The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-19

there cannon be much danger becdute II
would be evidently too great a rifuqe for Il
counterfeiter to engage in when the COM
PARTON car be male TO eaiily, and the de-
lection inevitable. Upon the whole as !
have publihed this plan, and freely given
the ute of it to my country, | can have but
very little perfonal ~intelelt in defending It.
Yet, if am under the necefity of 70 do
ing, L fhall reclaim the executive ufe of
this valuable inventions, and then / fhall
find an interea in producing a fpecimen
which ihall bid defiance to the art of man TO
counterfeit.
SAMUEL BROOKS.
Richmond, May II, 1904.
Two observations have occurred TO me. on
reading this letter:
LIST. That the general maxim, with which
the author sets out, is not true in all the c..ses,
to which it might be extended
2nd. That al ,hough l cannot deny II to be
true in the particular case which is mentioned
in the letter, Icannot discoverit its complete ap-
plication to the subject IN controversy; whe-
Their the use OF the back-stuf plates will def,
the imitation and thus prevent the counterfeit
ing, of Bank hottest
/. He begins with a general maxim tina.
what nature has done, art is unable to do
He adopts the language of Franklin, who told
him that if this had been 90 the effect of ma
ture,' he might justly despair to have
matched it." He applies the same maxim
n another sentence, where he declares,
therefore b"ng Il work of nature. it cannot
be produced by art" l will not attempt 4
tedious refu'ation of tins maxim. CereainIy
there are many cases. in which man IS una
bic to initiate the works Of nature; and these
are either when he is ignorant Of the nc
thod IN which nature operates, or when his
physical and mechanical strength do not in
crease with the progress of his mind. Ye.
no accurate observer will pretend to DENY
that there are several cases, in which man NAV
do, what Illuminate mature has done before
him. Formerly these cases might bav, haen
rare '~they are now more numerous ; here
alter they may be indefinite multiplied bv
the gradual knowledge of the laws of nature
In ancient times, man called air and wa-er
elements although nature was daily employ
ing her peculiar Processes gor their prodncti-
OH. The chemist, however, has now disco
vered these processes and every modern sys-
tenn OF chemistry contains those methods for
the formation of water and the airs. Light
ming had formerly taken It's own course for
descending from the clouds to the ear II. But
Franklin has stolen one more secret from the
arcana of nature and has Obtained eeu,l
glory, with I far more fortunate destiny than
Prometheus, by drawing down this subtle
lie from the Heavens.
The maxim, that arr is incompetent TO mi
tate the operations Of nature, is mot even uni
versaliy true IN those cases, the general prin-
cipie of which was the reason Of Introducing
this maxim into the present discussion. i
mean those cases, over which chance Drin-
cipaliy Presides. Where man has some og4u-
Y in an event, of which he might have been
unable 10 detenn ne the actaaixcsuEt, tits said
20 have happened by chance. MANY such
events no doubt actually exist. Bat does not
the recurrence Of these events, more or less
frequent, sometimes supply us with s]uficien.
knowledge to produce those very operations
afterwards, without any chance or uncertainty
m the result? So that what was lone by chance
to-day, may flow from design tomorrow. The
history of every science will sbew us how
lmany of the greatest improvements in So
Getty, which indebted for their existence to
some fortunate combination OF circumstan-
ces, that accident had thrown together.
Although this maxtn, or even that branch Of
itwhich comprehends the influence Of chance,
does not thus appear correct in every case,
no one will deny its truth in the particular case
which is introduced into The preceding letter
/" The direction Of ;hese cracks are no more
under the %controul Of human art, than the sbi
ming Of the sun or the motion Of the cloud. 5,
Granted. And what conclusion is to be
drawn from these cases? That an enprave,
cannot accidentally crack any other plate of
steel IN the saline irregular manner, i'm which
one plate had been already broken This ha,
never been denied. The only position which
has been denied is, that this crack, after it IL
made, is Of so p~couli@r a kind, that no artcan
give an eppearauce TO another plate which
may be sufficient to imitate It's Impression
l. would be Of no use then 20 our author that
the truth Of this maxim lis given up to him.
1t does not altogether suit mis- purposes to
prove that TO design is able to cyaeF another
iul1te In Tho eau,e irraruiar ,.,-~,~ ,...L a..