope that your place is secure. . . . Being in full control, I imagine not only that you can afford to give credit to Hill, but your survey will be strengthened by your doing so. [Hill's] grievance is that you have used his work without credit to him. Sup­ posing this to be imaginary on his part, a compliment from me . . . in your sur­ vey report will tend to improve his state of feeling without loss of dignity on your part—as it comes from me . . . Marsh is to me what Hill is to you—but I have felt bound to credit him with what he has actually done, and I have greatly gained by it.17 14 Ferdinand Roemer to Edwin Theodore Dumble, June 11, 1891, Dumble Papers. 15 Allen Charles Gray to Edwin Theodore Dumble, January 1893, in ibid. 16 N. H. Winchell to Edwin Theodore Dumble, January 1893, in ibid. 17 Edward D. Cope to Edwin Theodore Dumble, February 6, 1893, in ibid.

Appendix G

185

APPENDIX G

T h e U n iv e r sit y

of

T e x a s M in e r a l S u r v e y A ct

of

1901

An Act to provide for a public survey of the lands belonging to the public schools, University, and asylums or of the State, and to make ap­ propriation therefor; and to provide a penalty for unlawfully disclosing information obtained by such survey; and to loan and authorize the re­ moval to the University of the Geological and scientific equipments, col­ lections, specimens, and publications now in charge of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics and History; and also declaring an emergency. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas: The Board of Regents of The University of Texas are authorized and directed as soon as practicable to have made a mineral survey of all the lands belonging to the public schools, University, asylums, or of the State. Section 2. Said board shall employ for that purpose persons skilled and who have had at least five years experience in the science of mineralogy, geology, and chemistry, who shall conduct said survey under the direction of said board. Section 3. Said board shall publish annually for free distribution among the people of the State all practical information collected in the prosecution of said survey as the same progresses; but the information obtained by the survey of the public school, University, asylum, or State lands shall not be communicated by said board or by the person or per­ sons making said survey to any person whomsoever until said information is published for the benefit of the general public; and anyone violating this provision shall upon conviction, be fined in the sum any not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed two years in jail. Section 4. In connection with the work of said survey provision shall be made for assays, analyses, and other scientific examinations of speci­ mens or mineral specimens found in the State, and for the collection and distribution of statistics relating to the mineral production of the State, and such assays, analyses, and other scientific examinations shall be made

186

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

at the request of any citizen of the State, and a certificate thereof given, and uniform and reasonable charge shall be fixed by said board for such assays and analyses. It is especially provided, however, that assays and analyses of mineral specimens found upon any of the public lands of the State shall be made free of charge when requested by the Governor or by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Section 5. In connection with said survey, said board shall make pro­ vision for instruction in The University of Texas, in practical economic and field geology and mineralogy, and shall have prepared and trans­ mitted to the A. & M. College, for educational purposes, duplicated specimens of all mineral and other substances obtained from the survey. Section 6: The geological and scientific equipments, collections, speci­ mens, and publications now in charge of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics, and History are hereby loaned to said board until such time as the State may desire to otherwise use them, and their re­ moval to The University of Texas is hereby authorized. Section 7. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act the sum of ten thousand dollars per annum for two years or so much thereof as may be necessary is hereby appropriated out of the general revenue of the State: provided that said mineral survey of the State may be completed within two years. Section 8. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. Section 9. Whereas, there is now no provision for a mineral survey of the public lands of the State, and as a result the mineral value of such lands is not known, and said lands are being sold without regard to their mineral value, whereby great loss is resulting to the public free school, asylum, and University funds of the State; and whereby there is now no provision for the collection and preservation of authentic data concern­ ing the mineral resources of the State, and whereas, no provision now exists whereby reliable official assays, analyses, and examinations may be obtained by the citizens of Texas, whereby great loss is suffered by the people of the State; therefore it is declared that an emergency is created and an imperative public necessity exists for the immediate passage of this act; and the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be and is hereby suspended, and that this act take effect and be in force from and after its passage. The foregoing act originated in the House, and passed the same by a vote of 86 yeas to 16 nays. The Senate amended this bill and passed it by a vote of 21 yeas and 1 nay. The House concurred in the Senate amend­ ments by a vote of 99 yeas to 3 nays. The act was approved and became law on March 28, 1901.

Appendix H

187

APPENDIX H P r e ss R e l e a s e of the

o f Ju l y Bu r ea u

1909 D e f i n in g of

t h e F u n c t io n s E c o n o m ic G eo l o g y

The Board of Regents recently established a Bureau of Economic Geology for the purpose of collecting and distributing information con­ cerning the mineral resources of the State. They have called to the Di­ rectorship of the Bureau Dr. Wm. B. Phillips, of Birmingham, Alabama, who was formerly Director of The University of Texas Mineral Survey. He will take charge of the work September 1st. This action of the Board is a new departure. There are institutions in the country where the Professor of Geology of Mining acts as a State Geol­ ogist, but not one in which there is a special department disconnected from the teaching force and devoting itself to such matters. In taking this step the Board realizes the necessity of keeping the University in close touch with all of the affairs of the Commonwealth, in multiplying the bonds of mutual interest that connect it with the pro­ gressive citizens of the State, and in furthering the development of its material resources. It is not the intention to interfere with the work of professional geolo­ gists, engineers or chemists, but rather to aid this by every means. There is a sphere of influence which rigidly belongs to such a Bureau and it does not impinge upon the domain of the professional geologist or en­ gineer. On the contrary it is proposed to provide a source of information concerning the State at large which may be freely consulted by geologists, mining engineers and land owners alike, a sort of clearing house of in­ formation. This work is to be accomplished by means of bulletins, press notices, addresses, etc., and especially by maintaining a complete collec­ tion of the building stones, clays, oils, coals, lignite, asphalt, rocks, minerals and ores of the State at the University to be open at all times for inspection. There is already at the University a splendid collection illus-

188

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

trative of the economic geology of the State, and this is to be enlarged and made of direct benefit to the public. It is hoped that all of those who are in any wise interested in the de­ velopment of the mineral resources of the State will consider this Bureau as established for their advantage and that they will frequently consult it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND

INDEX

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B ib l io g r a p h ic a l N

o te

The correspondence of the governors of Texas in the Texas State Archives is the single most important manuscript source for the political narrative of this study. The official correspondence of the Dumble Survey in the same archives and the incomplete collection of the correspondence of the Phillips Survey in The University of Texas Archives also shed important light on the political aspects of this study. The minutes of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas provide further background for the twentieth-century aspects of this work. The Texas Legislative Journals are the basic printed sources for the political narrative. Other important printed sources are the publications of various state departmental agencies and The University of Texas and of newspapers. Sophisticated authoritative studies on Texas politics are very scarce and consist primarily of biographies. However, excellent per­ tinent studies of national land reform politics are available. Any evaluation of the geological work in Texas during the period under consideration begins with the exhaustive bibliography in University of Texas Bulletin No. 3232, which has over 1,900 entries. The most val­ uable printed scientific sources for this study were the publications of the state and national surveys. Much important information was also taken from the contemporary scientific periodicals. M

a n u s c r ip t s

The University of Texas Archives (Austin, Texas) Walter S. Adkins Papers. William F. Cummins Papers. Geological Survey of Texas Collection. Robert T. Hill Papers. Hill-Milam Collection (Benjamin F. Hill). James Stephen Hogg Papers (Letterbooks).

192

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

James H. Kuykendall Papers. Maverick Papers. Thomas J. Rusk Papers. Ashbel Smith Papers. Solms-Braunfels Archives. Wilhelm H. von Streeruwitz Collection. University of Texas Mineral Survey, Correspondence and Analyses, De­ cember 1904-March 1905.

Texas State Archives (Austin, Texas) Dumble Papers. Governors Correspondence. General Land Office Correspondence. Legislative Papers.

Other Manuscript Collections Board of Regents of The University of Texas, Minutes, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Robert T. Hill Collection, Fondren Library, Southern Methodist Univer­ sity, Dallas, Texas. United States, National Archives, Washington, D.C., Record Group 57, Department of Interior, “Geological Survey Records.” Johan A. Udden Papers, in possession of Svante Udden, Kerrville, Texas. G o v er n m en t S o urces

Publications of the Texas State Geological Surveys Buckley, Samuel. First Annual Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas (The Buckley Survey). Austin: State Printing Office, 1874. --------. A Preliminary Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas (The Buckley Survey). Austin: State Printing Office, 1866. ------- . Second Annual Report of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas (The Buckley Survey). Austin: State Printing Office, 1876. Dumble, Edwin Theodore. Report on the Broum Coal and Lignite of Texas. Character, Formation, Occurrence, and Fuel Uses. Austin: State Print­ ing Office, 1892. Dumble, Edwin Theodore, et al. “Fifth Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas” (The Dumble Survey), 1893. Un­ published. This report includes the following: Cummins, William F. “Report on the Permian of Texas.” Manuscript and map in W. F. Cummins Papers, The University of Texas Ar­ chives, Austin, Texas.

Bibliography

193

Dumble, Edwin Theodore. “Report on the Geology and Water Condi­ tions of Southwest Texas.” Portions of this matter submitted with the "Fifth Annual Report” were published as “Geology of Southwestern Texas.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXXIII (1902), 913-987. Harris, Gilbert D. “Monograph on the Tertiary Invertebrates of Texas.” This contribution later appeared as “New and Otherwise Interesting Mollusca from Texas.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sci­ ences of Philadelphia, Part I (January-March 1895), pp. 45-88. Simpson, Charles T. “Triassic Unionidae.” The portion dealing with new species was published as “Description of Four New Triassic Unios from the Staked Plains of Texas.” Proceedings of the United States National Museum, XVIII (1896), 381-385. --------. First Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1889. Austin: State Printing Office, 1890. --------. First Report of Progress of the Geological and Mineralogical Sur­ vey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1888. Austin: State Printing Of­ fice, 1889. --------. Fourth Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Sur­ vey of Texas, 1892. Austin: State Printing Office, 1893. --------. Second Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Sur­ vey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1890. Austin: State Printing Office, 1891. --------. Second Report of Progress of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1891. Austin: State Printing Office, 1892. --------. Third Annual Report of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), 1891. Austin: State Printing Office, 1892. Harrington, H. H. “A Preliminary Report on the Soils and Waters of the Upper Rio Grande and the Pecos Valleys in Texas.” Bulletin of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), no. 2. Hill, Benjamin F. “The Terlingua Quicksilver Deposits.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 4 (October 1902). Hill, Robert T. “A Preliminary Annotated Check List of the Cretaceous Invertebrate Fossils of Texas.” Bulletin of the Geological and Mineralog­ ical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), no. 4 (1889). Phillips, William Battle. “Coal, Lignite, and Asphalt Rocks.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 3 (May 1902).

194

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

--------. “The Mining Laws of Texas and Tables of Magnetic Declina­ tion.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 6 (July 1903). --------. “Report of Progress for 1901—Sulphur, Oil, and Quicksilver in Trans-Pecos Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 2 (1902). --------. “Report of Progress for the Year Ending December 31, 1903.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Sur­ vey), 7 (1904). ------- . “Texas Petroleum.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 1 (July 1901). Richardson, George B. “Report of a Reconnaissance in Trans-Pecos Texas North of the Texas and Pacific Railway” (with map). Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 9 (Novem­ ber 1904). Shumard, Benjamin F. First Report of Progress of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of Texas (The Shumard Survey). Austin: State Printing Office, 1859. Shumard, George Getz. “Artesian Water on the Llano Estacado.” Bulletin of the Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Survey), no. 1 (1892). Simonds, Frederick W. “The Minerals and Mineral Localities of Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Sur­ vey), 5 (December 1902). Tarr, Ralph S. “Reconnaissance of the Guadaloupe Mountains.” Bulletin of the Geological and MinercHosical Survey of Texas (The Dumble Sur­ vey), no. 3 (1892). Udden, J. A. “The Geology of the Shafter Silver Mine District, Presidio County, Texas” (with map). Bulletin of The University of Texas Min­ eral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 8 (June 1904). --------. “A Sketch of the Geology of the Chisos Country, Brewster County, Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas Mineral Survey (The Phillips Survey), 93 (1907).

Publications of the United States Geological Survey Adams, George I. OH and Gas Fields of the Western Interior and Northern Texas Coal Measures and of the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary of the Western Gulf Coast. Bulletin 184. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1901. Baker, Marcus. The Northwest Boundary of Texas. Bulletin 194. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902.

Bibliography

195

Cragin, Francis W. Paleontology of the Malone Formation of Texas. Bul­ letin 266. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905. Fenneman, N. M. Oil Fields of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast. Bulletin 260: 459-467. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905. --------. Oil Fields of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coastal Plain. Bulletin 282. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906. Gannett, Henry. A Gazetteer of Texas. Bulletin 224. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909. Girty, George H. The Guadalupian Fauna. Professional Paper 58. Wash­ ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1908. Gordon, C. H. Geology and Underground Waters of Northeast Texas. Water-Supply Paper 276. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of­ fice, 1911. Gould, Charles N. Geology and Water Resources of Oklahoma. WaterSupply and Irrigation Paper 148. Washington, D.C.: Government Print­ ing Office, 1905. --------. The Geology and Water Resources of the Eastern Portion of the Panhandle of Texas. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 154. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906. --------. The Geology and Water Resources of the Western Portion of the Panhandle of Texas. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 191. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907. Hayes, C. W. The State Geological Surveys of the United States. Bulletin 465. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1911. Hill, Benjamin F. Gypsum Deposits in the United States. Bulletin 223. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904. Hill, Robert T. “Geography and Geology of the Black and Grand Prairies.” Annual Report 21, pt. 7 (1901). --------. “Physical Geography of the Texas Region." Topographic Atlas of the United States, no. 3 ( 1900). --------. The Present Condition of the Knowledge of the Geology of Tex­ as. Bulletin 45. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1887. Hill, Robert T., and T. W. Vaughan. “Description of the Austin Quad­ rangle/' Geological Atlas of the United States, Austin Folio, no. 76 (1902). --------. “Description of the Nueces Quadrangle.” Geological Atlas of the United States, Nueces Folio, no. 42 (1898). --------. “Geology of the Edwards Plateau and the Rio Grande Plain Adjacent to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, with Reference to the Oc­ currence of Underground Waters.” In Eighteenth Annual Report, pt. 2 (1898), 193-321.

