"M. R.," Honesdale.Pa.: "In your last you say, 'Now climates must of necessity change.' Why 'of necessity?' I find no statement in treatises on the physical relations of the earth. I am interested very much in this matter, as I suppose you refer to the destruction of our forests".

[Forests were not in the Editorial mind. It is too wide a topic to enter on here; we had no thought the statement would be disputed. If, however, our correspondent will remember that water runs down hill, and that sand, stones, and earth go down with it, he may understand that it is only a question of time when an " everlasting " hill shall be on a level with the ocean. The delta at the mouth of the Mississippi, is indeed but earth much of which no doubt once formed the highest peaks of the Rocky Mountains. Then he will have to remember that winds, currents, snows, and other local phenomena in meteorology, depend on the heights of mountains, and, just as they lower, the conditions change. A tall mountain may be snow-capped all summer; when it gets lower it will have no summer snow, and no summer streams. Local climate must change in consequence. Even the deposits of earth at the mouth of the Mississippi will change the direction of the warm current, and this will modify the climate of the countries the warm water flows against.

A volcanic upheaval in the Atlantic Ocean would change the Gulf Stream, and in the short space of a few months, England and its bright flowers and green lawns might become another Iceland. As long as the laws we have briefly alluded to continue in operation, one is justified in the statement that climates must "of necessity" change. - Ed. G. M].