Chapter II: Part 2

"Hands off," was the imperative order of the proprietor, and I bowed to the decreer. I craved permission to apply a drop of acid in order to determine certainly whether the material was gypsum or ordinary limestone, but my request was denied. If on the application of acid there had been no effervescence, the inference would be that the specimen was not limestone, the material of which petrifactions are usually composed. But although chemical tests and manipulations were prohibited, there seemed to be no disposition to forbid the use of our eyes--at a respectful distance. And the proprietor very kindly refrained from exacting a promise that we would not express an opinion, if we should have temerity enough to form one.

I take it that this specimen was carefully placed in its present locality. Had it been washed from a distance, it would have been fractured and mutilated, and it would not in all likelihood, have lodged in its present easy and natural position.

If this were once a living man, he must have died ages and ages ago. If buried, the accumulated deposits upon his grave, in this low piece of ground, during thousands of years would have been deeper than three feet. If he were drowned, or if he lay down on the surface of the earth to die, the flesh would have decayed and dropped from his bones without petrification. If he were petrified in his present locality, we ought to find other petrifications in its immediate neighborhood, whereas all the twigs and branches which covered and surrounded him are free from the slightest encrustation.

Human bodies do not petrify in layers; but the strata in the Cardiff giant, especially on the left side, are as manifest as they are in a ledge of rocks. The eye brows, the tip of the nose, the breast and the thigh are of the same stratum, and the layers in the right arm are clearly of different degrees of density.

The conclusion seems irresistible that the giant is a work of art rather than of nature. The sculpture must have been done some years ago, or the lower parts of the figure would not have crumbled and been washed away by the sluggish oozing of the water through the soil.

Its age cannot antedate the present race of men, for the shape of the head and the features are entirely modern. The old-time people, as portrayed in the sculpture of Assyria and Egypt, had no such heads as this. The artist evidently took a corpse for a model and proportioned his colossal figure by careful measurement. He was thus enabled to secure the general anatomical accuracy for which his giant is remarkable. He followed the model very closely, not attempting to represent a living being, not venturing even to supply the missing hair. And these omissions, the result of inexperience, furnish, singularly enough, the principal arguments to the petrifactionists. For the popular opinion that the body and head are hollow, that the nostrils and other orifices are open, and that the tendons in the decayed leg are visible, has not the slightest foundation. Why was this image made? Why hidden? and by whom? are questions which I must be excused from answering at present. HENRY

THE BELIEF OF THE ONONDAGA INDIANS--THE BODY OF AN INDIAN PROPHET.

To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:-- In your columns devoted to "Letters from the People," I thought you would at this time publish the following, it being interesting as one of the current opinions of the Indians of "the Castle" regarding the wonderful "human petrified statue," which, in its colossal proportions and the sphynx-like silence of its history is so electrifying and exciting the people.

By one of the old squaws I am told that a large number of Onondagas believe that the statue is the petrified body of a gigantic Indian prophet, who flourished many centuries ago, and who foretold the coming of the pale-faces, though long before the foot of our forefathers had touched the western continent. He warned his people with prophetic fervor of the coming encroachments of the white man, and the necessity of their abstinence from a poison drink he would bring to craze and destroy them. He told them that he should die and be buried out of their sight, but that THEIR DESCENDANT WOULD SEE HIM--AGAIN. J.P. FOSTER, State Agent and Teacher for the Onondaga Indians.

THE STONE GIANT.

On Saturday the sale of the remaining one-half interest in the Great Giant Wonder was closed up. Another partner, Mr. Wm. Spencer --an old-time schoolmate of Mr. Newell--was taken in, so that the present owners are Wm. C. Newell, of Cardiff, Alfred Higgins, Dr. Amos Westcott and Amos Gillett, of this city, David H. Hannurn, of Homer, and Wm. Spencer, of Utica.

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.

