New-York tribune., 1878-11-26
PROFESSOR MoRTON's SHARP REPLY TC
CRITICISM.

To the Edttor Of The Trtbunc.
SIR: In references to the remarks of PrOfes-
sor Edward Sherer which / find In this mornings
TRIBUNE desire TO say, FIRST that my scientific repu
talon needs no defeuce against any such opinion or
judgment he may give; second as his criticisms on
my remarks reported in TIE TRIBUNE OF November 20
mainly founded Misrepresentation OF what is
there printed amounting in certain cases to absolute
fasehood, they do not deserye any other reply than
a simple pointing out OF their misrepresen-
tatiou. Thus Professor sccrer says: He (Dr. Nor
toni asserts that adultcrntiOn shown 10 be not IN
furious 10 health is usahc on the grounds OF economy
OF production, and increased profit to the maluiac-
turcr." This statement is simply false. What did
say was as follows lsee TRIBUNE, November 20, 1881
Now If This change lin process OF manufacturc did
nor render the product less ec Mt Or its purposes TO
the consumer, or la any way injurious or hurtnl to
him, II does not appear 10 that any wrong s done
by the adoption Of such modihcation."
Again, Professor SchCrer "ChlOride OF tin Pro-
fssOr Morton distinguishes from murate OF Tin, char
hcterizng the former ~ an irr1tant poison and the
latter valuable AID to digestion, while IN TACT they
are the thing" Here Is falsehood atroclous
aud conspicuous that II IL diif ult 10 imagine
how one with scientific reputation ut stake
should venture sure detection and exposure
10y utt"rlug IT, did not mention the words muriate OF
tin In the entire interview reported in THE TRIBUNE
sou less did state That it is an aid to digestion. What
do state is that muriaiic acid diluted with water is
useful an aid 10 digestion. IL Professor Scherer
10 say that these the same thing, think 1t is
high time to iuqure whence his title OF professor
or his diploma a chemist. II he has one.
Nothing Is further from my intention than to defend
adultcraOu dishonesty in any shlpe but must con-
fess that my honest indignation has been excted by the
ignorant and malicious attacks Eiade by anonymous
writer's with false statements and uufOundcd nSnua
tiuHs directed against entire and In pOTnt industry
| have connection OF sort Whatever with auy.
sugar rcfncr great small, and all that have said
dictated simply by my honest Indignation and
E"u.e OF duty to the community at large.
The silence OF abb Algar chemists this subject
n bufc IA different cause from that mentioned by
Professor ~chcIcr. bo.aye that respectable man
ma, yet been found who was willing sacrifice his char.
acfrr b liuiu ~ tHs attack the ndstr OF SUGAR
refining, and that in the absence OF ANYTHING Ike
tai4lb ShdrgCs those engaged any such business
saw opening Tor reply and did not wish seem to
themselves by accepting the universal alta *
an Individual accusation. My position II this: While
aducratOu q crime and should be punished, it does
follow that sugar with percentage or glucose lrer
Than that found n other sugars is therefore adult
tcratcd ~ any occasion OF loss or injury to
the consumer also tnat calling murjatic acid DOi son.
and asserting thar the pTcan OF traces OF tin would
XII those who swallowed thcm make TN Innings to
their somachS sort Of non sense which Is unworthy
Of q good CauSr, and would only be Ms Il in bad
Giuriatc acid and chloride pt have business in
and -hOIld OF course be ont, but
do not what Is absurd and false about
either.
when Professor Sclerer aaduces reliable author
ity IN support OF his extraordinary assertion that
glucose has only Oatthrd the nutrItVc valve OF cane
sugar, I VIII consider II worth while 70 reply; ts
face the assertion Is TOO absurd TO warrant atteu-
ton. III, ual admission that lis analyses have failed
10 show any addition O' starch glucOsr in other
words, that he has no evidence whatever that any
udultcTaOn IN respect 10 glucose las been practised
IS certainly interesting. uESRY MORTON.