196

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

------- . The Lower Cretaceous Graphaeas of the Texas Region. Bulletin 151. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1898. Hutson, William F. Irrigation Systems in Texas. Water-Supply and Irriga­ tion Papei 13. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1898. Kennedy, William, and Charles W. Hayes. Oil Fields of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast. Bulletin 212. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903. Keyes, Charles Rollin. Geology and Underground Water Conditions of the Jomado del Muerto, New Mexico. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 123. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1905. Lee, Willis T. Water Resources of the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and Their Development. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 188. Wash­ ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907. Osborn, Henry Fairfield. Cenozoic Mammal Horizons of Western North America. Bulletin 361. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909. Paige, Sidney. “Description of the Llano and Burnet Quadrangles/' Geo­ logical Atlas, Llano-Bumet Folio, no. 183 (1912). Richardson, George B. “Description of the El Paso District/’ Geological Atlas of the United States, El Paso Folio, no. 166 (1909). ------- . “Description of the Van Horn Quadrangle.” Geological Atlas of the United States, Van Horn Folio, no. 194 (1914). Slichter, Charles S. Observations on the Ground Waters of the Rio Grande Valley. Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 141. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905. Taylor, Thomas U. Irrigation Systems of Texas. Water-Supply and Irriga­ tion Paper 71. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1902. United States. Geological Survey. First through Twenty-ninth Annual Re­ port. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880-1910. First Annual Report, Clarence King, Director; Second through Fifteenth An­ nual Reports, John Wesley Powell, Director; Sixteenth through Twentyseventh Annual Reports, George Otis Smith, Director. Van Hise, Charles R., and Charles K. Leith. Pre-Cambrian Geology of North America. Bulletin 360. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909. Vaughan, T. W. “Description of the Uvalde Quadrangle, with Petrographie Descriptions of Igneous Rocks by Whitman Cross.” Geological Atlas of the United States, Uvalde Folio, no. 64 (1900). ------- . Reconnaissance in the Rio Grande Coal Fields of Texas. Bulletin 164. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1900. Veatch, Arthur C. Geology of the Underground Water Resources of Louis­ iana and Southern Arkansas. Professional Paper 46. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906.

Bibliography

197

Walcott, Charles D. Correlation Papers: Cambrian. Bulletin 81. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1891. White, Charles A. Correlation Papers: Cretaceous. Bulletin 82. Washing­ ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1891. --------. The Texas Permian and Its Mesozoic Types of Fossils. Bulletin 77. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1891. Weed, Walter H. The El Paso Tin Deposits. Bulletin 178. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1901.

Other Government Documents Abert, James W. Report of an Expedition on the Upper Arkansas and through the Country of the Comanche Indians in 1845. 29th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 438 (1846). Crawford, Wylie S. “Medical Topography and Diseases of Fort McKavett,” and “Medical Topography and Diseases of Camp J. E. Johnston.” In Statistical Report on Sickness and Mortality in the Army of the United States Compiled from Records of the Surgeon GeneraFs Office Em­ bracing a Period of 16 years from January, 1839-January, 1855. 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 96 ( 1856), pp. 386-393. Emory, William H. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey. 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 108 (1857). Featherstonhaugh, George W. Geological Report of an Examination Made in 1834 of the Elevated Country between the Missouri and Red Rivers. 23d Cong., 2d Sess., House Doc. 151 (1835). Flawn, P. T., August Goldstein, Jr., P. B. King, and C. E. Weaver, “The Ouachita System.” University of Texas Publication 6120 (1962). Hay, Robert. Final Geological Reports of the Artesian and Underflow In­ vestigations between the Ninety-seventh Meridian of Longitude and the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains. 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41 (1892). Hill, Robert T. On the Occurrence of Artesian and Other Underground Waters in Texas, Eastern New Mexico, and the Indian Territory, West of the Ninety-Seventh Meridian. 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41, IV, pt. 3 (1892), 41-166. --------. “Physical Geography of the Texas Region.” Topographic Arts of the United States, no. 3 (1900). Hinton, Richard J. A Report on the Preliminary Investigation to Determine the Proper Location of Artesian Wells within the Area of the NinetySeventh Meridian and East of the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains. 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 222 (1890). Hitchcock, Charles H. “Description of the Geologic Map.” “Ninth Census, II (1872), 754-755.

198

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Johnson, Lawrence. The Iron Regions of Northern Louisiana and Eastern Texas. 50th Cong., 1st Sess., House Exec. Doc. 195 (1888). Loughridge, Robert H. “Physico-geographical and Agricultural Features of the State of Texas.” Tenth Census, V (1884), 669-806. Macomb, J. N. Report of the Exploring Expedition from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the West in 1859. Washington, D.C.: United States Army, Department of Engineers, 1876. Marcou, Jules. Geological Notes of a Survey of Country Comprised be­ tween Preston, Red River, and El Paso, Rio Grande del Norte. 33d Cong., 1st Sess., House Exec. Doc. 129 (1855), XVII, pt. 4, 125-128. ------- . “Résumé and Field Notes.” In Reports of Explorations and Sur­ veys to Ascertain the Most Practical and Economic Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean (Pacific Railroad Sur­ veys), 32d Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1855), II, pt. 4. Marcy, Randolph B. Report on Expedition from Ft. Smith to Santa Fe, New Mexico. 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 64, XIV (1850), 169-227. ------- . Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana, in the Year 1852, with Reports on the Natural History of the Country. 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 54 (1853). ------- . Report of an Expedition to the Sources of the Brazos and Big Wichita Rivers, during the Summer of 1854. 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 60 (1856). Maxwell, Ross A., John T. Lonsdale, Roy T. Hazzard, and John A. Wilson. “Geology of Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas.” Uni­ versity of Texas Publication 6711 (June 1, 1967). Nagle, James C. Irrigation in Texas. Bulletin of the Office of Experimental Stations of the United States Department of Agriculture, no. 22 ( 1910). Nettleton, C. E. Final Report of the Chief Engineer of the Artesian and Underflow Investigation. 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 41 (1892). Pope, John. “Artesian Well Experiment.” In Report of the Secretary of War, 35th Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 1 (1858), II, 590-608. ------- . “Report on the Exploration of a Route for the Pacific Railroad near the 32nd Parallel of Latitude, from the Red River to the Rio Grande.” In Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practical and Economic Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean (Pacific Railroad Surveys), 32d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1855), II, pt. 4. Powell, John Wesley. Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah. 45th Cong., 2d Sess., House Exec. Doc. 73 (1878).

Bibliography

199

Roessler, Anton R. Report of the General Land Office to the Secretary of State for the Year 1869. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Of­ fice, 1870. Ruffner, Ernest H. Explorations and Surveys in the Department of Mis­ souri. 45th Cong., 2d Sess., House Exec. Doc. 1 (1878), IV, Appendix RR, 1399-1438. Shumard, George Getz. A Partial Report on the Geology of Western Texas, Consisting of a General Geological Report and a Journal of Geological Observations along the Routes Traveled by the Expedition between Indianola, Texas, and the Valley of the Mimbres, New Mexico, during the Years 1855 and 1856; with an Appendix Giving a Detailed Report on the Geology of Grayson County. Austin: State Printing Office, 1886. Simpson, James H. Report from the Secretary of War Communicating in Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate, the Report and Map of the Route from Ft. Smith, Arkansas to Santa Fe, New Mexico, Made by Lieutenant Simpson. 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 12 (1850), pp. 1-25. Swift, Ebenezer. “Medical Topography and Diseases of Camp J. E. Johnston.” In Statistical Report on Sickness and Mortality in the Army, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 96 (1856), pp. 378-386. Texas. General I m w s . 28th-29th Legislatures (1903-1905). Austin: State Printing Office, 1903-1905. --------. House and Senate Journals, lst-29th Legislatures. Austin and Galveston: State Printing Office, 1846-1906. --------. Commissioner of Agriculture, Insurance, Statistics, and History. Report. Austin: State Printing Office, 1887-1902. Commissioner for 1886, H. P. Bee; 1887-1890, L. L. Foster; 1891-1893, John E. Hol­ lingsworth; 1894-1896, A. J. Rose; 1897-1901, Jefferson Johnson. --------. Commissioner of the General Land Office. Report. Austin: State Printing Office, 1880-1910. Commissioner for 1880-1888, W. C. Walsh; 1888-1892, R. M. Hall; 1892-1896, W. L. McGaughey; 1904-1910, John J. Terrell. ------ —. Irrigation Association. Report of Proceedings of the Third State Irrigation Convention Held at Laredo, Texas. Austin: State Printing Office, 1897. --------. The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, 1897-1902. Compiled and ar­ ranged by H. P. N. Gammel. Austin: Gammel Book Co., 1898, 1902. Throckmorton, J. W. Final Report of the Administration of Governor Throckmorton When He Was Removed from Office with a Statement of Indian Depredations from 1865 to 1867, and His Address to the People of the State. Austin: J. Cardwell, State Printer, 1873. United States. Joint Boundary Commission. Evidence Pertaining to the

200

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Boundary between the United States and Texas (Greer County Bound­ ary). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1886. ------- . Office of Irrigation Survey. Report on Irrigation. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893. --------. Senate. Minority Report of the Special Committee of the United States Senate on the Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands. 51st Cong., 1st Sess., S. Report 921 (1890). University of Texas. Ninth through Fourteenth Biennial Report of the Regents of The University of Texas. Austin: State Printing Office, 19001910. Whipple, A. W. “Report of an Exploration for a Railway Route near the 35th Parallel of North Latitude from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean.” In Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practical and Economic Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean (Pacific Railway Surveys), 33d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 78 (1856), III, pt. 4. Whiting, William H. C. “Report of Reconnaissances of the Western Fron­ tier of Texas.” In Reports of the Secretary of War, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Exec. Doc. 64 (1850), pp. 235-250. Wislizenus, Frederick Adolph. Memoir of a Tour to Northern Mexico, Connected with Colonel Doniphan9s Expedition in 1846 and 1847. 30th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Misc. Doc. 26 (1848). B ooks

Acheson, Sam H. 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forbears. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938. Barker, Eugene C., and A. W. Williams, eds. The Writings of Sam Hous­ ton, 1813-1863. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1943. Barker, Eugene C., ed. The Austin Papers. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1928. Bartlett, John Russell. Personal Narrative of Exploration and Incidents in Texas and New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission During the Years 1850, 1851, 1852, and 1853. London: D. Appleton & Co., 1854. Bartlett, Richard A. Great Surveys of the American West. Norman: Uni­ versity of Oklahoma Press, 1962. Berlandier, Luis, and Rafael Chovel. Diario de viaje de la comisión de limites que puso el Gobierno de la República, bajo la dirección del Exmo. Sr., General de División D. Manuel de Mier y Terán. Mexico: J. R. Navarro, 1850. Biesele, R. L. The History of German Settlements in Texas, 1831-1861. Austin: Press of Von Boeckmann-Jones Co., 1930.

Bibliography

201

Bolton, Herbert E. Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century: Studies in Spanish Colonial History and Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1915. Bracht, Victor. Texas im Jahre 1848, nach mehrjährigen Beobachtungen dargestellt von Victor Bracht. Elberfeld u. Iserlohn: J. Bädeker, 1849. Burkhalter, Lois W. Gideon Lincecum, 1793-1874: A Biography. Aus­ tin: University of Texas Press, 1965. Carlson, Avery L. A Monetary and Banking History of Texas: From the Mexican Regime to the Present Day, 1821-1929. Fort Worth: The Fort Worth National Bank, 1930. Casdorph, Paul D. A History of the Republican Party in Texas 1865-1965. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1965. Clark, James A., and Michel T. Halbouty. Spindletop. New York: Random House, 1952. Clarke, John M. James Hall of Albany: Geologist and Paleontologist, 18111898. Albany: John M. Clarke, 1921. Cotner, Robert C. James Stephen Hogg: A Biography. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1959. Dana, Edward S., and Charles Schuchert, et al. A Century of Science in America, with Special Reference to the American Journal of Science, 1818-1918. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1918. Darling, Arthur B., ed. The Public Papers of Francis G. Newlands. New York: Houghton Mifflin, Co., 1932. Darrah, William C. Powell of the Colorado. Princeton: Princeton Univer­ sity Press, 1951. Day, James M. Jacob de Cordova: iMnd Merchant of Texas. Waco: Texian Press, 1962. Day, James M., and Ann B. Dunlap. The Map Collection of the Texas State Archives, 1527-1900. Austin: Texas State Library, 1962. de Cordova, Jacob. The Texas Immigrant and Travelers Guide Book. Austin: de Cordova and Frazier, 1856. Dumble, Edwin Theodore. A Dream of Fifty Years Ago. n.p., 1924. Dupré, J. S., and S. A. Lakoff. Science and the Nation, Policy and Politics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1962. Dupree, A. Hunter. Asa Gray, 1810-1888. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1959. --------. Science in the Federal Government. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957. Ellison, Alva C. Rockhounds of Houston: An Informal History of the Houston Geological Society. Houston: Houston Geological Society, 1927. Fairbanks, Helen R., and Charles P. Berkey. Life and Letters of R. A. F. Penrose, Jr. New York: Geological Society of America, 1952.

