Joseph LeConte, Berkeley, Gal.: I have read with some care and with extreme interest the work of Dr. Don, and have 110 hesitancy in expressing my high estimate of its value. We have here an example of laborious work undertaken in the true scientific spirit and by right methods. Loose statements and rash conjectures are here brought to the test of chemical analyses. By such work only may we hope to reach reliable conclusions and finally to solve the complex problems presented by the occurrence of ore-deposits. Such work as this is not only scientific but Is in the highest degree practical; for while a crude and imperfect science, by interfering with the results of approved empirical methods, may be positively hurtful, a more perfect science must eventually become the only sure guide to practice. Such a more perfeet science can only be reached by such work as Dr. Don's. I am sure every member of the Institute will unite with me in the hope that Dr. Don will continue his work, and that his example will incite others to similar work. S. F. Emmons, Washington, D. C.: I desire to bear my humble testimony to the great value of Dr. Don's paper to the science of ore-deposits, the thoroughness and accuracy of his work, and the immense amount of care-taking and tedious labor which it represents. The only regret with regard to it is that it could not have been published in full. No more important paper in its line has ever appeared in the Transactions. Indeed,
THE main objective of everybody, individually and collectively as the people of nations, is to earn their living and improve the scale thereof as much and as rapidly as possible. We are able to earn" our living only by working and producing. We I are able to rise to higher standards of comfort only by increasing our production of goods, or diminishing the waste of those that we do produce, or both. This statement is trite. It is equally trite to dwell upon the importance of increased production to be derived from increased efficiency of labor and improved manage-ment; and the good results that would accrue to every-body if employers and employees would work together to secure the maximum of production at the minimum of cost. All of this is nothing more than platitude, to which every intelligent person subscribes in the abstract; but what concerns us especially, and what is neither so easy nor so understandable, is to translate the expres-sion of the abstract principle into formulas for action. The national net income obviously may be increased in two ways, or by both together. One is to diminish the waste of the goods that we already have made available. The other is to increase the supply of goods. .Increasing the supply of goods may involve the elimina-tion of waste, but a distinction is to be drawn between the waste of things that we have and the failure to obtain those that we might have. If we limit the term "waste" to the careless and profligate use of the materials that have come into our possession, together with the absorption of labor in doing obviously unnecessary things; and if we character-ize by the term "inefficiency" the failure to accomplish in our industrial operations the best of which we are capable, we shall create a distinction that will be pro-motive of clear thinking. In this paper I am going to deal with inefficiency, not waste, observing the distinc-tion, arbitrary if you please, that I have made. Without any doubt the greatest inefficiency that exists in our economic affairs is that which causes hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of men to be idle a good deal of the time. The major reasons for such idleness are two-fold. One of them is the conse-quence of what for convenience may be called business cycles, although I do not hold to the hypothesis of business cycles as it is now being rather widely expounded. That hypothesis involves the idea of rhyth-mic undulations due to causes unknown, but which it is hoped may be ascertained. The movement of busi-ness in waves up and down is undeniable, but that there are recurrences of cycles every so often is purely imag-inary, I think. It is unnecessary-to digress into that subject. The extents of the rises and falls above and below a median line undoubtedly is less than is commonly supposed.
The function of a preposition is to show the relation of one thing to another; it is necessary therefore for the writer to select the preposition that indicates the particular relation, otherwise he will fail to express himself clearly. Is it against common sense' to suggest that a Government is justified, morally as well as constitutionally, in preventing the decay of an industry by insisting upon the amalgamation of the prosperous with the needy? All these seven prepositions are used correctly. With the first dredge introduced in Russia, of Werf Conrad, Haarlem, make, this method of alluvial dining became important. Here the prepositions "with", "in", and "of" are used wrongly. He means: "This method of a1lu;ial mining sprang into importance shortly after the first dredge, made at the Werf Conrad, Haarlem, was introduced into ;Russia." The statement itself ii not true, but for that I am not responsible. Once, while I was serving with him, we were frozen in out of sight of land in the Gulf of Pichili in the North of China. Admiral Fisher wrote thus. He has used nine prepositions in making this brief statement. The sequence of three prepositions "in out of" is particularly awkward.
Lake Superior Paper - Discussion of Dr. Don's paper on the Genesis of Certain Auriferous Lodes (see p. 564)