THE ANALYST. s1 CORRESPONDEXCE. [The Editors are not responsible for the opinions of their Correspondents.] ORGANIZATION AMONGST CHEMISTS. To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” Srq-If there is any basis for the suspicions of the gentleman who writes as ‘‘ One who has been in practice for twenty years,” the scheme suggested or adopted for (‘ organization” among chemists is open to still wider objection than appears in the letter in question.I n the first place, I think, any protests against this, or any other possible invasion of existing and well-established professional interests, should bear our proper signatures to carry due weight with them. Chemists, of any real standing, need scarcely fear the consequences of being supposed to be left out in the cold by any self-nominated coterie.held in the rooms of that Society, for the purpose of promoting organization. To my astonishment, f heard it gravely proposed (‘ that no fees should be recoverable by any person practising as a chemist without the sanction given by the admission of the party to the privileges of the new organization.” Dr. Odling very properly ridiculed the ides, and I am surprised to hear that i t has in any way survived the absurdity to which it was reduced at his hands. For myself, as I can also date back my practice for twenty years, and have no reason to be dissatisfied with its results, I am not in the least anxious to be “ dubbed competent ” by any self-constituted clique of or anizers.I no more expect to be hindered or stopped in the exercise of my profession by any Act of Parfiament which these gentlemen can apply for, than I anticipate the same fate for all engineers who are not connected with the Institute of Civil Engineers.That measure of justice which was accorded to the existing interests of the medical profession, when the medical Acts of 1815 and 1858 were passed, and still more recently in framing the Pharmacy Act, will, I am convinced, form an essential consideration for all who hope to obtain a similar measure to protect, and not to injure, the interests of professional chemists, among whom I beg to subscribe myself, Without invitation, and only by right, as a Fellow of the Chemical Society, I was present at a meetin Yours &c., H.C. BARTLETT. DUXE STREET, GROSVENOR SQVARE, W.32 THE ANALYST.To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” SIR,-I have just been reading through the draft scheme proposed by the Committee for the organiza- tion of professional chemists, which bears the signatures of Messrs. Frankland, Abel, Voelcker, Neison, Carteigh, Wright, and Hartley, and there are a few points occurring to me in connection with it to which I should like to call attention.The chemists of England, or eyen of London, were not invited to do so, and some of those present at the preliminary meeting, and whose names appeared in the signnturc book at that meeting, did not receive notice of the second meeting. 2nd. However desirable organization may be-and that it is so no chemist can doubt,-it cannot be policy, or even justice, to let ten Fellows by a majority (that is practically six Fellows only) elect the Council for such an important Trades’ Union as this must necessarily be.3rd. What would bc the Council’s definition of a satisfactory course of three years’ training ? Would they, for instance, recluire the School of Mines, or the College of Chemistry, or would they be satisfied with a ‘ L postal course ” ? 4th. Referring to p.8, what do the promoters of the scheme understand by unprofessional conduct ? If rumour is to be trusted-although we know perfectly well that sometimes it is incorrect,-there are chemists in practice who undertake the analysis of milk for 2s., water for 5s,, or 7s. 6d., who advertise in the daily papers, and who call themselves P.C.S., without any right to do so. Are these unprofessional actions ? I s the Institute to include Chemists and Druggists, as well as professional Chemists? It appears to me, from its present constitution, that it is ;’if so its value must be greatly deoreased. 1st.Who appointed this organization committee? One more question and I have done. I remain, &c., ONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW, YOU KNOW. To THE EDITOR OF *‘THE ANALYST.” SIR,-Having observed that you open your columns to correspondence on the subject of “Organization amongst Chemists,” I must say that, in my opinion, analysts would be glad to join a properly constituted scheme.The promoters have only to issue a public notice by advertising, inviting all practising analysts in England to a meeting on thc matter. Hitherto the fault has been that the thing has been too private, so that we in the provinces have not had a chance of putting in our word officially.If the promoters do this the scheme will be sure to prosper, and we shall hear the last of the talk about self constituted authoritiee, now so common in the profession. I am, &c., A PROFESSIONAL CHEMIST. ADULTERATION OF DRUGS. To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” SIR,-I am, so far, well contented to have elicited the two letters in Nos.355 and 356 of the Pharmaceutical Journal, as the writers seem a t last to have come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, that manufacturers of drugs are not absolutely immaculate. I even live in hopes that in time they will fully acknowledge the justice of my statements. Meanwhile I would take this opportunity of recommending the following propositions to the con- sideration of the Pharmaceutical Society, assuming, as I do, that it is the earnest desire of that society to insure the purity of all drugs and mtdicines dispensed, or sold, by any of its members.Either let the Society instruct the chemists, more or less under its control, to co-operate with public bodies in their endeavour to suppress the adulteration of drugs as well as other articles, or let the Pharmaceutical Society itself take the mattcr in hand, which, if I mistake not, is quite within its province.Let them exercise some supervision over its members, and prosecute every chemist who manufactures and sells pharmaceutical drugs not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. I n this it will accomplish more real good than by almost any number of prosecutions undertaken against persons practising as Pharmaceutical Chemists without being members of their Society. In conclusion allow me to state, although considering the wording of my previous letter, such statement should have been unnecessary, that the 165 samples of drugs, &c., &c., mentioned, were .not examined by me in my capacity of Public Analyst.Yours, &c., ~ESTMINETER, A$N’iz 21, 1877. A. DUPRE:THE ANALYST. 