202

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Ferguson, Jim G. Outline of the Geology, Soils, and Minerals of the State of Arkansas. Little Rock: State Printing Office, 1920. Geikie, Archibald. The Founders of Geology. London: The Macmillan Company, 1905. Geiser, Samuel W. Naturalists of the Frontier. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1937. Goetzmann, William H. Army Exploration in the American West, 18031863. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. --------. Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Gould, Charles N. Covered Wagon Geologist. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1959. Gray, Andrew B. Texas Western, Survey of a Route, Its Cost and Probable Revenue, in Connection with the Pacific Railway. Nature of the Country, Climate, Mineral and Agricultural Resources, Etc. Cincinnati: Porter, Thrall & Chapman, 1855. Hartz, Louis. Economic Policy and Democratic Thought: Pennsylvania, 1776-1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948. Hawkins, Wallace. El Sal del Rey. Austin: Texas State Historical Associa­ tion, 1947. Hazel, G. G. Public Land Laws of Texas: The History of the Public Do­ main of This State with the Constitutional and Statutory Provisions, and Leading Cases, Governing Its Use and Dispositions. Austin: Gammel’s, Inc., 1938. Heiman, Monica. Johan August Udden, A Biography. Kerrville: Privately Printed, 1963. Herndon, J. H. Plea for the Life of the Geological and Mineralogical Sur­ vey of Texas, and Review of Charges Preferred against Professor E. T . Dumble, State Geologist, for “Incompetency, Plagiarism, and Malad­ ministration in Office,” and the Sham Trial Thereof. Austin: Privately Printed, 1891. Holden, William C. Alkali Trails: or Social and Economic Movements of the Texas Frontier, 1846-1900. Dallas: The Southwest Press, 1930. Jackson, William T. Wagon Roads West: A Survey of Federal Road Sur­ veys in the Trans-Mississippi West, 1846-1869. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952. James, Edwin. Account of An Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains. Edited by R. C. Thwaites. Cleveland: A. H. Clark, 1905. Johnson, Vance. Heavens Tableland: The Dust Bowl Story. New York: Farrar, Straus, 1947. Kennedy, William. Texas: Its Geography, Natural History, and Topogra­ phy. New York: Benjamin and Young, 1844.

Bibliography

203

--------. Texas: The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas. 2 vols. London: R. Hastings, 1841. Kinnaird, Lawrence, trans. The Frontiers of New Spain; Nicolás de la Fora*s Description, 1766-1768. Berkeley: Quivira Society, 1958. Lang, W. W. The Press and the People on the Importance of a Southern Line of Railway to the Pacific and in Favor of Government Aid to the Texas and Pacific Railway. Philadelphia: McLaughlin Brothers, 1875. Lurie, Edward. Louis Agassiz: A Life in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Lynch, James D. The Bench and Bar of Texas. St. Louis: Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 1885. Manning, Thomas G. Government in Science: The United States Geologi­ cal Survey, 1867-1894. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1967. Marcou, Jules. A Geological Map of the United States and the British Provinces of North America: With an Explanatory Text, Geological Sections, and Plates of the Fossils Which Characterize the Formations. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1853. --------. Geology of North America. Zurich: Zürcher and Furrer, 1858. --------. Reply to the Criticism of James D. Dana. Zurich: Zürcher and Furrer, 1859. --------, and John Belknap Marcou. Mapoteca Geologica Americana: A Catalogue of Geological Maps of America, 1752-1881. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1884. Meisel, Max. A Bibliography of American Natural History. New York: The Premier Publishing Co., 1924—1929. Merrill, George P. The First One Hundred Years of American Geology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924. Mollhausen, Baldwin. Diary of a Journal from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific with a United States Government Expedition. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1858. Moore, Francis, Jr. Map and Description of Texas. New York: Tanner and Distumell, 1840. --------. Description of Texas Containing Sketches of Its History, Geology, Geography, and Statistics. New York: T. R. Tanner, 1844. Moore, Raymond C., ed. The Geology of Salt Dome Oil Fields. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1926. Morfi, Fray Juan Agustin. History of Texas 1673-1779. Translated by Carlos E. Castaneda. Albuquerque: The Quivira Society, 1935. Morton, Ohland. Terán and Texas: A Chapter in Texas-Mexican Relations. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1948. Osborn, Henry F. Cope: Master Naturalist: The Life and Letters of Ed­

204

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

ward Drinker Cope with a Bibliography of His Writing Classified by Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1931. Parsons, Arthur B., ed. Seventy-five Years of Progress in the Mineral In­ dustry, 1871-1946. New York: American Institute of Mining and Metal­ lurgical Engineers, 1947. Pearre, Charles B. A Review of the Laws of the Twelfth Legislature of the State of Texas Enacted in the Years 1870 and 1871 and the Oppressions of Governor E. J. Davis9Administration. Baltimore: J. D. Lipscomb & Co., 1872. Proctor, Ben H. Not Without Honor: The Life of John H. Reagan. Aus­ tin: University of Texas Press, 1962. Red, George Plunkett. The Medicine Man in Texas. Houston: Standard Printing and Lithographing Co., 1930. Roemer, Ferdinand. Die Kreidebildungen von Texas und ihre organischen Einschlüsse, von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem die Beschreibung von Vertsteinerungen aus paläozoischen und tertiären Schichten ent­ haltenden Anhänge und mit 11 von C. Hohe nach der Natur auf Stein gezeichneten Tafeln. Bonn: A. Marcus, 1852. --------. Texas: Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf deutsche Auswanderung, und die physiche Verhältnisse des Landes nach eigener Beobachtung geschildert von Dr. Ferdinand Roemer. Mit einem naturwissenschaft­ lichen Anghänge und einer topographisch-geognostischen Karte von Texas. Bonn: A. Marcus, 1849. Roessler, Anton R. Geological Report of the Property of the Texas Land and Copper Association. New York: n.p., 1872. --------. Reply to Charges Made by S. B. Buckley, State Geologist, in his Official Report of 1874 against Dr. B. F . Shumard and A. R. Roessler. Austin: Privately Printed, 1875. Rogan, Octavia F. Land Commissioner Charles Rogan and the Mineral Classification of Texas Public School Lands. Austin: San Felipe Press, 1968. Ross, George M. von. Der nordamerikanische Freistadt Texas, nach eigener Anschauung und nach neusten und besten Quellen fur deutsche Aus­ wanderer. Rudolstadt: G. Froebel, 1851. Scherpf, G. A. Entsthenungsgeschichte und gegenwärtiger Zustand des neuen unabhängigen amerikanische Staates Texas. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte, Statistik und Geographie dieses Jahrhunderts. Im Lande selbst gesammelt von G. A. Scherpf. Augsburg: M. Rieger, 1841. Schuchert, Charles, and Clara Mae Levene. O. C. Marsh: Pioneer in Paleontology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940. Smith, Henry Nash. Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Solms-Braunfels, Carl Prince zu. Texas: Geschildert in Beziehung auf

Bibliography

205

geographischen, socialen, und übrigen Verhältnisse, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die deutsche Colonisation. Ein Handbuch für Auswander­ er nach Texas. Seinen deutschen Landsleuten gewidnet von Carl Prinz zu Solms-Braunfels nebst zwei Karten von Texas. Frankfurt-am-Main : J. D. Sauerländer, 1846. Spratt, John S. The Road to Spindletop: Economic Change in Texas, 1875-1901. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1955. Steen, Ralph. Twentieth Century Texas. Austin: The Steck Co., 1942. Sternberg, Charles H. The Life of a Fossil Hunter. New York: H. Holt and Co., 1909. Streeruwitz, Wilhelm H. von. Prof. W. H. von Streeruwitz’s Answer to Mr. J. H. Hemdon. Austin: Privately Printed, 1892. Taylor, Nathaniel A. The Coming Empire; or, Two Thousand Miles in Texas on Horseback. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1877. Tilden, Bryant P., Jr. Notes on the Upper Rio Grande, Explored in the Months of October and November, 1846, on Board the U. S. Steamer Major Brown, Commanded by Captain Merk Sterling of Pittsburgh. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1847. Tuomey, Michael. Second Biennial Report on the Geology of Alabama. Edited by John W. Mallet. Montgomery: M. D. J. Slade, 1858. Watkins, Sue. One League to the Wind: Accounts of Early Surveying in Texas. Austin: Von Boeckmann-Jones, 1964. Webb, Walter Prescott. The Great Plains. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1930. --------, and H. Bailey Carroll, eds. The Handbook of Texas. 2 vols. Aus­ tin: The Texas State Historical Association, 1952. Weddle, Robert S. The San Sabá Mission: Spanish Pivot in Texas. Aus­ tin : University of Texas Press, 1964. Wheat, Carl I. Mapping the Trans-Mississippi West, 1540-1861. 5 vols. San Francisco: Institute of Historical Cartography, 1957-1963. Wooten, Dudley, ed. A Comprehensive History of Texas, 1685-1897. Dallas: W. G. Scarff, 1898. A r t ic l e s

Adams, George I. “Stratigraphie Relations of the Red Beds to the Car­ boniferous and Permian in Northern Texas.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XIV (May 15, 1903), 191-200. Adams, W. H. “Coals in Mexico-Santa Rosa District.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, X (February 1882), 270273. Ashbumer, Charles A. “Brazos Coal Field, Texas.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, IX (February 1881), 495-506. Baker, Charles L. “Edwin Theodore Dumble, Memorial.” Science, n.s., LXV (April 15, 1927), 363-364.

206

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

--------. “Memorial of Johan August Udden.” Memoirs of the Geological Society of America, XLIV (1933). Baker, Riley E. “Water Development as an Important Factor in the Utilization of the High Plains of Texas.” Southwest Social Science Quarterly, XXXIV (September 1953), 21-34. Beede, J. W. “Invertebrate Paleontology of the Upper Permian Red Beds of Oklahoma and the Panhandle of Texas.” Kansas University Science Bulletin, IV (March 1907), 113-171. Blake, William P. “Cinnabar in Texas.” Transactions of the American In­ stitute of Mining Engineers, XXV (1896), 68-76. --------. “Observations on the Geography of the Western Portion of the United States.” Proclamation of the American Association for the Ad­ vancement of Science, X (1857), pt. 2, 119-134. ------- . “Review of a Portion of the Geological Map of the United States and British Provinces by Jules Marcou.” American Journal of Science, XXII (November 1856), 383-385. Boll, Jacob. “Texas in Its Geognostic and Agricultural Aspect.” American Naturalist, XIII (June 1879), 375-384. Bollaert, William. “Observations on the Geography of Texas.” The Journal of the Royal Geographic Society, XX (1850), 113-135. Branner, J. C. “Arkansas Geological Survey.” Pan American Geologist, XLIV (November 1925), 322-323. ------- . “The Former Extension of the Appalachians across Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., IV (1897), 357-371. ------- . Vice-Presidential Address. Proclamation of the American Associa­ tion for the Advancement of Science (August 1890), pp. 222-228. Brown, Robert J. “Is a Geological Survey of the State a Necessity?” Trans­ actions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences (1883-1884), IX (1885), 49-55. Butcher, Virginia. “Geological Surveys and the Development of Okla­ homa.” Hopper, XI (December 1951), 101-110. Caldwell, Edwin L. “Highlights of the Development of Manufacturing in Texas, 1900-1960.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXVIII (April 1965). Carpenter, William M. “Some Remarks on Some Fossil Bones Recently Brought to New Orleans from Tennessee and from Texas.” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., I (1846), 244-250. Case, Ermine C. ‘“The Character of the Wichita and Clear Fork Divisions of the Permian Redbeds of Texas.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, XXIII (1907), 659-664. ------- . “New or Little Known Vertebrates from the Permian of Texas.” Journal of Geology, XI (May-June 1903), 394-402.

Bibliography

207

--------. “Notes on a Collecting Trip in the Permian of Texas, during the Summer of 1908.” Science, n.s., XXIX (January 29, 1909), 195. --------. “On the Value of the Evidence Furnished by Vertebrate Fossils of the Age of Certain So-called Permian Beds in America.” Journal of Geology, XVI (September-October 1908), 572-580. Clarke, John M. “The Philosophy of Geology and the Order of the State.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXVIII (March 31, 1917), 235-248. Conrad, Timothy A. “Descriptions of One Tertiary and Eight New Cre­ taceous Fossils from Texas.” Proclamation of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, VII (1855), 268-269. Cope, Edward D. “A Contribution to a Knowledge of the Fauna of the Blanco Beds of Texas.” Proclamation of the Academy of Natural Sci­ ences of Philadelphia for 1892 (1893), pp. 226-229. --------. “Descriptions of Extinct Batrachia and Reptilia from the Permian Formation of Texas.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical So­ ciety, XVII (April 1878), 505-530. --------. “The Mesozoic and Caenozoic Realms of the Interior of North America.” American Naturalist, XXI (May 1887), 445-462. --------. “Observations on the Geology of Adjacent Parts of Oklahoma and Northwest Texas.” Proclamation of the Academy of Natural Sci­ ences of Philadelphia for 1894, (1895), pp. 63-68. --------. “On Some New Batrachia and Reptilia from the Permian Beds of Texas.” Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, VI (February 11, 1881), 79-82. Cope, Edward D. “On the Zoological Position of Texas.” Bulletin of the United States Museum of Natural History, no. 17 (1880). --------. “Pliocene Horses of Southwest Texas.” American Naturalist, XIX (December 1885), 1208-1209. Cummins, William F., and Otto Lerch. “A Geological Survey of the Concho Country, State of Texas.” American Geologist, V (June 1890), 321-335. Cummins, William F. “The Localities and Horizons of Permian Verte­ brate Fossils in Texas.” The Journal of Geology, XVI (November-December 1908), 737-745. --------. Review of R. T. Hill's Report on Artesian Water in Texas, priv­ ately printed, 1893 (?). --------. “Texas Permian.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, II (1897), 93-98. --------. “Tucumcari Mountain.” American Geologist, XI (June 1893), 375-383. Davidson, W. T. “From an Old Timer.” The Alcalde, IV (April 1916), 621-622.