The interest in the subject abroad is also now fairly developing. The discovery was at first looked upon as a humbug, but this view is giving way before the facts presented in the local papers. The leading journals of the country have sent special correspondents to write up the subject. The New York Tribune and Herald, Harper's Weekly, the Springfield Republican and other papers, have already had their representatives at the scene of the discovery. The new proprietors, --who are now stated to be Messrs. William C. Newell, of Cardiff, Alfred Higgins, Dr. Amos Westcott and Amos Gillett, of this city, David H. Hannum, of Homer, and William Spencer, of Utica, propose to continue the exhibition where it has thus far been held, till difficulty in reaching the locality occurs from bad weather, then to remove the giant to this city, where it will remain till the local curiosity is satisfied, and then convey it to New York and other leading cities for public exhibition.

THE VALUE OF THE GIANT WONDER.

We learn from a reliable source that $20,000 was offered on Saturday by a perfectly responsible party and in good faith, to two different persons holding interests in the stone giant, for one-quarter share of the stock in the wonderful statue, and the offer was promptly declined.

AN ANCIENT COIN FOUND IN THE EARTH TAKEN FROM THE GIANT'S BED.

On Saturday last, Mathew, a son of Dr. Alexander Henderson, veterinary surgeon, of this city, while visiting the Cardiff giant, picked up from the surrounding debris thrown out of the excavated resting place of this huge work of stone something that seemed like a blackened scale of brass or a rusty old button. Thinking that it might have some affinity to the wonderful statue, the lad rubbed the dirt and rust from its surface between his finger and thumb, and burnishing it a little by rubbing it in the folds of his coat skirts, it showed evidence of being an old copper coin, and he accordingly placed it carefully in is pocket, and brought it home. Dr. Henderson, the lad's father, applied some acids to it, when an ancient coin, of nearly the eleventh century, revealed itself.

On the obverse side of the coin is the head of the Emperor Jestyn, with a full flowing beard from the chin, and the sacred heart strung from a rosary in the shape of a shield, or breast-plate, strung around the neck. Beneath the Emperor is the date, "1091," and around the edge of the coin is the following inscription-- "JESTYN-AP-GURGAN, TYWYSOG-MORGANWG." The interpretation of this, as rendered by a competent Welshman, means, "Jestyn, son of Gurgan, Prince of Glanmorgan." On the reverse side is the figure of the Goddess of Commerce, seated on the wheel at her side, the pillar and ancient crown, wreathed with the national emblem, the oak, the shield and spear supported by the left hand, and the right hand pointing to a ship on the distant sea, with full sails set, which she seems intently gazing at. The inscription around the circle is in the Welch language, and reads as follows:--"Y. BRENAIN-AR- GYFRAITH," the interpretation of which is "The King and the Laws." The coin is 778 years old--over seven and a half centuries--and on the edge of the rim can be distinctly seen "Glenmorgan Half Penny," with representations of leaves intertwining. The denomination of the coin is imprinted in raised letters, and everything connected with it shows it to be a coin of the reign of the emperor whose name it bears. Further, in connection with the unearthing of the stone giant, its discovery in the loose dirt thrown up from the bed of the excavation where the statue was found, and yet lies, is certainly quite interesting, and seems to add to the general interest that attaches to this great and unexplained mystery of the Nineteenth Century.

PROBABILITIES THAT IT WAS TRANSPORTED ON THE WATER-COURSES FROM THE SEA-BOARD.

Although there are still intelligent advocates of the petrifaction theory, the preponderating weight of opinion supports the view that the giant wonder is a work of art. We understand all the scientific gentlemen, who have been permitted to make thorough examination, to be agreed in this decision.

The next question is, How did it come to be where it was discovered? There is very little probability that it was carved on the spot where it was recently exhumed; the stone for that purpose was not likely to have been found there or to have been taken there; and the situation where it was discovered, a morass or water-bed, favors the theory that it was deposited there. Setting aside the belief, honestly entertained by many people in the immediate vicinity, that the statue was surreptitiously placed in the slough where it was dug up a few days since, there is tenable ground for the theory that it was taken there by some of the early white visitors to this section of country. This might have been done by transportation over the water-courses communicating with the locality, either through the River St. Lawrence, Lake Ontario, the Oswego River, Onondaga Lake and Onondaga Creek, or through the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, Oneida Lake and River, Onondaga Lake and Onondaga Creek. These waters were early navigated, and within the memory of persons still living the principal means of transportation was by batteaux, which with considerable loads were propelled along these water-courses. The Onondaga Creek was in those days navigable for light-draft craft capable of conveying a much greater weight than this statue, at least as far up its waters as the place of this discovery.

