We admit the force of the preceding extract, so far as relates to the circular column being a feature in the Architecture of the Nile; and that they would also be found in America, if the edifices in that country were of, or "_derived from_," Egypt; while we admit this reasoning, we at once deny the truth of the assertion, that the round column _has not_ been found in the Ruins of Ancient America. This denial is given upon the unimpeachable authority of Humboldt, who, in his illustrations of the Ruins of Mitla, gives by writing, as well as by pictorial description, the _circular_ columns distinct! The denial is also founded upon the grave authority of Mr. Stephens himself,--for he (as Baron Humboldt) testifies to the fact both by pen and pencil. First, will be quoted from his pen. In vol. ii., p. 428, in writing of the Ruins of Uxmal, he says-- "At the South-east corner of this platform [of the Temple] is _a row of_ ROUND PILLARS, _eighteen inches in diameter_, and three or four feet high [broken], extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were the _nearest approach_ (!) _to pillars or columns_ that we saw in all our exploration of the ruins of that country." Now in the name of Reason, and all its attributes, could there be a "nearer approach" _to circular columns_, than "_round pillars_?" Are they not identical? The proposition can only be answered in the affirmative; and as a consequence, it becomes absolute from the identity. Again-- "In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was _a broken round pillar_, inclined and falling, with trees growing around it."