208

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Davis, William. "Biographical Memoir: Grove Karl Gilbert.” Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, XXI (1926). Day, James M. "The Ghisos Quicksilver Bonanza in the Big Bend of Tex­ as.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXIV (April 1961), 427-454. --------. "Jacob de Cordova's Exploration of Northwest Texas.” Year­ book of the West Texas Historical Association, XXXIV (October 1958); 14—24. Donaghue, David. "Route of the Coronado Expedition in Texas.” South­ western Historical Quarterly, XXXII (January 1929), 181-192. Dumble, Edwin Theodore. "The Cenozoic Deposits of Texas.” The Journal of Geology, II (September-October 1894), 549-567. --------. "The Cretaceous of Western Texas and Coahuila, Mexico.” Bul­ letin of the Geological Society of America, VI (April 1895), 375-388. --------. Discussion of "The Great Oil Well near Beaumont, Texas,” by Anthony Lucas. In Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXI (1901), 362-374; Transactions of the American Instir tute of Mining Engineers, XXI (1901), 1029-1032. --------. "Geology of Southwestern Texas.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXXIII (1903), 913-987. --------. "The Geology of Texas.” The Rice Institute Pamphlet, III, no. 2 (April 1916). --------. "Important Results of the Texas Survey.” American Geologist, VII (April 1891), 267-269. --------. "Notes on the Geology of the Valley of the Middle Rio Grande.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, III (April 22, 1892), 219-230. ------- . "Notes on the Texas Tertiaries.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, I (1895), 23-27. --------. "The Red Sandstone of the Diablo Mountains.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, TV (1902), 103-106. ------- . "Some Texas Oil Horizons.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, II (1897), 87—92. --------. "Sources of the Texas Drift.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, I (November 1892), 11-13. --------. "The Tertiary of the Sabine River.” Science, n.s., XVI (October 24, 1902), 670-671. Emmons, S. F. "Orographic Movements in the Rocky Mountains.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, I (April 1890), 245-286. Featherstonhaugh, J. D. "Memoir of George W. Featherstonhaugh.” American Geologist, III (April 1889), 217-223. Geiser, Samuel W. "The First Texas Academy of Science.” Field and Laboratory, XIII (January 1945), 34-39.

Bibliography

209

--------. “Francis Moore, Jr. (1808-1864), Early State Geologist of Tex­ as.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XLVII (April 1944), 419-425. --------. “John Wright Glenn (1836-1892), Early State Geologist of Texas.” Field and Laboratory, XIII (July 1945), 64-69. --------. “Men of Science in Texas, 1820-1880.” Field and Laboratory, XXVI (July-October 1958), 86-139; XXVII (January 1959), 20-48; XXVII (April 1959), 81-96; XXVII (June 1959), 111-160; XXVII (October 1959), 163-256. --------. “An Obscure Publication on Texas Geology and Natural History.” Field and Laboratory, XXIV (October 1956), 125-126. --------. “Professor Jacob Boll and the Natural History of the Southwest.” American Midland Naturalist, XI (March 1929), 439-452. --------. “William H. von Streeruwitz (1833-1916), Geologist of the Dumble Survey of Texas.” Field and Laboratory, XXV (January 1957), 21-31. Gidley, J. W. “The Fresh Water Tertiary of Northwestern Texas, Ameri­ can Museum Expedition of 1899-1901.” Bulletin of the American Mu­ seum of Natural History, XIX (1903), 617-635. --------. “A New Species of Pleistocene Horse from the Staked Plains of Texas.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, XIII (1900), 111-116. Girty, George H. “The Upper Permian in Western Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., XIV (November 1902), 363-368. Giles, Albert W. “Memorial of Noah Fields Drake.” Bulletin of the Ameri­ can Association of Petroleum Geologists, XXIX (December 1945), 1794-1796. Goetzmann, William H. “Science Explores the Big Bend.” Password, III (April 1958), 60-67. Gordon, C. H. “The Chalk Formations of Northeast Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., XXVII (May 1909), 369-383. --------. “The Red Beds of the Wichita-Brazos Region of North Texas.” Science, n.s., XXIX (May 7, 1909), 752. Griswold, L. S. “Origin of the Lower Mississippi.” Proclamation of the Boston Society of Natural History, XXVI (March 1895), 474-479. Harris, Gilbert D. “The Geological Occurrence of Rock Salt in Louisiana and Texas.” Economic Geology, IV (1909), 12-34. --------. “The Lignitic State.” Bulletin of American Paleontology, II, pt. 1 (June 15, 1897), 193-294. --------. “The Midway Stage.” Bulletin of American Paleontology, I (June 11, 1896), 115-270. --------. “Neocene Mollusca of Texas or Fossils from the Deep Well at Galveston.” Bulletin of American Paleontology, I (December 2, 1895), 83-114.

210

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

--------. “Notes on the Lafayette Beds of Louisiana.” Science, n.s., XXVII (February 28, 1908), 351. --------. “Rock Salt: Its Origin, Geological Occurrence and Economic Importance in the State of Louisiana.” Bulletin of the Geological Sur­ vey of Louisiana (1908). Hartzell, J. C. “The History and Principles of Geology and Its Aim.” American Naturalist, XXX (March 1896), 177-183, 271-279. Harvard, V. “Report on the Flora and Fauna of Western and Southern Texas.” Proclamations of the United States National Museum, VIII (Sep­ tember 23, 1885), 449-497. Hatcher, John B. “Origin of the Oligocene and Miocene Deposits of the Great Plains.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, XLI (April 1902), 113-131. Hay, Robert, and A. H. Thompson. “Historical Sketch of Geological Work in the State of Kansas.” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sci­ ences, X (1885-1886), 45-52. Heilprin, Angelo. “Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States.” Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, 2d ser., IX (1884), 115-154. Hendrickson, Walter B. “Nineteenth Century State Geological Surveys: Early Government Support of Science.” Isis, LII (September 1961), 357-371. Hielscher, Theodor. “Gebirgs-Formationen am Rio Grande bei Eagle Pass, Texas.” Schütze’s Jahrbuch für Texas, 1883, pp. 63-73. Hilgard, Eugene W. “Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico.” Reviewed by C. Whittlesey, C. A. White, A. Winchell, G. Little, J. B. Perry, E. C. Andrews, R. Owen, and E. W. Hilgard. American Naturalist, V (1871), 514-524. ------- . “Historical Outline of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of the State of Mississippi.” American Geologist, 2ÕCVII (May 1901), 284-311. ------- . “The Later Tertiary of the Gulf of Mexico.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXII (July 1887), 58-65. ------- .“On the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., II (December 1871), 391-404. ------- . “Remarks on the Drift of the Western and Southern States, and Its Relation to the Glacier and Iceberg Theories.” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., XLII (November 1866), 343-347. Hill, Robert T. “The Alleged Jurassic of Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., IV (December 1897), 449-469. --------. “Classification and Origin of the Chief Geographical Features of the Texas Region.” American Geologist, V (January 1890), 9-29.

Bibliography

211

--------. “The Coast Prairie of Texas.” Sciences, n.s., XIV (August 30, 1901), 327-328. --------. “The Comanche Series of the Texas-Arkansas Region.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, II (May 5, 1891), 503-528. --------. “Events in North American Cretaceous History Illustrated in the Arkansas-Texas Division of the Southwestern Region of the United States.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXVII (April 1889), 282-290. --------. “Geographic and Geologic Features of Mexico.” Engineering Mining Journal, LXXII (November 2, 1901), 561-564. --------. “The Geographic and Geologic Features, and Their Relation to the Mineral Products of Mexico.” Transactions of the American Insti­ tute of Mining Engineers, XXXII (November 1901), 163-178. --------. “Geology of Parts of Texas, Indian Territory, and Arkansas Ad­ jacent to the Red River.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, V (March 22, 1894), 297-338. --------. “The Great Chisos Rift along the Canyons of the Rio Grande River.” Science, n.s., XII (December 28, 1900), 992. . “Notes on the Geology of the Southwest.” American Geologist VII (April 1891), 254-255. --------. “Notes on the Geology of the Southwest.” American Geologist, VII (June 1891), 366-370. --------. “Notes on the Texas-New Mexico Region. Bulletin of the Geo­ logical Society of America, III (March 9, 1892), 85-100. --------. “Papers Read to the Geological and Geographical Section.” Pro­ ceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (August 1889), pp. 242-244. --------. “Pilot Knob: A Marine Cretaceous Volcano.” American Geologist, VI (November 1890), 286-292. --------. “A Portion of the Geological Story of the Colorado River of Texas.” American Geologist, III (April 1889), 287-299. --------. Review of A Partial Report on the Geology of Western Texas . . . Journal of Geological Observations . . . Geology of Grayson County, by George Getz Shumard. American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXIII (January 1887), 73-75. --------. “The Texas Section of the American Cretaceous.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXIV (October 1887), 287-309. --------. “The Topography and Geology of the Cross Timbers and Sur­ rounding Regions in Northern Texas.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXIII (April 1887), 291-303. Hitchcock, Charles H. “The Geological Map of the United States.” Trans­

----

,

212

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

actions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XV (May 1886February 1887), 465-488. Holden, William C. “West Texas Droughts.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXXII (October 1928), 103-123. Howren, Alleine. “Causes and Origin of the Decree of April 6, 1830.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVI (April 1913), 378-422. Hutchins, Wells A. “History of the Conflict between Riparian and Appropriative Rights in the Western States.” Proclamation of the Water Law Conference, June 1954, School of Law, The University of Texas, pp. 106-137. Ireland, H. A. “History of the Development of Geologic Maps.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, LIV (September 1, 1943). James, Edwin P. “Geological Sketches of the Mississippi Valley.” Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, II, pt. 2 (1822), 326-329. --------. “Remarks on the Sandstone and Floetz Trap Formations of the Western Part of the Valley of the Mississippi.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., II (1825), 191-215. Jenney, Walter P. “Notes on the Geology of Western Texas, near the Thirty-second Parallel.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., VII (Jan­ uary 1874), 25-28. Kennedy, William. “The Geology of Jefferson County.” American Geolo­ gist, XIII (April 1894), 268-275. --------. “Iron Ores of East Texas.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXIV (February 1894), 258-288. --------. “Texas Clays and Their Origin.” Science, XXII (December 1, 1893), 297-300. Keyes, Charles R. “The Jurassic Horizon around the Southern End of the Rocky Mountains.” American Geologist, XXXVI (November 1905), 289-292. --------. “Triassic System in New Mexico.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., XX (December 1905), 423-429. Kimball, James P. “Notes on the Geology of Western Texas and of Chi­ huahua, Mexico.” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., XLVIII (No­ vember 1869), 378-388. Lang, Aldon S. “Financial History of the Public Lands in Texas.” Baylor Bulletin, LXXXV (July 1932). Langston, Rosalind. ‘The Life of Colonel R. T. Milner.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXIV (April 1941), 408-451. Leeds, Albert R. “State Geological Surveys.” Popular Science Monthly, III (June 1873), 226-229. Leidy, Joseph. [On Fossil Teeth from Washington County, Texas]. Pro­

Bibliography

213

ceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (October 1860), 416. Leighton, Morris M. “Natural Resources and Geological Surveys.” Journal of Economic Geology, LXVI (September-October 1951), 563-577. Lerch, Otto. “Remarks on the Geology of the Concho Country, State of Texas.” American Geologist, V (June 1890), 321-335. Love, Clara M. “History of the Cattle Industry in the Southwest.” South­ western Historical Quarterly, XX (July 1916), 1-34. Lucas, Anthony F. “The Great Oil Well near Beaumont, Texas.” Trans­ actions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXXI (February 1901), 362-375. --------. “Rock-Salt in Louisiana.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXIX (1899), 463-474. Lurie, Edward. “Some Observations on Research in Nineteenth Century American Science.” Isis, LIII (March 1962), 21-30. McGregor, Stuart. “The Texas Almanac, 1857-1873.” Southwestern His­ torical Quarterly, L (April 1947), 419-430. McKitrick, Reuben. “Public Land System of Texas, 1823-1910.” Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, no. 905 (February 1918). Marcou, Jules. “The American Necomian and the Graphaea pitcheri.” American Geologist, V (May 1890), 315-317. --------. “Growth of Knowledge Concerning the Texas Cretaceous.” American Geologist, XIV (August 1894), 98-105. --------. “Jura and Neocomian of Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico and Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., IV (September 1897), 197-212. --------. “Notes on the Cretaceous and Carboniferous Rocks of Texas.” Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, VIII (1862), 86-97. --------. “Second Supplement to Mapoteca Geologica Americana, 17521881.” American Geologist, XI (February 1893), 95-99. Martin, Roscoe C. “The Grange as a Political Factor in Texas.” South­ western Political and Social Science Quarterly, VI (March 1926), 363383. Mather, Kirtley F. “Geology, Geologists, and the AAAS.” Science, CXXIX (April 24, 1959), 1106-1111. Matthew, W. D. “A Provisional Classification of the Fresh Water Ter­ tiary of the West.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural His­ tory, XII (1899), 19-75. Maxwell, Ross A., et al. “Geology of Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas.” The University of Texas Publication, no. 6711. Merrill, George P. “Contributions to a History of American State Geologi­

214

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

cal and Natural History Surveys.” Bulletin of the United States National Museum, CIX (1920). Miller, E. T. “A Financial History of Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 37 (July 1,1916). Nagle, James C. “The Silt Problem in Connection with Irrigation Storage Reservoirs.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, IV, pt. 2 (1902). Nash, Gerald. “The Conflict between Pure and Applied Science in Nine­ teenth Century Public Policy: The California State Geological Survey, 1860-1874.” Isis, LIV (June 1963), 217-228. Newberry, J. S. “The Botany and Geology of the Country Bordering the Rio Grande in Texas and Chihuahua.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, II (1883), 90-95. Osborn, Henry Fairfield. “Tertiary Mammal Horizons of North America.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, XXIII (1907), 237-253. Ostrom, Vincent. “State Administration of Natural Resources in the West.” American Political Science Review, XLVII (June 1953), 478-494. Penrose, R. A. F., Jr. “Tertiary Iron Ores of Arkansas and Texas.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, III (March 9, 1892), 44-50. Perry, J. B. “Remarks on the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico.” American Naturalist, V (1871), 522. Phillips, William B. “Mineral Survey.” University Record, VI (February 1905), 60-61. Powell, J. W. “Institutions for the Arid Lands.” The Century Magazine, XL (May 1890), 111-116. Prather, John K. “A Preliminary Report on the Austin Chalk Underlying Waco, Texas and the Adjoining Territory.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Sciences, IV (1902), 115-121. Rayburn, John C. “Cannonading the Clouds at Midland, 1891.” Yearbook of the West Texas Historical Association, XXXIV (October 1958), 5066. Reis, Heinrich. “The Clays of Texas.” Transactions of the American Insti­ tute of Mining Engineers, XXXVII (July, 1906), 520-558. ------- . “Memorial of Thomas Bryant Comstock.” Bulletin of the Geologi­ cal Society of America, XXVII (1915), 12-15. Riddell, John L. “Observations on the Geology of the Trinity Country, Texas, Made During an Excursion There in April and May, 1839.” American Journal of Science, XXXVII (July-October 1839), 211-217. Roemer, Ferdinand. “Contributions to the Geology of Texas.” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., VI (November 1848), 21-28. ------- . “A Sketch of the Geology of Texas.” American Journal of Sci­ ence, 2d ser., II (November 1846), 358-365.