The place of the discovery is not in the original channel of the creek, but in a detour from that channel. It is not unreasonable to suppose that for some reason--from alarm, or from a desire to secret the object,--the craft was run out of the main channel into this then open water-way, where the statue was deposited.

The early Jesuit visitors to this vicinity may have had this statue in their keeping. It may have been fashioned by some of their number. It is not impossible, that it may have been brought here, or even have been carved out at some place not far distant, by other of the early visitors to this region. We expect that light will be thrown upon these speculations, by the scientific investigations, which will determine the exact nature of the material of which the statue is composed, by which alone some hint of its place of origin may be derived. The intimations given us by Professor Hall, in our brief interview with him, impressed us that he looked upon the statue as of great antiquity, antedating the present geologic period, and equaling in interest and importance the discoveries made in Mexico of archaeological remains, indicating a high degree of civilization in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries.

WHEN WAS THE STATUE PUT WHERE IT WAS FOUND?

To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:-- If it would not be asking too much, I would beg leave to say a few words through the columns of your paper. In Saturday's issue of the Standard I notice a letter written by "Skeptic," which that paper calls "silly," and charges the writer with being "lacking in the upper story." This is a misfortune, truly; but I have taken some trouble to investigate these reports and find them vouched for by highly respectable parties. There are, to my mind, several reasons for the belief that this wonder has not occupied its present position longer than is intimated in the above mentioned letter.

The soil where it was found is soft, and an excavation large enough to admit the object could easily be made in an hour or two. The location is favorable for such purpose, being behind the buildings, and hidden by the abrupt bank; a little straw or other litter would cover all traces. Then, if the stone man be moulded from cement, it would not weigh near what it would if cut from stone, and could be handled with ease by three or four men. This idea that the curiosity was cast or moulded, is strengthened by the fact that it has no other support than the ground upon which it rests. Had it been the work of a sculptor it would have had a tablet for support. Now, you ask, perhaps, where was the pattern made, if moulded, and how could the parties making the cast escape detection? I would ask, who carved it, if a stone, and where did the sculptor bring out such a work without the knowledge of the fact being discovered?

It is said by those who ought to know something about our gypsum quarries, that there are no such slabs of stone found there out of which this object could be carved. Further, it is allowed by all who have examined this wonder, that the head appears to have been hollow. Now, if the head is hollow, it is either a moulding or else it must be what those interested claim for it: a veritable petrifaction. No sculptor would carve the head in that condition.

But I have used too much of your valuable time, so I will close. TULLY, Oct. 23d, 1869. CONE WILLIAMS

OF WHAT SCHOOL OF ART IS THIS STATUE?

To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:-- In the discussions relating to the "Giant," I find there are many who favor the Grecian and Roman school of sculpture. The Greeks and Romans excelled the early Egyptians in one thing only, that is representing the human hair. Their male statues have flowing and bushy locks and a beard. On the Egyptian statue, the hair looks more like a skull cap on the back of the head, than hair, with no indication of beard. They had been so afflicted with plagues through the Israelites, that they would have nothing that was like them, or that reminded them of them. The Cardiff giant has no beard and nothing on the forehead to indicate hair; behind the ears running up to the crown, there seems to be something, that when he is raised, may show the Egyptian school of sculpture. As art goes from one country to another, the style changes somewhat to suit the taste of the people. In America, at first, our sculptors and painters copied from the French and Italian schools, but put on a little more drapery, as our people were modest and would not bear a true copy. Time, the destroyer of all things, has turned the drapery into dust, and we now have the original in all its glory and shame. W.

P.S.--A hard-shell brother at my elbow says he will go his bottom dollar that the Cardiff chap is the original "Poor Uncle Ned, who had no hair on the top of his head;" he has lain down there and got Klu-Kluxed. (Klu-Kluxed is a Greek word, and means petrified or dried up.) The only objection to his theory is, Uncle Ned's shin bone curved backward, this man's curves forward.

CUT OF THE GIANT.

