THE A N A L Y S T . ORGANIZATION AMOSGST CHEMISTS. WE are not surprised that the article which we published last month under the abore heading should have called forth remarks on the part of two of our contemporaries, namely the Chemical News, and the Pharmaceutical Journal. We took some pains to point out in that article certain defects, which appeared to us to be self-evident in the organization scheme as at present proposed, and our remarks naturally invited comment or assent.The C7hemical News of the 14th September, devotes a column to the consideration of the subject, and except that the article does not go far enough, we agree with nearly all that it says. The main point to which it draws attention is the fact that certain persons are--or a certain person is-offering by means of circular or letter to perform commercial analyses for ridiculously low sums ; we know this is so, and the circular referred to is before us, and we quite agree that if analytical chemistry is to be prac- tised upon such terms, (‘ stone-breaking is of the two the more respectable profession.” But on two points we differ from the Chemical News.We do not think it is one or two men only who are guilty of this kind of unprofessional and unhsiness-like conduct.On the contrary, v e fear that it is a much larger number of men, some of whom occupy a respectable position in chemical society, who in ordor to fill up their so-called spare time, or more likely to utilige according to their own views the services of some one or two of their pupils are working at these low rates; therefore we again differ from the Chemical News, in that we think that the Institute of Chemistry, as a t present proposed, will do nothing whatever to remedy this grievance, if indeed a grievance it be : because among the Committee of the Institute of Chemistry itself are, if our correspondents inform us correctly, some of the most notoriously under-bidding men in the profession. Besides the advertisements from other members of the Committee to which me have already from time to time referred, we have as we write one lying befor5 us, offering to nnalyse starches or arrowroots, for the modest sum of half-a-crown.The other charges are correspondingly moderate. It is hardly likely, that while the heads of the profession, as we suppose we must assume the members of the Committee consider themselves to be, do such things as these, the men whom they are going to organize will do much better.The article in the Plz~maceutiealJo.urnal is a singular one. We wish we could stop at singular, but it mis-quotes UB. The Phurmaceutical Journal says, “ THE ANALYST 11 grants that the Committee of fifty, which had the care of the child institute, was (6 an able body, the most clever, the most competent, and most successful chemists in ( 4 the country.” THE ANALYST granted nothing of the kind; on the contrary, the words which we used were, “nevertheless these ‘private’ ‘general’ meetings have been held, arid 4 ‘ the gentlemen attending them have appointed a Committee of some fifty of their “friends to carry the scheme through-mistake again. These fifty may be, and perhaps ( 6 are the fifty most clever, most competent, and most successful chemists in the country.” The sentence did not need to be looked at twice to be seen that our meaning has been perverted.However, t,o make it perfectly clear and unmistakeable, we do nut tlzinlc that these fifty are the most clever, the most competent, and most successful chemists in the “country;” on the contrary, we think that the selection was in many cases an unwise one.110 THE ANALYST.Now having referred to a mis-statement which we are sure our contemporary will regret, we will proceed to deal with the other points in the article, and also with some further points relating t o the Institute itself.The Pharmaceutical Journal calls the article which we wrote on the subject, a ‘‘ funny article.” It is hard to conceive of a worse description; we were writing seriously, and there was nothing which could possibly justify such a remark. It also objects to our definition of Professional Chemists, because it thinks that we are wrong in putting in the wordg, t b purelr by the practice of Professional Chemistry, as distinct (I from Pharmacy.’’ We put them in advisedly, and me adhere to them.I f this organization is to be, or is to do anything at all, it must appear at once in its proper light, and that light, call it what they may, is simply and solely that of a Trades Union. Ncw it would be absurd to taik of a Trades Union embracing both civil engineers and machine makers, and equally absurd of one embracing both professional chemists and pharmacists, and still worse to speak of one embracing professional chemists? phar- macists, and scientific amateurs; therefore we say that the members mnst be limited strictly to those who earn an income by Professional Chemistry, as distinct from Phar- macy, and i f the Pharmacezctical Journal would wish us to add it, from every other branch of scientific or semi-ecientific work.The remark that there is hardly a man in all England who earns an income purely by the practice of Professional Chemistry is feeble, and most probably there has been a printer’s mistake here, and the writer meant to say that there are but few men on the Institute Committee who earn an income by Professional