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?