The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1854-01-18

r. huAtNtR-f NnrtNSstI3s Sts
| Prof. ,lr.lrirk. u our Uniser,ils. WHO enlerr
i upon bis cuiie. as Professor Of Agriculture an
: Analytical Chemistry - The commencement Q
the Pfessu, SESSION. reornil, made an analysis q
some soil fo'nisllcd by Mr.. silef, II cheroke
county. and also q some mari from ihe eas,erl
pat Of The Stale !: sd Of which have been pub
/. lished, as We suppose, ~ way Of exciting inter
ct 10 The department u science 10 shirh Pro
II. is TO devote his particular attention. To
late numlsr Of The Standard, We see tina, DR..
y. TomPkins, editor of The Fsrmcf's Journal
undsrtakes 10 .los,ihsl the analy 81 the soil j
incorrect; and says hat he !. peplred 10 prov,
that The anal, SIS Of the ilsr is also erroneous
We do not profess 10 lie judge upon The point
al isrue; but must confess lhalre have no, bee,
favorably Impressed with the communication o
Dr. TomIkins. 10 say nothing Of The had ,srcla
MIR in which The Doctor expresses his views, ",
do not like the ,scICconfdrnl tore in which he
50 unehariiably asserts. and undertakes 10 shuw
that Prof. Hc,lrirk ..is unqualified Cor his posi.
ton IN the University. But to our mind. the
Doctor has altogether fliled 10 show that the an.
alysis Of Prof. II. is incorrect. Hi objections.
however plausible they may appesr 10 some
minds, are BY no means conclusive. Let u ex.
anime ,one Of them.
The Doctor objects that :. the amount (of soiN
taken forrIpcrimeni was not 80 much as il should
have been By ihrce-fouuhs. for the reason that.
by having four bundled instead Of ops hssdred
grams Tor experiment, the smallereler,enis could
have been reduced 10 the pnrIcr per cent" To
this i may be answered, thai i doe. no, appear
what quantity of soil P,af II. loos .or HI. crpc.
rimcnt. i ma, have hecn bur hundred gains.
% more; aud YET. having psce,iained The pcr
csntage Of zach ingredient, he chose to no,e The
liens as forming relative pcs Of enc hundred, as
y nsual,.we believe.
asls,t-. nhjcss,sas esiiiyh ~ .s..ots
eapiious than rea,is. that Prof. n. estimates he
amount Of phosllloric acid in the soil ansl,xfd
to be O3 (ihTee observation-disclosures. gIsin.l which
the Doctor thinks too small a qaau,iiy for any
means,.sf weighing 10 detect; hui lhis. 10 an,
mind, rather in'iieaics the cxactness with which
his estimates were made.
The Dnctor objects that trace marncs;o
Is noted, and the estimate marked uo,hiny."
ms, think, Is comm n IN chemical a.al,.cs.
when The prose ICE ri an element Is indicated IN
he process, hut not in suili,ient quantities 10 no
measured Instances abound in.aE hooks giving
'na's ilcal results. II DR.. T. will look INTO his
'nn swols, the Farmers Journal. I'd vol n,ce
no, ~ The analyses Of hone and ruano. 10 viii
md examples, in which fructs of sal,s Of p,tash ,
re mentioned, without amy quantity Icing mark.
q, or any allowance made for them IN thc sun,.
ing up # Tie 100 paiis.
u Is also objected thai Prof. Hrdti,k has NO,
classified ! the soil-l,as NOT tod u rhr,L., I
Is !" clay. sandy or loan, soil;' and Thai in I
the insolube ~ilira aud alumi,n. he !
az not separated The Two. On referring d wuks 4
ca'ihs 'Iol' soils, II viii hc found Ina, in hoih
'hes' na''cr' " !. justified by examples. The !;
i'ure 81 The soil Is supposed 10 le s,liiccnry J.
''''''' " statement OF tie elements Of which &,
= composed; and The inoluhle paris ron,u. :,
."ns n"hlng 10 The food # plants, il matters n;
I'e whether sand or clay prc,lomnaics. m
Du' the eroMnine Objection is, that Prof.. He'd al
has mol accompanied lis anab il. oil the soil in
M. SIler with instructions how 10 renoya,. j,
my very naturally presume that Mr.. Sil,r cr
h"l ,e'nin TO his home will! the ANALYSIS of W
soil without knowledge Of The iptedirn,. IN
'essary 10 increase it, fertility. So.also may ca
presume that Psnf lic,IIick does mol iii IN l'
textures 70 his class. TO inrat The necessary ~
ama,ion =, ,no.a ,a., n a in!
"s'oii'als Tor agricultural che n,i>is 10 Keen The -
separate. Psls. Mapes, of n. Yolk, CHARGE. M,
'0'lars lol the analysis, and fife, n wher sc. of
panied with advice in The EN-, calion Of ma
y ". iompk'ns. Of the Farmers Journal
ges five for each. Nav not Tie Same nj. +,
properly guide Prof. H.,llick when his Ia. lie,
arc Tor The benefit of individuals! YoI
'e<e ate the conclusions Ia which, 5xs.iaye per
cd, sf'er careful pc,usal Of Il ..,mnr, !. viii
N d ID. Tonrkins. We 10 10, oL;cc, i, is Ii
"si'ion, that il is the duty Of every t;iend than
''n'e . pnt error 70 fight" Lul We hops iHe
~ ifiends Of science" undertake 10 Ter. 49,
ihis duty, il will be dune in :, h.,,,,,;,, MI
cr :, :, !, " ''"' :" incoming the
w. 50 ~ y may appear that il is a zeal
le truth which prompts Inc ,ff,r, uuiuau. 49,, .u
by personal ambition. ~,
he yer.,, e.,,..... ship
" ..,,,, aA f'us.-C"l ieet
~.,L ), "s 'ih taken charge not
''oftn laroliiia Argus, has removed \ Il ,hc