We herewith present a wood cut of the Giant. We have waited for an engraving from a photograph, in order to insure in every part of the pamphlet the utmost accuracy. The taking the photographs having been delayed, we present a sketch until their completion. The owners of the Giant furnish this publication alone with photographic copies--which will appear promptly on completion.

[[Wood cut here of giant and spectators]]

A MITE IN THE SCALE.

To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:-- Clark's "History of Onondaga," Vol. 1, page 43, near the bottom, says:--"The Quis-quis, or great hog, was another monster which gave the Onondagas great trouble, as did also the great bear, the horned water-serpent, the stone giants, and many other equally fabulous inventions, bordering so closely upon the truly marvelous, that the truth would suffer wrongfully if related in full; but nevertheless are found among the wild and unseemly traditions of the race." H.

LETTER FROM PROF. WARD.

The following letter from Prof. Henry A. Ward appears in the Rochester Democrat, and will be found to be well worthy of perusal. Prof. Ward takes high rank among the scientific men of the country, and an opinion from him is certainly entitled to respectful consideration:--

EDITOR DEMOCRAT--I have just returned from a hasty visit to the colossal statue, or "Fossil Giant," as many have called it, which is now causing so great an excitement in our sister city, Syracuse, and in all the country for many score of miles around.

This great archeological wonder is located in the Onondaga Valley, on the west side, about three-quarters of a mile from the village of Cardiff. The valley itself is one of erosion, dating its birth to the time when the gradual rise of our continent from beneath the ocean's waves had subjected all this portion of our State to the fierce furrowing and deep denuding action of violent currents of water, aided in their work by floating masses of ice and by rock debris carried by and often frozen into these masses. For about twelve miles south from Syracuse the valley is quite narrow, but here the hills recede on either side and sweep widely around in two high crescent-like ranges to meet again (or nearly so) at a point three or four miles higher up the stream. Within the sort of amphitheater thus formed, and at the foot of the western hill, is the farm of Mr. Newell. His house and outbuildings lie at the edge of the slope, and touching a low meadow which extends for a hundred yards or more to the bushy margin of a creek beyond. A smaller stream or a branch of this same appears at one time to have run close to the hill, leaving faint traces of its contour on the meadow, and one small elliptical swale or soft, boggy spot, a few yards across, near the lower corner of Mr. Newell's barn. It was while digging a shallow pit in this swale that the relic was found. It is a gigantic human figure lying on its back, with its head to the east and feet to the west. The head is in the position commonly given to a corpse; the right arm extends downwards, with the hand and fingers spread stiffly across the abdomen; the left arm bends down along the left side, with the hand quite under the middle line of the body; the left hip is raised a trifle, the thigh and leg more so, so as to bring the lower part of the left leg and foot obliquely across and over the same parts on the right. The posture is in all one that a dying body left to itself might naturally assume. The entire length of the figure is ten feet two and a half inches, and the other parts of the body are proportionately colossal.

Its head is of a very elongated type, but well shaped, and with a countenance full of solemn, dignified composure. The features are purely Caucasian, having neither the high cheek bones of the Indian, nor any other facial outlines which mark the type of other Aztec aborigines.

To describe the appearance of this great figure as being strange and impressive is saying too little.

Lying as it still does, in its original earthy bed, its grey massive form hardly yet still from the struggles by which it seems to have freed itself, and the face, body and limbs still damp with the ooze of its low sepulchre, it possesses the beholder with a feeling of extremest awe and profoundest wonder. To interrupt these emotions by speculations as to its personality, to approach this majestic figure with the calm processes of scrutinizing investigation, seems a sacrilege. All one's feelings persuade to accept it as a real human being, once instinct with life and activity, now a noble corpse. The proprietors of the giant figure, or statue, as we shall now call it, use all due effort to strengthen this feeling, and enlarge the belief that their wonderful discovery is really a petrified human being--a genuine" Fossil Man" preserved entire, with flesh and bones changed to stone in the very place where he fell at death, or possibly was buried by his coevals of an olden time. All opportunities of close examination are refused; indeed, the present throng of visitors would make such general permission impracticable. The little, darkened tent, and the pit shaded by a triple row of spectators, whose heads almost touch across it in their earnest efforts to see the body below, made it quite impossible for me to obtain that thorough acquaintance with the huge object which I would have liked. But I saw enough in the fifteen minutes (only) which are allowed to each set of visitors within the tent to fully satisfy myself of the true nature of the figure.

