moments that it had never been laid down or claimed as part of our discovery, before he made so bold[1] an assertion to an American officer, that he had run over a clear ocean where I had laid down land; and I am not less surprised that that officer should have taken it for granted, without examination, that such was the fact."
These two extracts contain all the explanation that I have seen, except a letter addressed to the editors of the "Spectator," in reply to that of Captain J.H. Aulick, the American officer above alluded to. I had the pleasure of meeting him at New Zealand, and, in justice to him, I consider it proper to insert the following extract from his letter. After quoting the above paragraph from Lieutenant Wilkes's Synopsis, he says, "From the above statement, and in the absence of any explanation, it might well be inferred that both Ross and myself must be, to say the least, very shortsighted and dull of comprehension, not to have been able to see that it was Bellamy's (Balleny's) and not Wilkes's land that he (Ross) had run over. But in the statement above quoted, Mr. Wilkes has done us injustice, by omitting to mention one very important fact in this connexion, namely, that in laying down the land of Balleny on the chart he sent Captain Ross, he neglected to affix thereto the name of its discoverer, or to distinguish it in any way from his own land, there traced out, and almost connected with it. He also
- ↑ He elsewhere calls it an unfounded statement: p. 18.