33 MILK ANALYSIS ? To THE EDITOR OF “THE ANALYST.” Sm,-On the 21st of February, two samples of milk were brought to me by the inspector, which had been obtained from a milk dealer in Salford. No. 1 waa a poor milk, which I passed. No. 2 gave- Total solids .. . . . . . . . . . . 11.20 per cent. Solids not fat, from ether, gave ... 8.00 ,, ?, ,, benzoline ... 8.00 ,, Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 ?, I reported this milk as containing 11 per cent of added water. On the 28th of February, two samples of milk were brought to the Town Hall, with a request that they should be analysed by me. 12.32 per cent. 12.40 No. 1 gave-Total solids .. . . . . { 12,38 ,, No. 2 ,? ,? . . . . . . I gave a certificate that both these milks were pure. These two milks were contained in ordinary medicine bottles, loosely corked, with 100 and 200 marked upon them. When the case of the milk which contained 11 per cent. of water came before the magistrate, the barrister for the defence asked me whether I had not analysed some milk on the 28th of February, and stated that these were parts of the very sample I had analysed on the 21st.I replied I was positive they were not, as the milk which was analysed on the 21st was analysed twice by myself, and twice independently by my assistant. The barrister said I had certified a milk on the 21st to be adulterated, and on the 28th the very same milk to be pure.The magistrate thought there was a doubt, and gave the defendant the benefit of it, but would not allow costs. The next day after the bearing of the case a letter appeared in the Manchester papers, from the Secretary of the Milk Dealers’ Association, charging me with giving incorrect analyses. To clear myself, I asked the Mayor and Town Clerk, in whose custody a portion of the sample was, to have it sent to Somerset House, and I would pay all the expenses of such analysis.This was not done ; Dr. Tatham, the medical officer of health, took the bottle of milk to London, and asked Ms. Wanklyn to analyse it, and forward the results of the analysis to the Doctor. I n not sending it to Somerset House, why was it not sent to some chemist in Manchester ? On the 14th of April, Mr.Wanklyn sends the following analysis :- Total solids . . . . . . . . . 10.700 Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.230 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . -640 He says he is not able to tell from the solids not fat whether the milk has been watered, on account of its age, but, judging from the ASH, he should say it is a pure milk. I n Mr. Wanklyn’s book on milk, he states that the ash of average country milk is -709, and of town milk -738, or a mean of *72. As he judges from the ash, which in his letter to Dr.Tatham, he says is the only means of knowing whether the milk is adulterated with water, it only requires a simple calculation to see that if ‘72 equals 100 of milk, -64 can only equal 88 of milk, and according to his own analysis the milk must contain 12 per cent.of water. I wrote to Mr. Wanklyn on April l7th, calling his attention to the strange results which he had deduced from his analysis. I wrote him again on the 22nd, and up to this date (26thj he preserves a judicious silence. Mr. Wanklyn probably forgot, when he returned my sample of milk as pure, because it contained *64 of ash, that at a meeting of the Society of Public Analysts, on the 14th of June, 1876,* Mr.Wanklyn in the chair, he proposed, and it was carried unanimously, that Mr. Jones, of Wolverhampton, was perfectly justified in certifying that a sample of milk containing exactly the same amount, namely, ‘64 of ash, was adulterated with 12 per cent, of water, I received no reply. Comment is needless. kPLFORD, April 26th. J. CARTER BELL, To THE EDITOB OF “THE ANALYST.’’ Sm,-To a short note apropos to the milk case at Brighton, and containing the following : 6‘ No AnalyBt in his senses would be guilty of such a statement as the one attributed to our Brighton confrkre,’’ and inviting my reply, subject to some possible adjudication, permit me to plead not guilty, and in perfect possession of my senses at the time.The certificate in question was for “de6ciency in butter fat,’’ given in all fealty to the Society’s minimum of 2 per cent.Water was not mentioned in Court or certificate, and the depreciation (not adplzteration,) of milk by loss of cream in its retail dipper distribution was, months back, noted by myself in the then organ of the Society, as possibly acting unfairly on the vendor. Accepting “THE ANALYST” report of the recent Liverpool case, as an obligation on the vendor to a supply of the nature and substance, the Hove magistrates quoted a case which may be of some importance in the future. You must allow me to say that I do not notice in your reprint of this cage any wording that should lead to the absurd deductions conveyed in the note, or one requiring me “ to explain what I really did Say,” and requeat, as you have received, so you will publish this statement, as you asked for it. Yours, tc., BBIGETON, 3rd Alpril, 1877. EDWARD H. MOORE. *See Ataalyst, No. 4, page 77.