Bibliography

215

Roessler, Anton R. "Erforschung des Norwesttheiles von Texas in Jahre 1872. Nach den Aufzeichungen von Dr. O. Loew und A. R. Roessler.” Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthis Geographischen Anstalt über Wichtige neues Erforschungen (Petermanns Mitteilungen), XIX (1873), 453467. --------. "Geological Sketch of the Sour Lake Region, Hardin County, Tex­ as.” In Albert Hanfords Texas State Register for 1876, XVI, 93-95. Galveston: A. Hanford, 1876. --------. "On the Geology of Texas.” The Quarterly Journal of the Geo­ graphical Society of London, XXV, pt. 2 (1869), 5-6. Sanchez, José Maria. "A Trip to Texas in 1828.” Translated by Carlos Cas­ taneda. Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XXIX, no. 4 (April 1926), 249-288. Schmitz, E. J. "Copper Ores in the Permian of Texas.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXVI (February 1896), 97-108. --------. "Geology and Mineral Resources of the Rio Grande Region in Texas and Coahuila.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XIII (September 1884), 388-405. Schott, Arthur. "The Cretaceous Basin of the Rio Bravo del Norte.” Pro­ ceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, VIII (1855), 272-283. Sellards, Elias H., and Charles L. Baker. "Structural and Economic Geolo­ gy,” II: "The Geology of Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 3401 (January 1, 1934). Shumard, Benjamin F. "Descriptions of New Cretaceous Fossils from Texas.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1859), 590-610. ------- . "Descriptions of New Cretaceous Fossils from Texas.” Proceed­ ings of the Boston Society of Natural History, VIII (1861), 188-205. --------. "Descriptions of New Paleozoic Fossils.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, II (1863), 108-113. --------. "Notice of Fossils from the Permian Strata of Texas and New Mexico.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1859), 387-403. --------. "Notice of New Fossils from the Permian Strata of New Mexico and Texas.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1858), 290-297. --------. "Observations upon the Cretaceous Strata of Texas.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1859), 582-590. --------. "On the Discovery of Dicotyledonous Leaves in the Cretaceous of Texas, and the Existence of an Extensive Miocene Formation, Equivalent to the Bone Beds of the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska.”

216

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, II (1863) 140141. ------- . “The Primordial Zone of Texas with Descriptions of New Fos­ sils.” American Journal of Science, 2d ser., XXXII (September 1861), 213-222. Shumard, George Getz. “Observations on the Geological Formations of the Country between the Rio Pecos and the Rio Grande in New Mexico near the Line of the 32nd Parallel.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1858), 273-289. Simonds, Frederick W. “Dr. Ferdinand von Roemer, the Father of the Geology of Texas; His Life and Works.” American Geologist, XXIX (March 1902), 132-140. ------- . “Memorial of Edwin Theodore Dumble (with Bibliography).” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXXIX (1927), 18-29. ------- . “A Mineral Survey in Texas.” Science, n.s., XIII (April 26, 1901), 671-672. ------- . “A Record of the Geology of Texas for the Decade Ending De­ cember 31, 1896.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, III (August 1900). Smith, Eugene A. “Memorial of Robert Hills Loughridge.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXIX (1918), 48-55. --------. “Pioneers in Gulf Coastal Plain Geology.” Bulletin of the Geologi­ cal Society of America, XXV (March 30, 1914), 157-178. Smith, George Otis. “A Century of Governmental Geological Surveys.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., XLVI (July 1918), 171-192. ------- . “The Policy of the Geological Survey.” Science, n.s., XXXVI (September 27, 1912), 401-403. Smith, Ralph. “The Farmers' Alliance in Texas, 1875-1900.” Southwest­ ern Historical Quarterly, XLVIII (January 1945), 346-369. Stanley-Brown, Joseph. “Memorial of Richard Alexander Fullerton Pen­ rose, Jr.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XLIII (1932), 68-108. Stanton, T. W., and T. W. Vaughan. “The Mesozoic Section at Sierra Blanca, Texas.” Science, n.s., VII (March 25, 1898), 429. --------. “Section of the Cretaceous at El Paso, Texas.” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., I (January 1896), 21-26. Sterling, E. W. “The Powell Irrigation Survey, 1888-1893.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXVII (December 1940). Streeruwitz, Wilhelm H. von. “On the Precious and Other Valuable Metals of Texas.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, I (November 1892), 19-24. Swallow, G. G., and F. Hawn. “The Rocks of Kansas.” Transactions of the Academy of Sciences of St. Louis, I (1858), 173-197.

Bibliography

217

Taff, Joseph A. “Some Eratic Boulders in the Middle Carboniferous Shale in Indian Territory.” Science, n.s., XXI (February 10, 1905), 225. Tarr, Ralph S. “The Cretaceous Covering of the Texas Paleozoic.” Ameri­ can Geologist, IX (March 1892), 169-178. Taylor, Thomas U. “The Water Power of Texas.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, IV, pt. 2 ( 1902). Thompson, John T. “Public Administration of Water Resources in Texas.” Bulletin of the Institute of Public Affairs of The University of Texas, no. 43 (1960). Thompson, Robert A. “The Storm-Water Storage System of Irrigation.” Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science, I (1894), 73-79. Udden, J. A. “Notes on the Geology of the Glass Mountains.” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 1753 (1918). --------. “Report on a Geological Survey of the Lands Belonging to New York and Texas Land Company, Ltd., in the Upper Rio Grande Embayment in Texas.” Publications of the Augustana Library, no. 6 ( 1907). --------. “A Sketch of the Geology of the Chisos Country, Brewster County, Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 93 (April 1907). Ulrich, E. O. “Revision of Paleozoic Systems.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXII (August 31, 1911), 281-680. Underwood, James R. Jr., “Edwin Theodore Dumble.” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, LXVIII (July 1964), 53-78. Vaughan, Thomas W. “Memorial to Robert T. Hill.” Proceedings of the Geological Society of America, 1943 (1944), pp. 141-168. --------. “Notes on the Geology of the San Carlos Coal Field.” Science, n.s., Ill (March 6, 1896), 375. --------. “The Stratigraphy of Northwestern Louisiana.” American Geolo­ gist, XV (April 1895), 205-229. Veatch, Arthur C. “The Five Islands.” A Preliminary Report on the Geol­ ogy of Louisiana (1899), Special Report 3, pp. 199-362. --------, and G. D. Harris. “The Geography and Geology of the Sabine River.” Report of the Louisiana Geological Society, VI (1902), 101148. --------. “A Preliminary Report on the Geology of Louisiana.” Annual Report of the Louisiana Geological Survey for 1899 (1899), pp. 1-138. Walcott, Charles D. “Classification of the Cambrian System of North America.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXII (August 1886), 138-157. --------. “Note on the Paleozoic Rocks of Central Texas.” American Jour­ nal of Science, 3d ser., XXVIII (December 1884), 431-433. --------. “The United States Geological Survey.” Popular Science Month­ ly, XLVI (February 1895), 479-498.

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

218

--------. “The Work of the United States Geological Survey in Relation to the Mineral Resources of the United States.” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, XXX (February 1900), 3-26. White, Charles A. “On the Age of the Coal Found in the Region Traversed by the Rio Grande.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXIII (Jan­ uary 1887), 18-20. --------. “On the Cretaceous Formations of Texas and Their Relation to Those of Other Portions of North America.” Proceedings of the Acade­ my of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (February 1887), pp. 39-47. --------. “On the Relation of the Laramie Group to Earlier and Later Formations.” American Journal of Science, 3d ser., XXXV (June 1888), 432-438. Whitney, James D. “Geographical and Geological Surveys.” North Ameri­ can Review, CXXI (July and October 1875), 37-85, 270-314. Williams, J. W. “A Statistical Study of the Drought of 1886.” Yearbook of the West Texas Historical Association, XXI (October 1945), 85-109. Willis, Bailey, and C. C. Church. “Joseph Alexander Taff.” Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, XXVIII (August 1944), 1236-1240. Willis, Bailey. “A Theory of Continental Structure Applied to North America.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XVIII (Oc­ tober 24, 1907), 389-412. Winkler, Ernest W. “Platforms of Political Parties in Texas.” Bulletin of The University of Texas, no. 53 (September 20, 1916). Woodworth, J. B. “Memorial of Ralph Stockton Tarr.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, XXIV (1912), 29-43. Wrather, W. E. “Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas.” The Texas Geographic Magazine, XI (April 1947), 1-7. --------. “Memorial: Robert T. Hill.” Bulletin of the American Associa­ tion of Petroleum Geologists, XXV (December 1941), 2221-2231. --------. “Memorial of William Kennedy.” Bulletin of the Geological So­ ciety of America,, XXXIX (1927), 29-34. Young, Keith. “The Roessler Maps.” Texas Journal of Science, XVII (March 1965), 28-45. T h eses

and

D

iss e r t a t io n s

Allen, Milford F. “United States Exploring Expeditions and Natural History Surveys, 1800-1840.” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1958. Lord, Clyde W. “The Ante-bellum Career of Louis Trezevant Wigfall.” Master s thesis, The University of Texas, 1925. McClure, John W. “A History of the Illinois State Geological Survey, 1851-1875.” Masters thesis, The University of Illinois, 1962.

Bibliography

219

Matthews, William K. “A History of Irrigation in the Rio Grande Valley.” Masters thesis, The University of Texas, 1938. Muir, Andrew Forest. “The Thirty-second Parallel Pacific Railroad in Texas to 1872.” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1949. Parker, E. Francis V. “Robert Thomas Hill: The Dean of Texas Geolo­ gists.” Masters thesis, The University of Texas, 1960. Parker, Edith Helen. “History of Land Grants for Education in Texas.” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1952. Sterrett, Carrie Belle. “The Life of Thomas Jefferson Rusk.” Masters thesis, The University of Texas, 1922. Wagner, Robert L. “The Gubernatorial Career of Charles Allen Culber­ son.” Masters thesis, The University of Texas, 1954. White, Theodore L. “The Marques de Rubi’s Inspection of the Eastern Presidios on the Northern Frontier of New Spain.” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1953. N

ew spa per s

Austin Daily Democratic Statesman Austin Daily State Journal Austin Daily Statesman Austin Democratic Statesman Austin Weekly Statesman Clarksville Standard El Paso Times Galveston Daily News Galveston Tri-Weekly News Henderson Times San Antonio Daily Express The Southern Mercury

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INDEX

Abert, James W. : 14 n Adams, George I.: 140, 144 Adelsverein: 10, 11, 24 n, 29, 64 agriculture: development of, and sur­ veys, 23, 27-29, 36, 39, 160; state boards of, 37; and agricultural wealth myth, 39, 42, 48, 99; methods of, 99 n Agua Fria: 127 Alabama: 20, 56, 69 n, 71 Alabama Geological Survey: 23 n Albert, John J.: 16 Alexander, William: 45 n alluvial fans: 69 Alpine, Texas: 107 American Boundary Commission: 25. S e e a l s o boundary surveys; geolog­ ical surveys, private American Museum of Natural History: 139, 152 Amistad Dam: 107 n anhydrite: 59 anticlinal concept: 130 and n Apache Mountains: 59 Arbuckle Mountains : 144 Archaen geology: 144. S e e a l s o PreCambrian geology of Texas Archer County: 40, 61, 137 Arizona: 59 Arkansas Geological Survey: 81, 136, 146, 181 “Arkansas group, the”. S e e profession­ al disputes Army Corps of Topographical Engi­ neers: 15, 16, 29, 70 Army surveys: Marcy’s, of 1852, 15, 30 n; results of, 15, 16, 19; and wagon road surveys, 22; and first state survey, 29, 70

artesian wells: and Pope Survey, 18 and n, 19, 28, 60; and first state sur­ vey, 28; and Dumble Survey, 91, 92, 151; and Phillips Survey, 121, 124; mentioned, 99 n, 103 n, 131 n, 136 n, 151. S e e a l s o water re­ sources asphalt: 92 asylum lands: 75. S e e a l s o land, school and University Atlee, Edwin A.: 109 Austin, Stephen F.: 4 Austin, Texas: 21—22, 27, 31, 33, 54, 134 n Balcones Escarpment: description of, 4; and Roemer, 12, 52; and Great Plains, 50; geology of, 50-51, 53 n, 134, 143; limestones of, 51, 52 Balcones fault: stratigraphie studies of, 134-135; mentioned, 51, 57, 67, 69, 134 n, 146, 149, 153 Bastrop, Texas: 30 n Bastrop County: 136 Baylor County: 137 Beaumont, Texas: 116 Bee, Hamilton P.: 27, 81 Beede, J. W.: 144 Bell, Peter H.: 23, 24 Bell, R. B.: 87 n Benedict, H. Y.: 158n Berlandier, Jean Luis: 9n, 51 Berlin Academy: 11 Bexar County: 22 Big Bend region: diversity of, 6; and quicksilver, 114, 160; mentioned, 63, 72, 127, 141 Big Spring, Texas: 17, 54, 151 Big Wichita River: 139

