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

AAlned will merely quote = lew more sentences OF
ny sfticie Of September II 1857 than be has done.
"Aga, il Is denied il some Of these publications
10 Which am replying that Professor Mitchell ever
measured the peak known as Mt. MITCHELL wonder |
is expressed to how it ever got the name, and it
is said that he did not feel honored by it. &C. But
have already shown that he did publish its height
as ascertained in 1885, at 5s1 feet the only of
his measurements in fact that is found to be near
the truth In the same article, published June 26th,
1856 he said referring to his visit to the mountain
in 1914 /: -" People had already done me the honor
of naming the Knob near the Southern or savanna
noa end Of the Black Mountain, Mt. Mitchell, though
was not aware till the publication of Mr.. Cling.
mans article in the Washington Spectator, that it
was so generally regarded as the highest summit"
1t is said however, that for twenty-five years,
or from 1885, the high peak called Mt Mitchell
IL it not wonderfully strange them that Professor
Mitchell, when in the neighborhood on Caney river
in 1874 for the purpose of trying to get on it. never
heard Of this name, which it is pretended had been
in use for nine years! And is it not still more ex-
traordinaIy, that when he thus wrote in June OF
1856, he had never heard Of his great namesake!
The story that the of Mt Mitchell was applied
generally TO the highest peak by the citizens of
Yancy of any other county in the State, sheer
fabrication. Up to the time Of my letter to Prof
Henry, in 1855, and in fact till within few months
past never heard it suggested that it had been SO
applied by single human being
1t appears that my question solely had reference
to the fact that DR.. Mitchell had heard Of his
greatest namesake," viz: the highest peak in fact
Is it not manifest that Prof Phillips intended fall
sification of my positone But if his conduct shall
be held to arise from incapacity to understand SO
plain statement is it not at least useless for to
keep up any controversy with him?
But the statement from DR.. Mtchells letter to his
wife, which he gives an argument on the point
in controversy will excite smile Of derison where
the localities understood. Prof Mitchell, in one
IS ,,,odo fho rt0fO rOf Irno
1856, refers to the same thing, viz: that he had
been told when at Solomon Carriers in 1884, that he
could see Mt Mitchell from that vicinity. did not
heretofore think proper to comment on it because
of its absurdtv. Solomon Carter's residence is in
Buncombe county. and from It's vicinity neither Mt
Mitchell nor the highest or "Clingman's Peak can
be SEEM The only point of the Black visible from
the hill near that place, is that one which is desg
mated on Cookies map, as the Black Knob or Black
Stock Knob in the last edition The ridge of
Craggy which to the south from it and that of
Yeats Knob which extends to the northward, hide
from view all other portions of the Black Mountain
The nearest high point to this one, however, is Mt
Mitchell, about three miles to the east and beyond
it from Carriers, while the highest or :" Cngman's
| Peak is six miles off. As the name of Mt. Mitchell
had been applied for several years, or from the time
of DR.. Mitchells measurement Of 1888 to the point
which still has retained the designation the person
who conversed with DR.. Mitchell doubtless supposed
it to be that which he could from that Vi
cinity. This circumstance is, therefore, merely evil
| dence to prove that some point of the Black bore
that name but the presumption as to which is obv-
ously in favor of the peak well known as such, and
which like its fellow and neighbor, this Black
| Knob was easily approached from the head of
| Swannanoa. This circumstance, however, is very
T important in another point of view: Inasmuch as
Dr. Mitchell states it. in addition to the statement
name it is clear that if when he got into Yam
| cey, and was in the Caney river settlement the
| name of Mt Mitchell had also been ever applied as
| pretended now for nine years before that time,
! he would have heard of it and mentionedt-
! This is therefore conclusive as negative evil
dence be on this point As to the other testi-
mony referred to by Prof Phillips. it consists en-
tirely, with the exception of Mr.. Wilson's statement
already considered of two classes. The first which
antedate my publication of 1856, merely state
| ments that point Of the Black, supposed till then
to be the highest, was called Mt. Mitchell. In fact,
after my examination Of the highest peak, I found
that most persons in Yancey, we'll as elsewhere,
were rather incredulous to whether that peak
was in reality higher than Mt. Mitchell, which had
universally been regarded as the most elevated OF
the range. Nor was it conceded generally by peo-
| pie that was right in my estimate until Prof. Guy
| OTIS thorough examination had been made The
I second class of evidence produced, seems to have
been fabricated since the date of my controversy
with DR.. MITCHELL and which never would have been
invented but for that controversy, or ever thought
"a u
from persons whose knowledge of the different peaks
of the Black has most probably all been acquired
during this dispute it does not merit an extended
examination, does it tend in the slightes degree
to shake my original proposition.
| Towards the close of Prof Phiflips's article, he
complains that certain publishers and others call the
highest point Clingman's Peak, and says that Prof
Guyot reluctantly" does it. If it is intended t.
be animated that Prof Guyot in doing sacrificed
his convictions of right, that he believed in this
claim set up for DR.. Mitchell am at loss to know
upon what evidence it is made Immediately aftel
his examination of the Black, he was in huntsville
in Yancey county, and NJ. P. Penand, Esq, highly
respectable citizen there, informed me nv reach
irg that place in the autumn following, that he has
had full conversation with Prof Guyot, and that he
Prof Guyot said that he had Vim. Riddle ant
other persons, and that I was right and Prot
Mitchell mistaken as to the controversy between US
Let it be remembered that this conversation occur
red not only just after he had completed his survey
Of the mountain, but also after he had travelled will
DR.. Mitchell to its base and after he had been fur
nished by DR.. NJ with diagram or map represent
ing the mountain and the location of Mt Mitchell
claimed by him. I Prof. Guyot for the frs
time about two months ago, and neither in that con
versa,ion nor in any of the many letters which
have received from him in the last eighteen months
was there anything inconsistent with Mr.. Peniand'
statement of his first opinion. have no doub
however, that as a lover of science, he is reluc
tant 4" to take any part in such . contest and lie
probably, like all other disinterested persons,
amazed that such controversy should be kept u
BY Dr. Mitches friends on such grounds BY dis
interested persons, I mean to include all excep
some of Dr. Mtches friends and my political an
personal enemies. should think that enough ha
already been written to crafty the oaaity of tn
former and the hostility Of tho latter. As to tn
idea that this controversy is kept up out Of res
pect for the memory of the late Prof Mitchell, it
too preposterous to deceive any one. The Who'll
~ n 80 - kh~k H. MsSntNn
was on the highest peak in 1885, though be pei
sisted in declaring publicly and privately, to tn
close Of his life twenty-five years afterwards that
was not there If he should succeed in this attempt