The "Onondaga Giant" is the work of the sculptor, and out of a single large block of the gypseous limestone (an upper member of the "Onondaga Salt Group") which forms large beds in the immediate vicinity. This stone is very strongly marked by lines of deposition, causing bands of different shades extending in horizontal layers, perfectly even and parallel through large quarry masses. In the present in stance these layers are so disposed--in the way the sculptor chose his block--as to cut lengthwise through the whole body, and to mark off different leads over the entire figure. Thus the left hip and left breast present (cameo-like) a layer different and higher than the one which forms the corresponding parts on the right side of the body. The head, too, with its different elevation of chin, nose and forehead, is very strongly marked in the same way. These linings are well-known peculiarities in the original deposition of a stratified rock, and are not features assumed in the petrifaction of any organic body. Further peculiarities of the Onondaga gypsum are very noticeable in the block, and among them is the peculiar style of decomposition by which the whole lower part of the figure is affected, as also one side of its head. Here the soluble earths, with any portions of carbonate of lime, have been dissolved away, and the pure granular sulphate (snowy gypsum) remains, standing up with ragged, uneven, cavernous surfaces, which is a feature very noticeable everywhere in weather-worn fragments of this rock. This decomposition or rotting of the lower side of the left leg gives a very vivid semblance to the corruption of actual flesh, and has doubtless had much to do with the ready reception which the "petrifaction" theory has found among the mass of visitors--even including many men of intelligence and general education. If such persons will refer to works which treat of petrifaction in all their various kinds of transformation and in all the thousand genera and species of fossil organisms, they will find that although bones, shells, and the hard parts of animals, changed to stone, yet preserving their original outlines, are of constant occurrence, yet there is not a single instance on record of fossil flesh; of the fat, muscle or sinew of man or beast changed into stone or into any substance resembling stone. To a person acquainted with the nature of petrifaction, the slow substitution of mineral for animal matter, particle by particle, the reason why humor of other flesh does not undergo the same change will be apparent. This is truly not entirely in accordance with popular belief, nor with the ever-recurring stories in our public journals. "A fish nearly a foot long, petrified to solid stone" has lately been cited in your columns as another instance of the petrifactions of the Onondaga Valley. I visited this yesterday at the Museum of the Onondaga Historical Society, at Syracuse, and found (what I had before surely surmised,) a simple, short, club-like fragment of limestone, worn by running water to a form like a little fish. "This it was and nothing more."

It is proposed--and very properly--that this Onondaga relic should be submitted to the examination of Professor Hall, Agassiz, Leidz, or some other of our geologists known to fame and infallible experts in these matters. This were well. But there is another court which I think, would pass quite as prompt a decision. I believe that a sculptor, in examining this most singular specimen, would at once recognize its artificial character. The devices for saving time or for adding strength, partially cutting out the figure, are sufficiently apparent in the object before us. The legs--with their heavy thigh, the swollen knee portion, the swollen calf and slender ankle, all touch on the outline length as they lie over each other, with no open space between, or no point where one folds down upon the other with a sharp line of contact of the two surfaces. The same thing, too, is noticeable in the arms and in the fingers of the hand, where the flesh, instead of sloping away-- one rounded surface finely leaving another--is cut down square, as if some unnatural out growth of flesh had formed a uniting portion beneath the member. This is a too common device in the coarser grades of sculpture to escape notice here. Our sculptor would certainly find fault with the very constrained position of the body, its feet awkwardly crossed and its left arm twisted rather than laid backward under its body, certainly this is not the attitude in which a sculptor--a man of taste--would place his handiwork. Still, may it not be an admissable theory, that the oldtime artist was constrained in the form which he should give his statue, by the form and dimensions of his gypsum block. If there was not material sufficient to carve out both arms lying across the breast, he might find enough to make one of the arms below. If the lower left hand corner of the block were broken off, he might still bring out both feet by lapping one over the other, and letting vertical space atone for lateral want of it. If our sculptor, finally, will look sharply upon the legs and body in such parts as have escaped the considerable water-wearing which has smoothed most of the figure, I think that he will see plainly the marks of the graving tool of his ancient colleague. But, as he now has the figure in charge--I positively rejecting it as being no fossil--I will leave to him and the Archeologist to study and puzzle upon it. Dr. J.F. Boynton, of Syracuse, (to whom, by the way, belongs the credit of having first discerned and recorded in print that this is a statue), says, "I think that this piece of reclining statuary is not 300 years old, but is the work of the early Jesuit Fathers in this country, who are known to have frequented the Onondaga valley from 220 to 250 years ago; that it would probably bear a date in history corresponding with the monumental stone which was found at Pompey Hill in this county, and now deposited in the Academy at Albany. All these are points which Archaeologists and Ethnologists may yet determine. Will not Hon. Lewis H. Morgan leave Rochester by an early Monday train and see this most wonderful statue while it is still undisturbed in its bed. H. A. WARD. ROCHESTER, October 23, 1869.