222

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Blake, William: 17, 30 n, 55 and n, 56, 60 n, 70 Board of Regents. S e e The University of Texas Board of Regents Boeme, Texas: 33 n Boll, Jacob: discoveries of, 61, 62, 72, 73; as lobbyist, 79; reviewing Roemer, 135, 138 Bonanza mine, the: 104 n Bonner, Micajah: 29 n Bosque County: 83 boundary surveys: Mexican, of 1828, 8n, 9 n; American, of 1853, 18 n, 55, 63, 68 n Bowers, M. H.: 43 Brackenridge, George W.: 115 Branner, J. C.: 181 Brazos River: as geographic boundary, 4; and surveys, 16, 26, 31, 39; men­ tioned, 5, 52 n, 57, 59, 146, 152 Brewster County: 114, 118, 120 Britton, Forbes: 28 Brown, John Hemy: 27 Brown County: 107 Buch, Leopold von: 11 Buckley, Samuel B.: and Shumard sur­ vey, 31, 37; report of, on Shumard survey, 37, 39; and fight to renew survey, 37-39; as state geologist, 39-40, 44-47, 48; and professional dispute, 46-47; mentioned, 32, 33, 68 n, 176 n Buckley Survey ( Geological and Agri­ cultural Survey of Texas): organi­ zation of, 39; termination of, 40, 47; appropriations for, 43; reports of, 46-47; mentioned, 39, 40, 45, 46 n Bureau of Economic Geology of The University of Texas; inception of, 150, 157-158; duties of, 158, 187188; mentioned, 139-140 Burleson, Richard: 44, 46 n Burnet County: 33 n, 144 Caballos Ridges: 141, 142 Cambrian geology of Texas: 63, 65, 143-145 passim Camp Joseph E. Johnston: 53 n Canadian, Texas: 151 n Canadian River: 5, 7, 14 n, 17, 55, 56, 59

Carboniferous geology of Texas: 55 n, 59, 60, 63, 64, 138, 139 Carl, Prince of Solms-Braunfels: 10, 11 Carpenter Springs: 104 n Carrizo Mountains: 174, 175 Case, Ermine C.: 139 catchment basins: 106, 107 cattlemen: and land distribution, 75, 77, 98; and water rights, 100 and n, 102, 161 Cenozoic geology: of Llano Estacado, 18 n, 56 n, 70, 72, 150-153, 154; of Gulf Coast, 65-69, 133, 153; strat­ igraphie studies of, 145-146, 148150 Central Mineral Region: geological history of, 4, 52 n, 55 n, 63-65, 72; surveys of, 12, 31, 40, 133, 174, 181 Cherokee County: 174 Chinati Mountains: 139 Chisos Mountains: 143 Chisos quicksilver mine: 126 n Chovel, Rafael: 9 n, 51 cinnabar mines: 118 Claiborne, Alabama: 68 n Clear Fork River: 16 Cleburne State Alliance Convention: 76 coal: and mineral wealth myth, 10, 28, 35, 48; near Fort Belknap; 31, 33, 59; and surveys; 82, 88 n, 94; of Osage Plains, 92, 160, 174; in Trans-Pecos, 126 n, 127 Coal Measures: 137, 138, 174 coastal plain. S e e Gulf Coastal Plain Coke, Richard: 44, 45, 46, 47, 83, 85 Colorado River: 4, 5, 11, 30 n, 54, 59, 70, 77, 146, 151 Comal Springs: 52 Comanche County: 82 Comanche Peak: 57 Comstock, Theodore B.: discoveries of, 65 n, 136, 144, 145, 174; and Hill-Dumble dispute, 180, 181, 183 Conrad, Timothy: 67, 68 n Cooke County: 26, 54, 87 n Cope, Edward Drinker: discoveries of, 61-62, 70, 134, 152; mentioned, 72, 73, 92, 138, 140, 184 copper: and mineral wealth myth, 26,

Index 28, 35, 48; and surveys, 40, 60, 110, 118, 129 Cordova, Jacob de: 26, 27 Coronado, Francisco de: 5 Corpus Christi, Texas: 31 Corsicana field: 46 n, 148 cotton: 38 Coulter, R. D.: 128 n Cowart, R. E.: 118 Cragin, Francis W.: 141 n, 151 n Crawford, S. Wylie: 53 n Cretaceous geology of Texas: early studies of, 12, 49-54; and sea de­ posits, 50-51, 63; and Edwards Plateau, 50, 54, 137; Shumards’ findings, 52-53, 73; and European patterns, 53, 133, 135; Marcou identifies, 54; and Llano Estacado, 55-56, 70, 151; and Balcones Es­ carpment, 56, 57; and Great Plains pattern, 57; and R. T. Hill, 82; and Dumble survey, 94 n, 141 n; strat­ igraphie discoveries in, 133-137; and Phillips Survey, 142; final understanding of, 154; mentioned, 52 n, 53 n, 163, 176 Crosby, Stephen: 27 Cross Timbers, the: 52 Culberson, Charles A.: 96, 108 Culberson County: 104, 105 Cummins, William Fletcher: discover­ ies of, 137, 138, 143, 150, 154, 157, 174; and Dumble hearings, 183; mentioned, 89, 92, 107 n Dallas, Texas: 58, 75 dams: sites for, 99, 104, 107 n; draw­ backs of, 102; S e e a l s o irrigation; water resources Davis, E. J.: 42, 43 and n, 44 Davis, Jefferson: 16, 25 n Davis Mountains: 141 Decker, D. E.: 121, 122 de la Fora, Nicolás: 4 Delaware Creek: 18 n, 19, 60 Del Rio, Texas: 4 Democratic Party in Texas: 76, 93, 113 depression of 1893: 93, 107 de Soto, Hernando: 4 de Vaca, Cabeza: 4

223 development: of natural resources, 35, 65, 89, 94; of industry, 38, 42 n, 49; of railroads, 48, 49; of state lands, 48, 50, 77. S e e a l s o land development Devils River: 107 n Diablo Mountains: 174 Diablo Plateau: 129 Dickens County: 151 Dillard, Anthony W.: 104, 105 ditches: 102, 107. S e e a l s o water re­ sources domes: 64, 67, 72. S e e a l s o salt Double Mountain River: 16 downwarping: 66 Drake, Noah F.: discoveries of, 138, 140, 160; mentioned, 143, 174, 181 drift, glacial: 71 drought: of 1856, 27-29, 48; of 1886, 76, 80, 91, 92, 93, 98-99, 103 Dryenforth, Robert C. : 104 n Dumble, Edwin Theodore: descrip­ tion of Texas geology of, 6; politi­ cal acumen of, 79-80, 86, 93-94, 145; appointment of, to survey, 8990; ana professional dispute, 90 n, 135, 180-184; private survey of, 96; and irrigation, 102-103; Permi­ an study of, 137; hearings of, 182183; mentioned, 33 n, 65 n, 113, 124, 154, 162 Dumble Survey (Geological and Min­ eralogical Survey of Texas): and land classification, 48, 88, 89, 112, 155; and land reform, 74, 94, 95, 113; creation of, 77; lobbying for, 79-84, 85-89, 151 n; and coopera­ tion with United States Geological Survey, 85-86, 173-177; appropria­ tions for, 91, 92, 93, 97 n, 107; staff of, 91-92; and irrigation stud­ ies, 91, 102-103 and nn, 106-107, 107 n, 108, 113, 161; reports of, 92, 93-94; end of, 94-95, 96; and mineral wealth myth, 110-113, 114; maps of, 122, 173-177; strati­ graphie studies of, 136, 137-138, 140, 145-148, 153-154, 155; men­ tioned. 69, 70, 94, 153, 160 Dutton, Clarence Edward: 106

224

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Plains, 137, 139; mentioned, 9, 51, Eagle Mountains: 91 n, 104 n 53, 54, 64, 65, 141 n, 153 Eagle Pass: 94 Foster, Lafayette Lumpkin: 89 Eastland County: 82 Edwards Plateau: description of, 4; Foster, R. C.: 80 and early surveys, 12, 15, 51, 52; Foster, Sam T.: 109 Cretaceous geology of, 50, 54, 56, Franklin Mountains: 142 57, 136; and water resource studies, Fredericksburg, Texas: 40, 54 136, 137; mentioned, 69, 73, 140, Freiburg Academy: 25 Frio County: 101 152 Ellsworth, E. S.: 183 El Paso, Texas: 17, 21, 25, 75, 108, Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad Company survey: 26-27 124 El Paso County: 110, 112, 114, 118, Galveston, Texas: 11, 66, 115, 147 Garza County: 151 120, 128, 129, 175 gas: 147 embayment: 69, 71, 128 n, 146 Geological Atlas of the United States: Emory, W. H.: 18 n 136, 142, 145 Eocene geology of Texas: 73, 94 n erosion: and Gulf Coastal Plain, 51, Geological and Agricultural Survey of 71, 145; and Indian Territory, 53- Texas. S e e Buckley Survey; Shu­ mard Survey 54; mentioned, 4, 5, 53 n, 64 Geological ana Mineralogical Survey Erskine, B. H.: 101 of Texas. S e e Dumble Survey; Glenn Survey False Washita River: 15 Farmers’ Alliance: emergence of, 76, geological surveys: federal and state cooperation, 21-26 passim , 33-34, 93; and Dumble Survey, 83, 84, 125-126, 127, 130, 155, 163, 85 n, 87, 91; economy of, 83, 93; 78, 173-177; private versus public mentioned, 88 n, 99 n, 101 support of, 21-23, 24 n, 26, 40; faulting: at New Braunfels, 52, 54, and land reform, 28, 39, 73, 111. 134; in Trans-Pecos, 63, 141; men­ S e e a l s o professional disputes tioned, 51, 57, 64, 67 Featherstonhaugh, George W.: 8, 13 —, federal: Mexican, 4, 8 n; Pacific Railroad Survey, 14, 15, 16; army fertilizer: 80 surveys, 15-16, 19, 20; Powell’s field work: methods of, 13, 66, 67, 1871 mineral, 77; Irrigation Survey, 68; hardships of, 46 n, 49, 91 n, 136 n; mentioned, 62, 174. S e e a l s o 175 n Fischer, Henry F.: 2 4 n Pope, John; Powell, John Wesley; folding: 57, 63, 64, 141, 143 wagon road surveys; Whipple, A. W.; United States Geological Fora, Nicolás de la: 4 Fort Belknap: 16, 31, 33 Survey —, private: of Adelsverein, 11; by Fort Chadboume: 25 Fort Duncan: 15 scientists, 14 n, 85, 96, 154; by rail­ Fort McKavett: 53 n roads, 16-20 passim , 25, 88 n, 173174; by merchants, 21-22, 23; by Fort Washita, Indian Territory: 15, 52 Fort Worth, Texas: 134 n land companies, 41, 128 n; by oil fossils: of Llano Estacado, 55, 56, 69, industry, 148, 162 70, 151 and n, 152; Cretaceous, 56, —, state: incentives for, 22, 23; “aca­ 57, 63, 72, 133 n, 135, 136; Car­ demic” versus practical goals of, 31, 33, 34, 36, 45, 46, 90, 128 n, 158, boniferous, 59, 63; Permian, 59-62 passim, 62 n, 129, 138; of Gulf 160-161; appropriations for, 35, Coastal Plain, 66, 68 and n; Com­ 43, 159; and other states’ surveys, anche series, 135-136; of Osage 36-37, 38. S e e a l s o Buckley Sur-

Index vey; Dumble Survey; Glenn Survey; Pmllips Survey; Shumard Survey geology, methocis of: small-scale map­ ping, 41, 61 n, 154, 175; of recon­ naissance geologists, 72-73; and subsurface studies, 147-150 passim , 154; mentioned, 9, 13 and n, 150 geology, types of: 49^50, 61 geosyncline: 63, 64, 66, 68, 132 Gidley, James W.: 139, 152 Gilbert, Grove Karl: 89, 129 Girty, George: 127, 128, 129, 139, 154 glaciation, Northern: and Llano Es­ tacado, 69, 154; in Gulf states, 71; and Quaternary, 72, 150, 152 Gladys City Oil Company: 147 Glass Mountains: 59, 139, 140, 141 Glenn, John: 43-44 and n, 65 Glenn Survey (Geological and Min­ eralogical Survey of Texas): sup­ port for, 37-39; inception of, 4243, 170-173; single reconnaissance of, 44. S e e a l s o Buckley Survey gold: 10, 64, 110 Goode, Richard Urquhart: 106 and n, 175 Gould, Charles N.: 127 graben: 141 Grand Prairie: Cretaceous geology of, 50, 56, 58; mentioned, 4, 73, 134, 136, 137, 143 Grange, the: 42 n, 76, 96 granite: 64, 135 n gravel: 69, 152, 153 Gray, Allen Charles: 104 and n, 184 Gray, Andrew B.: 25 Grayson County: 54, 80 Great Basin: 142 Great Plains: 4, 19, 50, 55, 69, 70, 134 Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of: 14, 18 n Guadalupe Mountains: Permian geology of, 60; Paleozoic rocks of, 127; and stratigraphers, 139, 142; fold­ ing of, 141; mentioned, 59, 60, 180 Guadalupe Peak: 6 Guadalupe River: 54 Gulf Coastal Plain: Kennedy’s de­ scription of, 3; early studies of, 4,

