Part 6

Saturday was a bad day, as to weather; nevertheless several hundred visited the Giant.

Sunday was a crusher. The people began to go early, and kept going all day long. From eleven to three o'clock it was a dense mass of people on the Newell farm. Around the house and barns acres were covered with teams and wagons, and the road, for a long distance in either direction, was lined with them. It seemed as if such another jam never went to a show before, and it was with great difficulty that the line could be kept so that all could have a fair sight. All the proprietors were on hand, and did all they could to accommodate the crowd. At three P.M. twenty-three hundred tickets had been sold, Mr. Higgins bringing in the $1,150 received therefor, for safety. Not less than three hundred tickets were sold after three o'clock, so the total number of visitors for the day would be 2,600.

The Tully story of fraud is exploded. The mysterious man said to have visited that village, etc., turns out to be no other than a cousin of Mr. Newell's, a resident of Binghamton, and a tobacconist. He was on the grounds all day yesterday, and frankly told all there was of his visit at the time alleged, to the satisfaction of every one.

LETTER FROM A PETRIFACTIONIST.

EDITOR STANDARD:--Permit me to notice a few of the arguments upon the Cardiff discovery, appearing in your paper of Saturday last, and the Journal of the same day.

It seems a committee of the editors and owners of the Journal, named respectively Tom, Dick and Harry, of widely various characteristics, visited the Giant last week, and treat the subject on their return by articles published in that highly original sheet, according to their respective peculiarities. Tom, who is evidently admired in his family circle as a man of great humor, has so cultivated that faculty that it presents an abnormal development, and if petrification ever does overtake him, posterity may hope it will not operate upon his intellectual faculties. Dick, on the other hand, is gloomily satirical, and by the aid of that useful faculty utterly annihilates his opponents without saying anything. But last, Harry takes up the theme and treats it in a spirit becoming the gravity of the subject.

He thinks that the artist formed the figure according to a pattern, having a cold "corpse" conveniently by as a model, from which he could take "careful measurement," and proceeded to make this figure, not attempting, he says, to make this corpse look like a "living figure," which certainly was modest in the artist. He also says that he did not attempt to "supply the missing hair." The question very naturally arises here, "Why was the hair missing, and how long had the corpse been a corpse to lose its hair? and was it a pleasant occupation to do business with such a corpse?" This omission (i.e. to put on hair), Harry says, arose from "inexperience."

Now, experience is certainly an excellent thing, and when properly acquired and wisely used is undoubtedly of considerable benefit to mankind. But that it was necessary, in order to enable an artist to know that hair grows on the human head, we had not before supposed. Into such absurdities, oh Harry, does he run who abandons his familiar scissors for the unaccustomed pen.

I will briefly refer to the letter of Rev. S.R. Calthrop in favor of the statue theory. While it shows the scholarship of its author, his thorough appreciation of artistic influences, and the wonderful imitation of nature produced by the one who formed this figure, it does not seem to me to go very far towards proving his position. Starting off with the idea that many reasons may be given against the theory of petrification, he commences with number one, and then he stops; it is true he gives one other reason, but neglects to number it; and the two reasons are--

First, that evidences of stratification appear on the body, thereby assuming that they would not appear in a petrified body; and, secondly, that the separate members of the body are not detached from each other as they were in life, assuming also that this does occur in cases of petrifaction.

Are these assumptions correct as matters of fact?

The evidence as to the existence of strata in this body is very conflicting. A number of professional persons who visited this figure on Saturday, and subjected it to close scrutiny with a powerful magnifying glass, and who all, by the way, hold the "statue theory," say there were no evidences of stratification in the body; that what appears to be such is simply the difference in shading, produced by the greater or less density of the material composing the figure. The appearances indicating stratification are also explainable by the action of the water, charged with carbonate of lime, upon the body. The line of contact between the body and the water would necessarily receive a deposit of lime, causing a straight line of lighter color to appeal oi the body. It is also a fact, which I have learned from quite a number who first visited the body when it was submerged in water, that the present water level leaves exposed the nose, eyebrow and breast at the points where some persons now think they see stratification. In fact, deposits of carbonate of lime of a whitish color, even now, adhere to the left ear and side of the face which show the presence of that substance in the water, and that it will adhere to and become a part of the subject with which it is brought in contact.

Now, how is stratification produced in the formation of stone and rocks. It is said by geologists to be formed only when the original material forming the rock or stone has been transported and deposited by the operation of a body of water holding the material in solution, and depositing it in alternate layers at its place of destination.

How is a petrified body formed? Science answers, that it is formed by the gradual infiltration of silicious earth, pyrites of iron, carbonate or sulphate of lime, into the pores of the body, taking the place of the decaying parts, and substituting a new and original substance to take the place and form of the body petrified. These substances are always conveyed to their place of destination, and then applied to accomplish their purpose by the operation of water. The petrified substance may have none of the material composing the original figure, and the nature of the body formed either assimilates to the material around it, or is determined by that of which it is composed. So also all of the substances forming petrifaction may be found together in the same subject, or they may accomplish their work separately.

