at least in part, from " early proofs," and that the delay in the 

 arrival of the other sheets, and with corrections, rendered that 

 edition the only incorrect one. Whence they got the notion is 

 unknown, the term " early proofs " was not used in any an- 

 nouncement of the Cambridge edition ; if, in any notice of that 

 edition from other hands, the term has been used, it is unknown 

 to the editor. So far from " early proofs " having been sent out 

 by Dr. Gregory, he expressly says, in his letter of May 14th, 

 " he does not send such, being obliged to keep them in order 

 to introduce some essential alterations expected daily from 

 Professor Liebig." With the sheets sent on the 17th of June, 

 he writes, "I send the sheets," (not early proofs) " before publi- 

 cation" And in another place he writes, " you will see that 

 up to page 224, the sheets are printed off, the rest being last 

 proofs" He then speaks of the cancelled sheets, which he also 

 sends. Not only were the printed sheets, but also the cancels, 

 the last proofs, and the manuscript matter received, but receiv- 

 ed before any copy of the work, or of any part of it, reached 

 New York. Mr. Owen, too, was in possession of a copy of the 

 London edition, the first received in this country. It was in his 

 hands, and in those of several other persons here, before Wiley 

 and Putnam could have received their copy. It was purchased 

 in London at " open sale " no fewer than nine days prior to the 

 purchase of Wiley and Putnam's copy. So far, then, as the 

 usages of the trade are to be taken into account, Mr. Owen had 

 still another claim to become the publisher, in addition to that 

 arising from his publication of the First Part of the Report. 



Messrs. Wiley and Putnam say, that no announcement was 

 made in London, as late as July 19th, of any other edition, nor 

 was there any intimation, that the edition was incorrect. Hence, 

 they say, our reprint must be correct, for it is faithfully copied 

 from the London edition. No one doubts that it is a faithful 

 copy, not an error has been corrected. 



Another assertion, we will not call it designed misrepresen- 

 tation, of Wiley and Putnam is, that the editor of the Cam- 

 bridge edition, " wishes us to believe, that the corrections were 

 withheld from the English edition for the express purpose of 