Chemistry, because we could point without difficulty to a dozen men who have not beeri invited to, or admitted to any of the conclaves of this body, who are not only earning an income, but a comfortable living, by Professional Chemistry only.The (‘ Public Analysts-well, only Public Analysts,” of whom the Pharmaceutical Journal talks, are an almost extinct race. There is no doubt that at first when the Adulteration of Food Act came into operation, a large number of men possessing no higher qualifications for the position than the fact that they mere medical officers, or chemists and druggists in the town where they lived, did happen to be elected as Public Analysts, but experience in the working of the Sale of Food and Drugs’ Act has amended all this, and no further appointments of this kind can now be made, and even those few who had accepted the office and its responsibilities under the old Act are beginning to find out that the best thing they can do is to resign their appoint- ments, and leave Professional Chemists to carry ou the work which properly belongs to them. But those who remain are certainly entitled t o claim admission to any organization. Now learing the question of the article in the Pharmaceutical Journal itself alone, we come to the views which it puts forward, evidently as the views of the promoters of the Institute of Chemistry.I t says that we arc apparently unacquainted with the just and proper means which will be adopted in order to cause a just appreciation of mcrits and qualifications.We certainly admit that we are so ; but while admitting our ignorance on the point, we must say emphatically that there are no means which can infallibly be ueed to ensure this “just appreciation.” We know, for instance, of one man in good and successful practice who only analyses one single commercial product, and on that product he is probably the best and most reliable authority in England ; at any rate he has had the credit of carrying on a practice solely in connection with this etaple article of manufacture fur years, and supporting himself by his a o r k ; in fact,THE ANALYST.111 earning a living by Professional Chemistry as distinct from Pharmacy. How would it be possible for any of the promoters of the Institute to judge as to his merits and qualifica- tions, when his attention has been directed solely t o an article in reference to which they are themselves profoundly ignorant ! We know at least three other men, all of them mith practices of the largest character, whose business is simply and solely Consulting Chemistry in its reference to chemical manufacture; men who in fact spend the entire of their time in visiting chemical worlis, and consulting with different manufacturers, and advising them as t o the most desirable mode of working, so as to achieve the greatest economy in their fwtories.These men stand alone in the profession, and we believe that not one of them is included in the Institute. Who then is to judge as to their capacity? And again we may have one more class, and we think this class should certainly be included, the class of chemists and assistants in iron works, chemical factories, and manure factories, each of whom, in his own line, acquires an amount of knowledge and ability quite sufficient to justify the claim to admission t o the Institute; but ability of such a kiud, that no Committee could fairly or fully comprehend it, unless some of the class were included.The whole thing virtually sums itself up into this. There is only one way in which the Institute can be formed to become a success, aud that is, as we and our correspondents have repeatedly urged, to call a public meeting of every professional chemist in England, and let them elect their own Committee, and without any hesitation, we say that the Committee who would be elected would be different from those who form the present body.Apparently at present, the object of the promoters has been t o include the names of a host of their personal friends, the (( nobodies ” whom the Pl~nmaacezcticaJ Journal refers to, in order to gain all the power that they possibly could in the balloting for or election of “the gentlemen who pursue science as a profession,” and earn a Ziz$n..by it, but who ha\Te not yet been invited t o come among them. We somehow think it will be a long time before they will have to exercise their balloting powers. I n conclusion, we repeat what we hare said all along, that an organization founded on the private meetings of a clique sitting with closed doors, will never be acceptable t o the mass of Professional Chemists throughout England. Let therefore the present Committee fairly and openly call a public meeting of the analytical chemists of the country by public advertisement, and laying the proposed scheme before them, invite them all to join and assist in forming the Institute, and in electing a council, and all will go well. I f the Committee really has the interests of the whole profession at heart, as distinct from private aggrandisement, and an endeavour to injure some of their present successful competitors, they will at once accede to our proposition. If not, then the latent spirit of the promters of the present scheme will shine forth in all its true colours, as intended simply for the benefit and glorification of the few, a t the expense of the many.