Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1859-12-28
Yours, truly,
II. & n. Z. SOLOMON,
Agents for South Carolina.

Professor Mapes' Supcr-phosphatcs.
Edi.ors "a, tie Mar YorA Oh"rfrrr.
Gentlemen My attention has been called to
nm article in your paper for November 10th, partly
written by yourselves and mainly copied from the
Hartford Homestead, in which you close the origl-
nal portion of your article with The following:
"Wc subuin late paper from Prof. johnson on
the character and value Of Mupcs' Super -phOs-
pilates Of Lime, which have been 50 much lauled
by the manufacturer
Then follows the report Of Prof S. W. johnson,
Chemist Of the Society, etc. Tuking it for granted
that in Common with muny others you have suf-
fercd yourselves to be deceived by Prof S. W.
johnson, 1 beg to give you something Of u history
OF his conduct towards me.
In the curly part Of 1858, one of the imitatOrs
of my Phosphate caused to be published nn nnaly-
sis, said to have bccu made by Prof. S. ". john
son, Of Yulv College, Of my Phosphate, in which
he makes the value to he SAG, for which charged
$50, and also stating the sulphatc of lime ueccssa
rly formed by the action of the sulphuric acid on
calcincd bones, in the making Of Super phosphate,
rs Plaster of Paris; leaving it to be Inferred that
I had added crude plaster in the manufacture. l
Prof. johnson, of Yule College, was, and then
learned that no person OF that name held Profcs-
sorship in Yale College, nor was thorc oven stu
dent in the College of that name. l subsequently
leurned that this selfstylcd Professor S. w. john
son, was student in the analytical laboratory in
the yurd of Yale College, the use of which had
been given to Mr.. Porter to enable him to receive
pupils in chemistry. The assOciate pupil Of S.
W. johnson, was Mr.. Solomon Mead, who informed
me that Johnson was fresh student ut chemistry,
and that this analysis was among the first that ho
had made and that he acknowledged to Mr.. Mead
that my phosphate was better than any Of the
others he had tried, which included two specimens
of English phosphates. This analysis, by Mr..
johnson was full of evident errors, NIL Of which
were pointed out by DR.. Charles II. Endcrlin, the
former associate of Baron Liebig, aud we'll known
chemist of high standing. This paper will be
Sound in the Working Farmer, vol. 5, p. l21, and
and most clearly shows S. W. johnson to be eyre
griously in error. For long time this gentleman
was, we believe, absent in Europe: on bis return,
Yituperation seemed to be his alimcnt, and he i'm
Inediately published d statement, that although
INV phosphate was of exceeding good quality when
he FIRST examined it, it had deteriorated, giving
new analysis, and evidently repeating the errors
rointed out by Dr. Enderlin; he also attacked the
result of my experiments carefully made on my
own farm, with the mineral rhosphates from Dover
Grown Point and elsewhere, which pronounced
tn be valueless in practice, and which have proved
so in England and elsewhere, where they hnvc
bscn shipped. In book lntely published by
Prof. johnson, called his Essays on Commercial
Munures," he clearly states that mineral phos-
1hatss are as valuable au those from baaes; couse-