EDITOR'S TABLE. 



559 



to think, to generalize from a single phe- 

 nomenon, nor to denounce the methods of 

 building magazines at present adopted. A 

 careful re-reading of the article in question, 

 in the light of Mr. Fay's letter, fails to re- 

 veal any such denunciation, or illegitimate 

 generalization. 



In reference to the proper construction 

 of powder-magazines, your correspondent 

 clearly condemns the method adopted at 

 Brighton, as shown in the three magazines 

 personally examined, and which I was in- 

 formed, by the agent in charge of one whose 

 walls were injured in the explosion, was the 

 plan of all. In this, of course, my source 

 of information may have been at fault. But 

 there is not one word in my article which can 

 be tortured into a condemnation of this form 

 of construction, though I did say that " a re- 

 cent occurrence dangerously near Chicago 

 has shown that it is by no means sufficient " 

 as a matter of protection, and the town of 

 Lake took a similar view. What I did char- 

 acterize as very strange is the omission of 

 any protection against lightning, and I may 

 add that one of this same group of maga- 

 zines was destroyed by lightning before, I 

 think in 1879, though I have not the date 

 at hand. 



Then Mr. Fay says that "the simplest 

 knowledge of the properties of dynamite 

 would have prevented Professor Griffin from 

 attributing the non-explosion of other maga- 

 zines in the vicinity to the fact of their be- 

 ing beyond the limits where displacement 

 would not appear." The words italicized 

 are quoted in a garbled form, which gives 

 them a very different meaning. Originally, 

 they stood as parts of two sentences. This 



is an easy way of avoiding an explanation 

 of the phenomena. My article suggests an 

 explanation, does not give it as the only ex- 

 planation ; but there were the phenomena, 

 and to deny my explanation, without any 

 suggestion of another, is a good illustration 

 of the method of destructive criticism now 

 so popular : why does not Mr. Fay give his 

 own explanation ? Facts are sometimes 

 stubborn things; and the circle of maga- 

 zines and other buildings uninjured while 

 those nearer the wrecked magazine were de- 

 stroyed and those farther off were wrecked, 

 is a fact. 



I am very glad to be informed of my 

 ignorance of the fact that other substances 

 have taken the place of infusorial earth in 

 the manufacture of dynamite ; it would have 

 been more gratifying had Mr. Fay told us 

 what those substances are or is it now a 

 " trade secret " ? But I am at a loss to un- 

 derstand what he can mean by his statement 

 that " it would practically be impossible to 

 find offered for sale by any manufacturer 

 or dealer any dynamite, in the compounding 

 of which earth or any other inert matter 

 had been used." Does dynamite, as now 

 made, contain some substance that reacts 

 chemically upon the nitro-glycerine ? If so, 

 the public would undoubtedly be glad to 

 know it, as the danger in the storage of the 

 substance is probably increased thereby. 



Mr. Fay's method of quoting parts of 

 sentences and making them appear as used 

 in reference to different points from those 

 to which they were applied does not seem 

 to me quite fair. Yours truly, 



La Roy F. Griffin. 

 Lake Fokest, Illinois, June 8, 1S87. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY. 



ONE of the accusations brought by 

 the Duke of Argyll against Pro- 

 fessor Huxley in the discussion that 

 lately took place between these two 

 representatives of very different lines 

 of thought was to put it plainly that 

 the professor was himself half in rebel- 

 lion against a kind of scientific ortho- 

 doxy that has been established in these 

 later days, and was only waiting until 

 the movement against it now going on 

 among the younger men of science bad 

 gathered a little more strength, in or- 

 der to declare himself. The professor 

 warmly, and with good reason, repelled 



the implied charge of insincerity, and 

 asked what were the signs or proofs on 

 any such scientific tyranny as his Grace 

 referred to. He had himself a pretty 

 wide acquaintance with scientific men, 

 young and old, and if they were under 

 any constraint that prevented them 

 from uttering their opinions and con- 

 clusions with the utmost freedom, he 

 was not aware of it. There was really 

 no foundation, we may safely aver, for 

 the duke's taunt as regards men in the 

 higher walks of science. These pursue 

 their researches with no object save 

 that of the advancement of scientific 

 knowledge. They give their facts to 



