Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1858-01-16

wring 70 different persons Prof Phillips had threat
ened OF declared thai his map oculH not be sold in
some quarters. unless he would change the name
given to the highest peak Of the Black. ! cannot
perhaps better explain Mr.. Cookies position in the
matter, than by publishing an extract from one Of
his letters to me, which hope he will excuse NV
doing. Having heard that Prof Phillips and ons
other person had attempted 70 induce him to chance
the name, accompanied with threat to purchase
it. made enquiry Of Mr. Cooke, and from his letter
in reply make the following extract:
The position ! occupy is simply this: found
Mountain, and not feeling that l had any right to
change them, adopted them. Before Dr.. Mitchell's
death had no idea that he claimed that his name
had ever been applied to the highest lpeak The
following extract from letter from Dr. NJ to me.
dated June 14th, 1866, 1 think will show that he
down South of that :" (the highest peak.) The OBJ.
ject Of his letter to inform me that the whole
plan Of the mountain which you gave me was dis.
torted and out Of order; bearings, distances and
relative positions, all wrong" But to the extract
He is referring to tracing Of the mountain which
sent him: 1.-THE highest peak is very near where
Mt. Mitchell is placed on the map just at the boun
dairy between Yancey and Buncombe; what thew
call Mt Mitchell in the mountains, is away down
South Of that and three four miles from the basin
of Cany River" &c. 1 should say that Dr. Mitchell
afterwards wrote to me that he was mistaken in
thinking the plan of the mountain incorrect"
This statement corresponds precisely with what
Prof Mitchell had previously published as his view,
and doubtless agrees with the diagram map of the
Black which he furnished Prof Guyot. In other
words, Prof NJ. maintained that the highest peak of
the Black was the one near the line of Buncombe
and Yancey, and likewise on the edge of the Csny
river basn because, in fact he had assembled it di.
rectly from Cany river. But he thought Mt Mitch.
ell was away down South of this, and three or
four miles from the basin of Cany river" But in
fact Mt Mitchell answers his description, being
scarcely half mile north of the line of the two coun
ties, and directly the edge of the Cany river BASIN
from which he had assembled in 1874 to its northern
extremity, now called Mt. Gbbes, just one hundred
and twenty poles from Mt. Mitchell.
After Pref Mitchell's ascent in the summer of
1885, he admitted his mistake but he never preten.
ded that the northern Clingman's Peak" had
ever been called Mt. Mitchell. Had it. in fact ever
been so designated it could scarcely have failed to
reach his ear in some mode. Still more improbable
is it, that should never have heard of it, as was
in that region every summer. I suppose if Mr.
Cooke were to take the dispositions of fifty respect
able men living nearest they would all testify that
prior to the controversy between Prof. NJ and nv.
self, they never heard the name of Mr.. Mitchell ap.
piled to the particular peak now ascertaincd to be
the highest. The locality called Mt. Mitchell has
twenty, been as; we'll established as the locality
known as Chapel Hill, in Orange county. And up
on Prof Phillips process of argument, he migh
| complain of Mr.. Cooke because he did not think
proper to call Chapel Hill Mitchellsvle, upon the
ground that the long residence there Of the late
| Professor furnished more reason than existed in
some other cases, wherein towns had been named
after individuals. As to several other little points
made by Prof. Phillips, those who are acquainted
with the facts or who have read the former publ.
cations made by me, will not regard a reply as nee.
essary. Respectfully, &c.,
- . 20. e.. 81. T. L. C.