LETTER PROM GEN. E. W. LEAVENWORTH.

To the editor of the Syracuse Journal:-- This subject does not seem, even yet, to be exhausted, much as has been written in regard to it. Having spent an hour yesterday in the inspection of the great mystery, permit me hastily to give you the results of my observations.

THE LOCALITY.

For the benefit of the large number who will not be able to visit the locality, it may be well to define more fully and precisely the exact spot in which it was found. It is near the west line of the town of Lafayette, in the upper section of the valley of the Onondaga Creek, called Christian Hollow--a short two miles above the south line of the Reservation of the Onondaga Indians. The valley at this point is about half a mile in width, and there are two north and south roads running through it, directly at the foot of the hills on each side. The small village of Cardiff nestles under the eastern hills, about half a mile directly east of the locality in question, which is precisely at that point where the slope of the western hills meets the alluvial valley of the Onondaga Creek. This point is about one hundred feet east of the west road, and about two hundred feet west from the bank of the creek. On the west the ground rises moderately to the road, then more rapidly to the top of the western hills, some eight hundred feet above the valley below. On the east it is nearly or quite a dead level to the creek, the ground being evidently all alluvial. The valley is beautiful-- thickly settled and under high cultivation.

THE POSITION.

The statue--for such I am sure it is--lies in a hole about twelve feet long, five feet wide at the top, and four at the bottom. The soil of the first three feet, or a trifle more or less, is the common alluvial soil of the Onondaga valley. The next foot is gravel, which rests on the solid clay. The ends of many pieces of wood project through the gravel and some are found in the soil above.

IS THERE ANY FRAUD OR DECEPTION.

Those familiar with the frauds practised in other countries in the manufacture and sale of antiques, and perhaps others, would have a vague suspicion that this might furnish another instance, nearer home. My own mind was not free from such dreams. And notwithstanding the apparent impossibility of finding a place where such a stone might be obtained--of quarrying, working, transporting, and burying the same, and keeping it a profound secret, I still had my suspicions. But the first look at the statue dispels from the mind every thought of that nature. It has the marks of the ages stamped upon every limb and feature, in a manner and with a distinctness which no art can imitate. I have not seen the first person who entertained any doubt of its great antiquity, after looking at that most wonderful and inexplicable figure. The time spent in manufacturing and retailing the simple and absurd rumors which circulate through the community and find their way into the papers, is weakly and foolishly thrown away. It is a serious and most remarkable reality, and one which as yet have received no satisfactory explanation, and probably never will.

IS IT A STATUE OR A PETRIFACTION?

Serious doubts are really entertained on this subject, and it is elaborately discussed. I must confess that I have none whatever, and for the following reasons:

First--There is no satisfactory evidence that any one person ever lived in any age or country of this world, of the statue of ten feet, unless it be Goliah of Gath. I know very well what is claimed and said on this subject, but the evidence would not satisfy a jury of intelligent men.

Second--There is nothing in the general aspect, which leads any one to think it anything but stone. I venture to say, that were it in any other form, such a supposition would never have arisen.

