The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1878-02-02

which is simply again sixteen times that oi
H., of Br. 5.52S, this again five times mat
of o. They have also qualitative oiuer'
ences, no two of them possessing pre-
ciselv the same qualities, and no one IN
compound body being substitut'o'e lot
another without changing the identity OF
the BODY. or wholly destroying Its struc'
tursl Qualities. Whist ia known as the
aHotroDic quality of elements Is no ex'
ception to this, as this is evinced oy the
pure elements themselves, not by COM
pound bodies. Nor is WHIST Is known rs
| the isomerides really an exception, lor
while there are found substances OF oit'
ferent properties composed OF even Inc
same number and ratios OF atoms. II Is
! held by chemists that the fact is owing 70
a different arrangement OF the atoms.
"The same atoms if grouped in one way
give rise to one substance, if grouped IN
another give rise to different distance
| " oumsn's Chem. p. 65. y. The quslllies
Us we'll as the quantities OF the atoms
are always constant under preclseiy the
same conditions; and this is one OF the
observed facts that the atomic theory
only appears adequate to explain. we
| might notice various other things that
chemistry has been teaching concerning
these atoms or elements, but 1t IS not
necessary. NV object IN presenting
these which | have adduced, Is to bring out
still more definitely and distinctly what
! il Is IN this whole matter that Is assumed
and what is 1t? Not the number OF these
elements, for these siIty-three have been
discovered and proved as sctuaIities.
| Nor is it their stomatic weights, or com
blning qualities; for chemists have deter
mined all these by actual experimental
tions. What then is it? 1t Is tina! 10 deed
which constitutes the very foundation oi
the science of Chemistry as at present
accepted; simply this: that these chem
| icsl elements cannot be DIVIDED or
reduced to less size. Following the true
method OF induction the chemist has OBJ
served certain facts OF qusntitative COM
| bination evinced constantly by these ele-
rnents. These summarized and general
| lZed he has redu"ed TO these four laws,
the law of definite proportionsi the a"
Of multiple proportions the law OF eq"lU-
qLsnt proportions; and the law Of "toIec''.
lar heights. These laws represent facts,
and have been established as the lnvar-
isble laws OF facts by the widest observa-
tion aud experimentation. And the At
omic theory, or the indivisibility o: these
elements, has been assumed IN order TO
account for these facts and laws. IL Is
not that these sixty-three or sixty live
elements exist that constitutes the As
SUMPTION; for though they are wholly In
visibl. to the most powerful micre'cope-
their dimensions according TO PROT Tat,
being considerably more minute than the
one 1--we hundred millionth Of an lnch,
they are yet TO the chemist real msgnl'
tudes and objects, as is proved by the TACT
ths, he weighs them and measures their
relative volumes and their quantitatlve
laws of combination. They are whst u
Il. Lewis has called masses writ small.
As Prof Cooke, in his Neto Chemistry
remarks: the atom Is the unit OF the
chemist in the same sense that the mole
cule is the unit OF the physicist, or
that the planet is the unit OF the sstron-
omer. The atom is of the phenomenal,
no. of the noumenal. The real and only
Assumption in tie case is the indivislbIl-
itv and consequent solid singleness' OF
the s,om or chemical element. And
that this is an Assumption the best sclen-
lists freely admit. Prot. TAFT, says: "The
nroblem Of the infinite divIsibIlity OF
matter is 81 present quite as far from US
phy.icists as it was in the time Of Lucre-
tius.'. Ard again, ave know as yet
nothing az TO whether oxygen snd ny.
droyen consist OF ultimate stoms or no.
Now repeat, that have 70 disposition
whatever 10 cast any disrespect upon this
! theory when thus argue that 1t Is but
An Assumption. Why, indeed, should |
have any such disposition2 No one can
study these four Qusntitsuve laws Of
chemical combination without seeing the
adsptiveness and adequacy ofthis theory.
Besides, it hss not ye. been superseded
5y any o:hsr. Other theories have been
suggested as substitutes for it, bat they
have not gained favor with our most pro-
found scientists. OF that OF Boscovlch,
for instance, which proposed to dlsplace
the stom entirely and substitute tor /. 8
more geo metric point ~ centre oil re-
pelling and attracting forces, Prot.
TAFT saws that il seems 20 him to be the
embodiment of an over refinement OF
speculation, surrounded on almost sill
sides by the!grsvest diaiculties;' and he
pronounces it ia mathematical fiction
such as We are accustomed to meet with
in our text books" The vorteI-theory
recently advanced by Sir VIM. Thom-
son can scarcely be said 10 propose dis
placement OF the atom, for not only Is
itself called the vorteX.stom theory, bat
slse the vortices themselves are atomic,
and hence indeed its nsme. In addition,
the atomic assumption is not necessarily
a. variance with any Of my essential be-
lie's on any other subject. 1t is not the
special or pet assumption OF either OF the
two great schools into which thinkers OF
the present day are divided on the ques-
uon Of the mode Of the production
or formation "a il now is OF the kospos
with even It's entire hors and 'suns. The
Specisl Creationist Of the most extreme
type who would even maintain the old
theory thst the kosmos was made in SIX
dsvs o: twentv-tour hours each, and by
SIX literally vocsl fats Of God; snd the
EXTREMIST Evo!utionlst who ms!ntsins
tbs, it was tibcluding man himfeli)
evolved by process OF seif-generation
ou. OF the original atoms tbs. were ST
one time dlffused through all space, snt
that thus contained "the promise and po-
,ency o. all terrestrial life'-these both
may with equsl consistency hold this
theory. Why then should l spesk dlsre-
spectiully Of it2 Undoubtedly if either
the Special Crestionist or the Evolution
ist might be anxious 70 displsce the theory
il would be the ls:ter rather than the
former; because never vet has the Evo-
lutiouist accounted for the origin OF the
stom-snd II the s;om Is sn atom never
csn be account for it-on his system.
The atom is the Gordisn knot thst the
Eyolutionist csano; unite or cat Still
in accepting the theory both these alike
mus, sccepi the s;om IS an assump-
ton.
Another assumption OF science iswhsi