225 39, 65-69 passim; geological his­ tory of, 50, 66-67, 72, 150; Cre­ taceous geology of, 51, 57, 66, 134, 136; and stratigraphers, 66, 69, 145-146, 148-149, 153; and oil, 117, 162 gypsum: of Llano Estacado, 55, 56; of Osage Plains, 59, 137, 138; men­ tioned, 131 n Hall, Charles: 43-44, 44 n Hall, James: and 1853 Boundary Sur­ vey, 18 n; and map dispute, 55 and n; and ideas on Cretaceous, 56; mentioned, 30 n, 32 n, 44, 58, 70 Hamilton, A. J.: 40 Harris, Gilbert D.: 146-147, 148, 181 Harrison County: 28 Harvard Museum of Comparative Zo­ ology: 61, 138 Haskell County: 61 Hatcher, John B.: 62 n Hayden, Ferdinand V.: 56, 57, 58, 62 Hayes, C. W.: 149 Hays County: 136 Hazel Mine: 175 Helotes Creek: 134 n Henry, Joseph: 30 Herndon, J. H.: 182, 183 Herndon, W. S.: 182 Hess, Frank L.: 144 Hilgard, Eugene W.: discoveries of, 67-68, 71; new methods of, 150; mentioned, 36, 73, 145 Hill, Benjamin F.: appointment of, 118; and Phillips Survey, 126-128 passim; discoveries of, 142 Hill, J. W.: 119 Hill, Robert T.: inept lobbying of, 81-83, 84-85, 86; and state appoint­ ment, 81 n, 89; background of, 82; reconnaissances of, 127, 128, 129, 136-137, 139, 141-142, 151, 153, 173, 176, 177; discoveries of, 133 and n, 134, 135, 139, 143, 146, ISO151; dispute of, with Dumble, ISO184; mentioned, 44 n, 52 n, 81 n, 86 n, 89, 115, 126, 133 n, 154, 158 n Hitchcock, Charles W.: 175 Hitchcock, Edward: 29, 30 n

226

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Hogg, James S.: ends Dumble Survey, 94-95; and Hill-Dumble dispute, 182, 184; mentioned, 76, 84, 93, 105 Hollingsworth, John E.: 104, 105, 182 Houston, Sam: support of, for surveys, 15, 24; and spoilsmanship, 32, 35; mentioned, 31, 33 Houston, Senator Temple: 82 Houston and Texas Central Railroad: 173 Humboldt, Alexander von: 11, 57 Huntsville Penitentiary: 147 Hutton, James: 9 igneous rocks: 13, 31, 63, 65 Immigration Bureau (of Louisiana): 36. S e e a l s o settlement Indians: Comanche, 5, 12, 15; Kiowa, 15; as military problem, 24, 50; hampering Buckley Survey, 40, 46 n Indian Territory: 15, 52, 53, 65 “individualities” of Texas geology: background of, 6-10; and regional patterns, 50, 51, 56, 57, 68; and Cretaceous, 50-51, 56, 72, 133137; and Permian, 50, 58-63, 72, 137-140; vs. European patterns, 55, 61; and Paleozoic, 62-63; and PreCambrian, 64-65; and Cenozoic, 65-69; and Quaternary, 71; men­ tioned, 57, 58, 145-146, 163, 176 Iowa Geological Survey: 128 Ireland, John: 75 iron ore: and mineral wealth myth, 10, 28, 35, 48, 162; in East Texas, 31, 92; in Gulf Coastal Plain, 145, 146, 174; mentioned, 38, 88 n, 94, 174 irrig a tio n : an d sta te la n d reform , 99101, 102, 103, 105, 106-107, 108110; le g islatio n fo r, 101, 105, 106, 108-109, 124, 125; a c r e a g e for, 124 n, 125 n; m en tio n ed , 91, 92, 100 n, 124, 173-174. S e e a l s o w a ­ te r reso u rces — w orks, co n stru ctio n o f: by p riv a te co m p an ie s, 100, 101, 106 a n d n , 107-109 passim , 124; by sta te s, 102-105 passim, 124; by c o o p e ra ­ tiv e s, 108, 110, 125, 161

Irrigation Survey; and Powell’s report, 77; downfall of, 112; mapwork of, 174; mentioned, 99, 106, 130, 136 n, 155, 161 James, Edwin: 7, 8 Jeff Davis County: 112 Jeffersonian Arcadia: 98 Jermy, Gustav: 92, 183 Johnson, Cone: 85 n Johnson, F. W. : 45 n Johnson, Jefferson: 96 Johnson, Willard D.: 152-153 Jones, J. Ras: 87 Jurassic period: of Great Plains, 55, 134; and Trans-Pecos sea, 63; and Malone Mountains, 141 n Kansas: 37, 59 Kansas Academy of Sciences: 37 Kennedy, A. M.: 121 Kennedy, William: description of Tex­ as of, 3; and mineral wealth myth, 10, 35; discoveries of, 64, 145, 146, 147, 149; mentioned, 11, 95 n, 183 Kimball, Richard B.: 26 Kiowa Peak: 61 Kirk, Morris: 121 n Kuykendall, James H.: 23 Lacy, Walter W.: 25 Ladd, George L.: 181, 183 la Fora, Nicholás de: 4 Lake Nasworthy: 107 n Lamar County: 58 land, school and University: state in­ come from, 41-42, 113, 119-120, 123 and n; and land reform, 48, 74, 75, 80, 123 n; dwindling supply of, 48, 109 n, 112, 119; surveys of, 48, 118, 125-130 passim, 157; classifica­ tion of, 75, 84, 88, 102, 117, 155, 161; and mineral wealth, 87, 111, 114, 117, 150, 159; and irrigation, 100, 102, 104, 129; and prospecting, 118, 119-120, 123; mentioned 23 n, 120, 121 land classification system: and school and University lands, 77, 102, 111— 113, 114, 116-118 passim , 123 n; and surveys, 78, 88, 95, 99, 114 n,

Index

227

veys of, 14 n, 16, 17, 18, 25, 70; Cenozoic, 18 n, 56 n, 69-70; and water resources, 28, 101; and min­ eral wealth myth, 39; Cretaceous, 53 and n, 54, 55-56, 60, 70; and gypsum, 55, 56; and stratigraphers, land development: and early surveys, 36, 80; and Dumble Survey, 91, 92, 150-153, 154; mentioned, 55 n, 60, 71, 72, 140, 153 94; as survey incentive, 27, 28, 82 land distribution: and railroad grants, Llano quadrangle: 144 41, 75; as survey incentive, 73, 81; Llano River: 5, 10, 12, 64 and speculation, 75, 77, 98, 109 n; Llano uplift: 72, 135 n, 143-145 and Turney Act, 109; mentioned, Long, Stephen H.: 7 74, 161. S e e a l s o land reform Loughridge, Robert Hill: 69, 70, 71, 73, 175, 176 land laws: and reform, 75, 77, 84, 88, 89, 98; federal, 77, 78, 79; state, Louisiana Geological Survey: 36, 148 Lucas, Anthony F.: 116, 148, 162 89, 99 n; Turney Act, 109 land offices: S e e Texas General Land Lyell, Charles: 9 Office; United States General Land McGee, W. J.: 81 n, 175, 176, 177 Office land reform: and state land laws, 75, Mclnnis, H. P.: 116 77, 84, 88, 89, 98; and Farmers’ McLennan County: 87, 121 Alliance, 76; and federal land laws, Maclure, William: 7 77, 78, 79; and surveys, 77, 94, Malone Mountains: 141 105, 160, 161; and diffusion of Marathon uplift: 143 mineral wealth, 110-113; men­ Marfa, Texas: 107 tioned, 80, 98, 101 n, 110, 123. S e e Marnoch, Gabriel W.: 134n a l s o land classification system; land Marcou, John Belknap: 176, 177 distribution Marcou, Jules: with railroad survey, Lang, W. W.: 4 2 n 17, 18 and n; discoveries of, 53Lanham, S. W. T.: 119 56, 58, 72, 134, 135; mentioned, 17 n, 59, 73 Laredo, Texas: 9n Marcy, Randolph B. : 15, 30 n lead: 110 Leidy, Joseph: 61, 68 n Marsh, Othaniel Charles: 62 n, 70 maps, geological: of United States, Leon County: 82 lignite: and mineral wealth myth, 10 n, 54, 55 and n, 136; inadequate, in 35, 48, 162; in East Texas, 31, 92, state surveys, 55, 95, 112, 119, 93, 94, 147; in Gulf Coastal Plain, 120, 131 n; and professional dis­ putes, 56; small-scale stratigraphie, 145, 146; mentioned, 30 n, 82, 126 n 61 n, 73, 133, 154, 175; of United limestones: of Balcones Escarpment, 51, 52, 57; of Central Mineral Re­ States Geological Survey, 78, 83, gion, 51, 59, 64 n; of Llano Esta­ 123 n, 127, 130, 133 n, 173, 175; cado, 56, 70, 144; mentioned, 13, and Texas General Land Office, 91, 53, 57, 60, 61, 63, 134, 140 115, 122; first reconnaissance, 142; Lincecum, Gideon: 37, 39, 45 n and federal-state cooperation, 155, 173-177 Lipan Flats: 107 n Lipscomb, A. G.: 116 Maverick, Samuel A.: 24 Meek, Fielding B. : 32 n, 56, 57, 58 lithologv: 49-50, 132, 150 Little Wichita River: 61, 62 Mendenhall, Thomas C.: 174 mercury: 125 Llano County: 86 Llano Estacado: geological history of, Merrill George P.: 177 5, 55, 56, 60, 64-65, 69, 70; sur­ Mesa de Anguila: 141 131; a n d la n d a c ts, 89, 99 n; im p ra c tic a litie s o f, 1 11, 1 1 2 ; a n d p r o s­ p e c tin g law , 112-113; m en tio n ed , 79, 112, 131, 161. S e e a l s o la n d refo rm

228

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Mesozoic period: 63, 64, 67, 137, 176 metamorpnic rocks: 12, 13, 65 Meusebach, Otfried Hans von: 11, 12, 29 Mexia fault: 67 Mexican Boundary Survey. S e e boun­ dary surveys, of 1853 Mexican War: 14 Mezes, Sidney Edward: 157, 158, 159 Mineral Act of 1889: 111 mineral lands: 27, 82, 117, 118 mineral wealth myth: and Central Mineral Region, 4, 5, 64-65; and silver, 10; creation of, 10, 12, 13, 160; and coal, 10, 28, 35, 48; as survey incentive, 10, 35, 36, 37-38, 42, 80, 160; and lignite, 10 n, 35, 48, 162; and copper, 26, 28, 35, 40-41, 48; and iron ore, 28, 39; reinforced by state surveys, 45, 48, 97, 110-111, 182; and platinum, 90 n; and tin, 90 n, 182; and TransPecos, 114, 161, 162, 163; Phillips’ realistic assessment of, 119 n Miocene period: 51, 67, 73, 149 Mississippi Geological Survey: 36 Mississippi River: 71 Mississippi Valley: 4, 59 Missouri River: 57 Missouri State Geological Survey: 30, 37 monocline: 141 Moore, E. T.: 116 Moore, Francis, Jr.: background of, 29-30; and spoilsmanship, 32; sur­ vey of, 32-33; mentioned, 30 n, 37, 40 n, 45 Moore-Mclnnis bill: 117, 185-186 Monroe, James: 7 Nacogdoches County: 46 n Nagle, J. C.: 174 Navarro County: 58, 82 New Braunfels region: and Prince Carl, 10, 11; Cretaceous divisions of, 51, 54; fault zone of, 52, 134; mentioned, 12, 66 Newlands Act of 1902: 102, 127 n New Mexico: 5, 14 n, 19, 55, 69, 128 New Orleans Academy of Sciences: 36

New York and Texas Land Company of Austin: 128 n New York Geological Survey: 30 n, 118 Noachian deluge: 6 North Concho River: 53 n Norwood, Joseph G. : 32 n Nueces County: 28 Nueces quadrangle: 136 Nueces River: 28, 153 oil: and Phillips Survey, 126 and n; and stratigraphie stuaies, 140, 148150; and subsurface studies, 147, 148; finding of, discouraged by state geologists, 147, 162; ana Bureau of Economic Geology, 157, 159; men­ tioned, 36, 46 n, 116, 117, 148, 162 Oklahoma: 7, 59 Osage Plains: description of, 5; and early surveys, 16, 25; as Carbonifer­ ous, 55 n, 59; and Permian geology, 56, 58, 59, 61-62; stratigraphie stud­ ies of, 137, 138, 139, 140; coal of, 160; and mineral wealth myth, 162; mentioned, 72, 92, 94, 107, 143, 174 Osbum, Henry F.: 152 Ouachita Mountains: 143 Owen, Josiah: 92, 107 n, 136, 183 Ozark Mountains: 7, 8, 13 Pacific Railroad Survey: inception of, 14, 15, 16; leaders of, 16, 17-18, 19; Texas routes of, 17; and artesian wells, 18, 19; mentioned, 17 n, 21, 30 n, 53, 55, 70. S e e a l s o Pope, John; Whipple, A. W. Paige, Sidney: 144, 145 paleontology: beginnings of, in Texas, 67, 69; and reconnaissance men, 72; and stratigraphie discoveries, 128, 129, 132, 140 Paleozoic period: and Central Mineral Region, 51, 62-64; mountain range of, 51, 72, 143; of Trans-Pecos, 6263, 142; and Llano uplift, 64, 144; and Guadalupe Mountains, 127, 139; mentioned, 59, 133, 137, 142, 143 Palo Duro Canyon: 5, 70

Index Panhandle High Plains: 5 Panic of 1893: 93, 107 Panola County: 87 Parker County: 46 n Parry, Charles Christopher: 18 n, 63 Pease, Elisha: 26, 27, 29 Pease River: 26 Pecos County: 117 Pecos River: and surveys, 19, 122, 123 n; mentioned, 5, 51, 60, 70, 116, 119, 173 Pedemales River: 52 n, 54 Penrose, R. A. F., Jr.: findings of, 145, 146; in Hill-Dumble dispute, 181, 183; mentioned, 65, 89 and n, 92 Permian geology of Texas: of Osage Plains, 56 n, 60-61, 138, 140, 154; of Llano Estacado, 56, 151; and Trans-Pecos, 58-60, 63, 138; com­ pared to European patterns, 60, 61; of Guadalupe Mountains, 60, 129; and stratigraphie methods, 73, 133; stratigraphie discoveries in, 137140; subdivisions of, 138; final proof of, 139, 154; and oil, 140; men­ tioned, 51, 163 Perry, J. B.: 71 Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sci­ ences: 133 n, 152 Phillips, William Battle: appointment of, to survey, 117, 118; and oil, 117, 162; as lobbyist, 124; and TransPecos work, 126-130; mentioned, 121 n, 128 n, 148, 158 Phillips Survey ( The University of Texas Mineral Survey): practical versus “academic” objectives of, 115, 117, 118, 128 n, 129 n; incep­ tion of, 115-117, 185-186; and Spindletop, 116, 118, 149; appro­ priations for, 117, 118-119, 131; and state legislature, 119, 121-123; lobbying for, 120-121, 124; contri­ butions of, 120, 131, 139; and wa­ ter studies, 121; opposed by Land Office, 121-122; maps of, 122; end of, 123, 124; cooperation of, with federal survey, 125-126, 127, 130, 155; reconnaissances of, 125-130, 142; and stratigraphy, 139, 149;