Third--The stratification of the stone is perfectly visible, even to the imperfect observation now allowed. Mr. Calthrop's letter is full and satisfactory on this subject, but in addition to the places pointed out by him, the stratification may be seen on the left shoulder, and I think on the top of the head. That upon the left breast is, however, most clear, distinct and satisfactory.

Fourth--The whole statue, in all its parts, furnishes the most conclusive evidence, that it was all cut from one stone. It is quite clear that the stone has been cut away just far enough and only just far enough to show the legs, the arms and the fingers.

Fifth--The fracture of the stone along the left leg,, and especially on the heel of the left foot, which seems to be recent and fresh, is the fracture of our common gypsum, and leaves no doubt, so far as the eye can determine, that the material is stone.

It is said that on striking the head or the chest, it gives forth a sound indicating that the statue is hollow. Such evidence must in any event be very uncertain, and now no such experiments are permitted.

No one is permitted to touch the statue, but I was allowed to look at it with a powerful glass at my leisure.

I have carefully read the nine points made in the Standard of the 23d, to its being a statue. None of them are conclusive, nor, as it seems to be very strong, do they affect my belief on the subject. The marvelous has a great attraction for all of us, but we cannot afford to surrender our better judgment for the luxury of enjoying a belief in it.

In the meantime, why will not Mr. Newell run a dozen or twenty trenches from the locality of the giant, in every direction, down through the alluvial soil to the clay, and see if other discoveries may not be made, which will throw light on this one?

Very respectfully, E.W. LEAVENWORTH, SYRACUSE Oct. 20th, 1869.

From the Syracuse Journal, Oct. 27th.

LETTER FROM PROFESSOR HALL, THE STATE GEOLOGIST ALBANY, Oct. 26th, 1869.

Messrs. Truair & Smith, Publishers of the Syracuse Journal: GENTLEMEN:--I have just received your favor of the 25th instant, in relation to the "Stone Wonder," visited by us. There can be but one opinion about it, I think.

It is a statue, cut in gypsum, and intended to represent a human form of colossal size in a recumbent posture. As to its source or origin, I cannot conjecture. It is worn and dissolved by water to a degree that indicates long inhumation, and it is covered by an alluvial deposit of three feet or more in depth. The sculpture is of a high order and very different from those of Central America. I enclose you a few paragraphs* which I wrote in reference to a statement that I had not been permitted to examine the object in question. I do not see that we can say more at present. I am respectfully, your ob't servant, JAMES HALL.

*The same letter communicated to the Albany Argus of October 25th, under the signature "H." and printed on page--.

TO THE GIANT OF ONONDAGA.

Speak out, O Giant! stiff, and stark, and grim, Open thy lips of stone, thy story tell; And by the wondering crowd who pay thee court In thy cold bed, and gaze with curious eyes On thy prone form so huge, and still so human, Let now again be heard, that voice which once Through all old Onondaga's hills and vales Proclaimed thy lineage from a Giant race, And claimed as subjects, all who trembling hear Art thou a son of old Polyphemus, Or brother to the Sphinx, now turned to stone-- The mystery and riddle of the world? Did human passions stir within thy breast And move thy heart with human sympathies? Was life to thee, made up of joy and hope, Of love and hate, of suffering and pain, In fair proportions to thy Giant form? Did ever wife, by whatsoever name Or tie of union, with her ministries Of love, caress and cheer thy way through life? Were children in thy home, to climb thy knee And pluck thy beard, secure, and dare thy power Or, was thy nature as its substance now, Like stone--as cold and unimpressible? Over these hills, with spear like weaver's beam, Dids't thou pursue the chase and track thy foe, Holding all fear and danger in contempt? And, did at last, some fair Delliah Of thy race, hold thee in gentle dalliance, And with thy head upon her lap at rest, Wer't shorn of strength, and told too late, alas, "Thine enemies be upon thee?" Tell us the story of thy life, and whether Of woman born--substance and spirit In mysterious unon wed--or fashioned By hand of man from stone, we bow in awe, And hail thee, GIANT OF ONONDAGA!

SYRACUSE, Oct. 20, 1869. D.P.P