Silicious earth goes largely to form flint quartz and the various kinds of sandstone carbonate of lime, of limestone, and so of the other materials mentioned forming their peculiar kinds of stone. I have heard one statue-theorist trying to prove that the decayed portion of one of the legs showed the presence of flint, and therefore he argued it could not be a petrifaction. Not so. It probably would prove, if true, that the figure was not a statue, for pieces of flint are not found in such material, unless it be a petrifaction, in which case silicious earth would account for it. Now it is safe to say that there is no substance that enters into the composition of stone that does not enter into the formation of a petrifaction.

Now, these materials are, in cases of petrifaction, brought to the spot and deposited by action of the water--precisely such an operation as forms strata of rock; should it not produce the same effect in the appearance of successive layers or strata in the subject of petrifaction? With reference to the other objection to the theory of petrifaction, viz:--that the members of the body are conjoined and not detached--it is sufficient to say, from the very nature of the operation of petrifaction, portions of the body lying in contact would necessarily be conjoined and filled up. The wasting portions of the body are silently but surely supplied by nature, and as the transformation progresses, nature causes her deposit to adhere to its proximate kindred matter, and forms thus a solid and adhering body.

It is also somewhat worthy of observation that fossiliferous remains occur more frequently, than elsewhere, in marshy and swampy places in this country. Thus the low marshes known as the "Blue Licks" in Kentucky, and other similar places abound in specimens of fossil remains. These are often, indeed, quite commonly found near the surface of the ground, and it is a fact that the material and formation of marshy grounds change less through the operation of time than other places. The Pantine Marshes and the Marshfield Fens have preserved forms and characteristics for centuries upon centuries. Why is it then, that we are to be driven for a solution of the question as to the character of this curiosity to a hundred improbable and unnatural suppositions, when the thing may be explained by perfectly natural causes without violating any probabilities?

It is somewhat amusing to talk with the various advocates of the "statue theory," as each successive one is sure to knock over his predecessor's structure before he begins to build his own.

The endless suppositions which are produced to account for this marvelous work as a production of the sculptor are certainly a great credit to the imaginative faculties or inventive genius of our people, but people of ordinary intelligence find it hard to believe that men of wonderful genius and skill inhabited our original forests for the purpose of producing gems of art and then burying them in the marshes, or that men of culture and education go traveling in a wild and barbarous country encumbered by a piece of statuary weighing about two tons and being necessarily somewhat inconvenient to carry in our pockets. Yours, Com.

OPINION OF PROFESSOR HALL, STATE GEOLOGIST.

Professor Hall, gives the following definite opinion, in the Albany Argus of Monday, the 20th of October:

GENTLEMEN:--Your paragraph in this morning's issue, relative to the Onondagas Stone Giant, does injustice to the proprietor of that most remarkable object.

Dr. Woolworth and Prof. Hall left here on Thursday afternoon, with the intent of visiting, as they had been solicited to do, the supposed fossil giant or statue--for there were conflicting opinions in regard to its nature. On Friday morning they left Syracuse for Cardiff with Dr. Wieting and Judge Woolworth of the former place. As soon as practicable after their arrival, the tent was cleared of visitors, the party named were admitted and left to their undisturbed investigations for a full quarter of an hour; and when it is understood that the crowd outside were enough to twice fill the tent, and all desirous of seeing, and that the receipts of the owner for tickets were $26 per hour, it seemed scarcely civil to occupy a longer time.

The Giant, as has already been stated, is a statue of crystalline gypsum (not a cast) lying upon its back, or slightly inclining to the right side, and in an attitude of rest or sleep. The head is directed to the east, southeast, and the body, without support or pedestal, lies upon a thin stratum of gravel, which has been covered by about three feet or more of fine silt, in the bottom of which are some partially decayed roots or branches of trees-- doubtless floated there at the beginning of the silt deposit. The water, oozing from the southwest, along this gravel bed, has dissolved that side of the statue and gives it a pitted appearance, such as masses of gypsum or limestone acquire when long exposed to the action of the water. The earth at the sides of the pit bear no evidence of having been disturbed since its original deposition, and, to all appearances, this statue lay upon the gravel when the deposition of the fine silt or soil began, and upon the surface of which the forests have grown for succeeding generations

Altogether, it is the most remarkable object yet brought to light in this country, id altogether, perhaps, not dating back to the stone age, is, nevertheless, deserving of the attention of archaeologists. H. Albany, NY, October 23, 1869.

From the Syracuse Journal Oct. 25, 1869.

MORE THAN A NINE DAYS' WONDER.

The Onondaga Giant proves to be much more than a nine days' wonder. --Sunday completed the nine days of excitement and marvelings over this remarkable discovery, and instead of an abatement of the popular interest, it would seem that it has but just begun to be awakened. The attendance of visitors on Sunday was largely in excess of that of any previous day, and the number reached nearly three thousand. A new and large tent had been (erected, with increased accommodations, but it was found wholly inadequate to accomodate the crowds that occupied it from early morning till late in the evening. The agent for the proprietors raised a British flag over the tent, explaining that he thought some flag ought to be displayed, and that this was the only one he had there --a circumstance that was quite distasteful to very many of the visitors. An American flag has now properly been substituted. The number of visitors to-day is quite large, and as the people of the surrounding country are just waking up to the interest of the exhibition, many thousands will yet go to see it in the spot where it was unearthed.