229 and land reform, 157; mentioned, 118, 124, 126 n, 155, 160 platinum: 90 n, 182 Pliocene geology of Texas: 69, 152 Polk County: 86 Pope, John: Pacific Railroad Survey of, 16, 17-18, 19; and artesian wells, 28, 60; mentioned, 30 n, 54, 81 n Populists: against Dumble Survey, 9394; controlling state legislature, 95 and n; mentioned, 107 Powell, John Wesley: and arid land reform, 77, 78, 79, 88, 110; co­ operation of, with state surveys, 81 and n, 89, 173, 174; mentioned, 99, 105, 106, 113, 127, 133, 137, 155, 161, 163, 182 Prather (University President): 120, 121 Pre-Cambrian geology of Texas: 64, 72, 143-144 Prendergrast, A. C.: 87 Presidio County: 107, 112, 114, 118, 120, 128 Preston, Texas: 17 Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels. S e e Carl, Prince of Solms-Braunfels prior appropriation: 100, 101, 106 professional disputes: Buckley-Roessler, 44—47 passim; Buckley-Shumard, 45, 46-67; of Cretaceous geologists, 54-55, 56, 58; MarcouHall, 54-55; and map priority, 56; and Marcou’s criticism of Shumard, 58; Marsh-Cope, 70; Hill-Dumble, 90 n, 135, 180-184; White-HiU, 133 n; Hill-Cummins, 151 n; and “Arkansas group,” 181. S e e a l s o spoilsmanship prospecting law: and land classifica­ tion system, 112-113; and Phillips' objectives, 118, 123; and school and University lands, 119-120; men­ tioned, 161 public lands. S e e land, school and University Quaternary period: and Gulf Coastal Plain, 67, 68, 71; and Northern gla­ ciation, 72, 150, 152; and Dumble Survey, 153

230

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

52 n, 67, 68 n, 69 riparian doctrine: 100 Robison, James T.: 123 rock units: 73 Railroad Commission bill: 93 railroads: surveys for, 14, 15, 16-19, Rocky Mountains: 6, 7, 8, 50, 51, 77 24-25, 26-27; and public land Roemer, Ferdinand von: and Adelsverein, 11, 12-13; describes Texas grants, 22, 25, 41; development of, geology, 12, 66; new methods of, 13 23, 28, 48; and land reform, 75, and n; discoveries of, 51-52, 59, 64, 77, 160; mentioned, 22, 87, 88 n, 134, 135; in Hill-Dumble dispute, 173. S e e a l s o Pacific Railroad Sur­ 183, 184; mentioned, 19, 54, 57, vey 64, 68 n rain-making experiments: 104 n Roessler, Anton R.: 40-41, 44-45, 46, Ratdesnake Tanks: 104 n 47 60^-61 73 Reagan, John H.: and irrigation, 99, 103 n; mentioned, 78, 85, 88, 110 n Rogan, Charles: 114-115, 116, 118 Rose, Archibald Johnson: 96 Reagan County: 150, 159 reconnaissance geology: definition of, Ross, Sul: 76, 85, 92, 93, 100 49; premise of, 50; shortcomings of, Ruby, G. T.: 42 50, 56, 57, 59; pre-Civil War find­ Ruffner, Ernest H.: 70 ings of, 50-51; and “individualities” Runnels, H. N.: 30, 31, 32 of Texas geology, 50-^51, 56, 58- Rusk, Tliomas J.: 15, 24 and n, 25, 69 passim , 72; contributions of, 51, 26 58; methods of, 66, 67, 72-73; and Sabine uplift: 66, 146 Trans-Pecos region, 125-130 St. Louis Academy of Sciences: 19, red beds: 59, 139, 140 33, 37, 45 n, 57, 60 Red River: in Kennedy’s description, 3; and surveys, 7, 15, 17, 26, 31; salt: domes, 67, 131 n, 132, 138, 148, 149; rock, 147 mentioned, 4, 5, 54, 58, 61, 152 San Angelo, Texas: 119 Reeves County: 129 Report on the Lands of the Arid Re­ San Antonio, Texas: 4, 9 n, 12, 21, 22, 51, 75, 134 n gions of the United States: 77, 99 reservoirs: and Irrigation Survey, 99; San Antonio and Mexican Gulf Rail­ road Company: 22 and Newlands Act, 102; recom­ mended by Dumble, 103 and n, 104; sandstone: 65 recommended by United States San Saba County: 107 Geological Survey, 105, 106 n, 129, San Saba mission: 12-13 130; other sites for, 106-107; pro­ San Saba River: 5, 31, 32, 53 n, 64 hibitive cost of, 107, 124; men­ Santa Elena Canyon: 141 tioned, 107 n, 155, 161. S e e a l s o Santa Fe, New Mexico: 21 Santa Helena plateau: 141 irrigation works; water resources Sayers, Joseph D.: 116, 118, 174 Richardson, C. N.: 82, 86 Richardson, George B.: 129, 130 n, school and University land. S e e land, school and University 131, 139, 142 Richardson, Willard: 38 Schott, Arthur: 18 n, 68 n Riddell, John L. : 10 n, 31 n Schuchard, Charles: 25 Riddell, William P.: 31 and n sedimentary rocks: 65, 68, 71, 144 Rio Grande: in Kennedy’s description, settlement: causes of, 42, 48; and 3; and surveys, 15, 18 n, 123 n; and Land Act of 1883, 75; of Trans-Balirrigation, 28, 125 n; dam proposal cones frontier, 75, 98; and federal land, 77; and frontier entrepreneurs, for, 107 n; valley of, 146; embayment of, 153, 162; mentioned, 10, 80; and water rights, 101 quicksilver: 114, 125, 130, 160 Quitman Mountains: 104 n

Index Shafter silver mine: 128, 142 Shaler, Nathaniel S.: 8 8 n, 89, 181 Shields, L. L.: 86 Shumard, Benjamin F.: as first state geologist, 29-33 passim ; and pro­ fessional disputes, 45, 46; inade­ quate stratigraphy of, 57, 65; stud­ ies of, 58, 60, 65, 134; mentioned, 33, 37, 40 and n, 68 n, 72, 73 Shumard, George Getz: with early sur­ veys, 16, 19; with first state survey, 30, 31, 33; discoveries of, 59, 60; mentioned, 56, 70 and n, 72, 73, 81 n Shumard Survey (Geological and Ag­ ricultural Survey of Texas): incep­ tion of, 23-24, 27-29, 167-169; objectives of, 29, 33; reconnaissances of, 31, 32; lack of records of, 32, 33 and n; termination of, 169; mentioned, 40, 60 Sierra Blanca: 141 Sierra Diablo cliffs: 104 n, 175 Simonds, Frederick W.: 181 Simpkins, Eidred J.: 82 Simpkins, William Stewart: 116 Silurian period: 63 silver: 10, 64, 65 n, 118, 129 Smith, Ashbel: 26, 38, 39 Smith, Eugene: 115 Smithsonian Institution: 30, 36 Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas. S e e Adelsverein soil. S e e land development Solitário uplift: 129, 143 Soto, Hernando de: 4 South Concho River: 107 n Southern Pacific Railroad: 75, 96, 141, 148, 162 Spencer, A. C.: 144 Spindletop: 116, 147, 148, 149, 162 spoilsmanship: 32, 33, 35, 40, 44-48 passim. S e e a l s o professional dis­ putes state legislature: and survey bills, 24, 26-29, 36, 38, 43, 48, 84, 107, 131, 167-173, 178-180, 185-186; and land reform, 29, 75, 101, 109 n; East Texans’ strength in, 29, 123, 145;

231 and distrust of non-Texans, 30 n, 35, 45, 89; factions of, 89, 93, 95 and n Sternberg, Charles H.: 138 Stolley, George: 26, 79 Stonewall County: 61 stratigraphy: dennition of, 9, 50; pio­ neer work in, 67-68, 137-140; in­ troduction of, to Texas, 73, 132; methods of, 132-133; subsurface studies of, 147-150 passim Streeruwitz, Wilhelm H. von: and land reform, 100 n, 104, 112; and miner­ al wealth myth, 114; and small-scale maps, 173, 174, 175; in Hill-Dumble dispute, 180, 181, 183; mentioned, 91, 105, 113, 141 n, 175 n Stremme, C. C.: 40 and n subsurface studies: 147-150 passim sulfur: 36, 147 Swallow, G. G.: 59 Swift, Ebenezer: 53 n Taff, Joseph A.: 136, 140-141, 180, 181 Tait, James L.: 92 Taplin, C. S.: 17 Tarr, Ralph S.: 140-141, 180, 181 Taylor County: 101 Tennessee: 20 Terán, General Mier y: 9 n, 51 Terlingua, Texas: 126 n Terlingua quicksilver district: 114, 127, 129, 130, 142, 143 Terrell, John J.: 120, 121-122, 123 Tertiary geology of Texas: and TransPecos, 63; and Llano Estacado, 64, 70-71, 151, 152; and Gulf Coastal Plain, 65, 68, 145; and stratigra­ phers, 146-147, 149, 152; and oil, 162 Texarkana, Texas: 25, 75 Texas, geological description of: 3-6 Texas Academy of Science: 106 Texas and Pacific Railroad: 42 n, 63, 75, 99 n, 129, 141, 142 Texas General Land Office: and sur­ vey control, 42; appropriations for, 114-115; and map failure, 122, 155; feud of, with Pnillips, 131; men­ tioned, 40, 77, 112 Texas Irrigation Association: 110

232

Geology and Politics in Frontier Texas

Texas Land and Copper Company: 41, 61 n Texas Mineral Association: 121 n Texas State Geological and Scientific Association: 79, 82, 85 Texas Western Railroad: 24-25 Thompson, Robert A.: 106, 107 Throclanorton, James W.: 23, 37, 39, 40, 45 tin: 90 n, 182 Tolar, Alfred H. H.: 101 Tomason, C. A.: 181 Topographic Atlas of the United States: 126 Trans-Balcones lands: description of, 4; surveys of, 23, 24, 26, 41, 46 and n, 49; and agricultural wealth myth, 48, 65, 75, 99; mentioned, 44, 56, 93, 98, 100 Trans-Pecos region: unique geology of, 5-6, 50, 62-63; surveys of, 18 n, 91, 115, 124, 125-130, 155; Permian geology of, 58-59, 72, 140; stratigra­ phy of, 58-59, 95, 139, 140-143; and irrigation, 100 n, 101, 104 and n, 106, 108, 121, 161; and mineral wealth myth, 110, 114, 119 n; maps of, 120, 173, 174, 175; mentioned, 65, 136, 161, 175 Travis County: 136 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: 14, 18 n Triassic period: and Great Plains, 55, 134; discoveries of, in Texas, 137, 138, 139; and Llano Estacado, 151, 152 Trinity River: 4, 10, 31 n, 52 n, 66 Tucumcari Mesa: 55 Tuomey, Michael: 71, 145 Turney, William Ward: 108, 109, 110, 124-125 Twelfth National Irrigation Congress: 124 Udden, John August: 128 and n, 130, 131, 139, 142-143, 150, 160 Ulrich, E. O.: 144 uniformitarianism: 9, 11 United States General Land Office: 40, 61 United States Geological Survey: and

stratigraphie methods, 73, 132; crea­ tion of, 78; and reservoir sites, 105, 106 and n, 127 n; cooperation of, with state surveys, 105, 106, 118, 125-126, 127, 130, 137, 139, 154, 155, 173-177; in Trans-Pecos, 115, 125-130 passim ; and maps, 122, 173-177 passim ; Texas bibliography of, 176, 177; mentioned, 50, 62, 78, 81 n, 82, 154, 161, 174 University of Texas Board of Regents, The: and survey control, 115; and Phillips Survey, 116-117, 118, 120, 128 n; and Bureau of Economic Geology, 157, 158 University of Texas Bureau of Eco­ nomic Geology, The. S e e Bureau of Economic Geology of The Univer­ sity of Texas University of Texas Mineral Survey, The. S e e Phillips Survey Uvalde Pass: 94, 136 Vaca, Cabeza de: 4 Van Horn Mountains: 104 n, 142 Vaughan, Thomas Wayland: 136, 137, 154 Veatch, Arthur C.: 148, 149 Waco, Texas: 4, 12 Waco University: 44 wagon road surveys: 15, 21, 22 Walcott, Charles D.: 127, 133, 143144, 145 Walker, Robert: 24, 25 Waller County: 116 Walsh, William C.: 74, 102, 104, 111 Washington County: 68 n Washita River: 53 water resources: as survey incentive, 27, 39; and water rights, 78, 99101, 106, 108; survey studies of, 80, 94, 121, 127 n, 136 and n, 137, 152, 160, 161; natural surface, 101, 107, 121, 127 n, 129, 136 n, 140; and wells, 103, 129-130, 147. S e e a l s o artesian wells; dams; ditches; irriga­ tion; reservoirs Weatherford, Texas: 4 6 n Webb County: 27 Wernerian theory: 6, 9, 51

Index Whig Party: 23 n, 28, 39 Whipple, A. W.: 16, 17, 55. S e e a l s o Pacific Railroad Survey White, Charles A.: 89, 133 and n, 137, 176 Whiting, William H. C.: 15, 5 2 n, 65 n Wichita County: 137 Wichita Mountains: 144 Wichita River: 26

233 Wigfall, Louis T.: 28 Wigfall bill: 167-169 Williams, Oscar W.: 127 Willis, Bailey: 144 Wilson, T. A.: 86 Wislizenus, Frederick A.: 14 n World’s Industrial Exhibition: 80 Yucatan Peninsula: 68