No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 3S3 



Among a number of specimens brought to me were: 



(1) A piece of micaceous sandstone. 



(2) A nodule of iron pyrites. 



Neither of these possessed any materml value, yet the gentlemen 

 exhibited reports from a man, whose letter heads set forth that he 

 was the Acting Geologist, Mineralogist and Chemist of a great Com- 

 monwealth. Upon the first specimen, he reported that it contained 

 both gold and silver and recommended an assay of it to be made, 

 at a cost of |4.00, '4f made by him." 



For the second sample, he recommended an assay for gold and 

 silver and a test of radium; the former to cost |4.00, while a 

 qualitative determination of radium would be |5.0U and to ascertain 

 the exact percentage of radium, the cost would be $10.00. A com- 

 plete qualitative analysis was suggested for which he said the cost 

 would be .f 28.00. The concluding paragraph was as follows: 



"Are you aware that radium-bearing ores have been found in 

 Schuylkill county?" 



Had he known the difference between iron pyrites and gold, ho 

 would not have reported as he did, unless he purposely attempted 

 to obtain money under false pretences. 



A farmer's wife recently came into a city of this Commonwealth, 

 bringing with her a piece of rock with glittering particles clinging 

 to it. In her innocence, she believed it might contain gold, but she 

 did not say so. The same "Expert" (?) examined it under a magnify- 

 ing glass and announced that he thought it contained gold. The 

 result was that the farmer's wife was defrauded to the amount of 

 $4.00 and the report furnished a week later said, "It is not as rich 

 as we first supposed, but I think if you dig a little deeper, it will 

 show it to be a rich ore." Gentlemen, that specimen was worthless 

 and the farm woman was robbed. 



To show the utter worthlessness of the work of some of these men, 

 I give verbatim two reports of analyses of the same pulverized sub- 

 stance which had been thoroughly mixed. The letters transmitting 

 the results are as follows: 



''The sample of the pulverized mineral you sent me for analysis 

 as to silica, I find to contain that constituent (Si 02) 75.876 per cent." 



The result being questioned, a second anaylsis was ordered to be 

 made; one week later, the result of the second analysis was trans- 

 mitted in the following letter: 



"In accordance to your request to make another analysis of the sub- 

 stance you gave Mr. in which to determine the silicon, I sub- 

 mit the following result which I claim is the true percentage of that 

 sample which I have in my possession. 



Silica, Si 02, 97.74 per cent., or 

 Silicon Si, 45.96 per cent. 



There we have a difference of nearly 22 per cent, of silica in the 

 same sample. One or the other analysis is worthless and shows 

 that the work done in that laboratory can not be relied upon, for no 

 such difference was possible, had the analyses been properly made. 



In these days, when our educational advantages are so good, maga- 

 zines so cheap and economic science is so well understood, it seems 

 almost incomprehensible that so much prospecting is done that is 

 not only wasteful but likewise senseless. Large sums, in the aggre- 



