Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 5.djvu/647

Rh was an excellent representation of American chemists from all parts of the country, the exercises were spirited and appropriate, and the entire proceedings vindicated the excellent judgment of the committee who had made the arrangements.

The sessions were held in the new high-school building, and its large hall was crowded with strangers and citizens. Prof. Croft read a brief address on the character of, which was marked by a broad appreciation of his strong and many-sided traits. The subject, however, was much too large for the time given to it, and the sketch had the effect of awakening more interest than it gratified. The speaker apologized for his performance on account of the short time that had been allowed him to prepare it, and it is to be hoped that he will be enabled to give it greater fullness before publication in the volume which will embody the proceedings.

Prof. Horsford read several manuscript letters of Dr. Priestley belonging to the Massachusetts Historical Society, and not hitherto published. They were written in this country, to a friend, and are valuable as disclosing his opinions concerning questions of American politics, in which he took no public part. They were written with terseness, point, and vigor, and displayed an independence of spirit and an acuteness of observation and reflection that elicited the cordial applause of the audience who listened to them. Prof. Croft had alluded to a rumor, on the authority of the French chemist, Dumas, that Priestley died of poison; but he had been unable to find any verification or explanation of it. One of the letters read by Prof. Horsford threw light upon the matter, as Dr. Priestley wrote to his friend that the ingredient found in the flour used by the family turned out to be, not arsenic, but tartar-emetic.

Prof. Sterry Hunt gave an interesting address on the progress of theoretical chemistry since the time of Priestley, in which, after an acute and instructive analysis of the influence of Lavoisier in giving effect to Priestley's discovery and laying the foundation of modern chemical philosophy, he went on to trace the successive modifications of theory, the growth of the unitary system, and the fundamental ideas of the chemical science now generally received. Prof. Hunt's statement was deficient, in that it did not recognize the share that the speaker had himself taken in promoting the new views, but, aside from this, it was a remarkably clear and instructive presentation, in a narrow compass, of a subject not easy of popular exposition.

Dr. J. Lawrence Smith read a valuable essay on the general progress of chemistry as applied to the arts during the last hundred years, which was full of interesting information, and was listened to with close attention by a large audience. The relation of the industries of the world to the work of the laboratory was skillfully treated and vividly delineated.

In the cemetery of Northumberland, situated upon an eminence back of the town, and commanding a most beautiful view of the river and mountain scenery, rest the remains of Priestley, marked only by a simple tombstone. The strangers present in town, accompanied by many of the citizens, visited the grave at the close of the first day's proceedings, and there listened to an eloquent and appreciative eulogy of the illustrious man by President Coppee, of Lehigh University.

The public exercises were fitly concluded, on August 1st, by a most interesting address from Prof. Silliman, on the progress of chemistry in this country since the time of Priestley. The son of one of the eminent pioneers of the science on this side of the Atlantic, Prof. Silliman has been a student of the subject from his boyhood, there being,