Evvistence of Radicals in the Amphide Salts disproved. 59 
rium, strontium, or calcium, to be considered as a hydruret of 
oxygen, making oxygen a halogen body ? 
13. Boldly begging the question, Graham reasons thus: “ the 
chlorides themselves being salts, their compounds must be double 
salts.” 
14, But if the chlorides are salts, the chloride of hydrogen is 
a salt; and if so, wherefore is not the oxide of hydrogen a salt, 
which, in its susceptibility of the crystalline form, has a salt at- 
tribute which the aériform ¢hloride does not possess ? 
15. Further, if the oxide of hydrogen be a salt, every oxide is 
a salt, as well as every chloride. Now, controverting the argu- 
ment above quoted, by analogous reasoning, it may be said, “the 
oxides themselves being salts, their compounds are double salts.” 
Of course sulphate of potash is not a sulphatoxide, as Graham’s 
ingenious nomenclature would make it, but must be a double 
salt, since it consists of two oxides in “themselves salts.” 
16. I trust that sufficient reasons have been adduced, to make 
it evident that the common result of the extrication of hydrogen, 
during the reaction of zine or iron with sulphuric or chlorohydrie 
acid, is not a competent ground for assuming that there are, in 
amphide salts, “compound radicals” playing the same part as 
halogen bodies. 
17. Let us, in the next place, consider the argument in favor 
of the existence of such radicals, founded on the similitude of 
the haloid and amphide salts, which is stated by Dr. Kane in the 
following words :— 
“Tt had long been remarked as curious, that bodies so different in 
composition as the compound of chlorine with a metal, on one hand, 
and of an oxygen acid with the oxide of the metal on the other, should 
be so similar in properties, that both must be classed as salts, and 
should give rise to a series of basic and acid compounds, for the most 
part completely parallel.”— Elements, p. 681. 
18. Upon the similitude and complete parallelism of the am- 
phide and haloid salts, thus erroneously alleged, the author pro- 
ceeds to argue in favor of the existence in the former, of com- 
pound halogen bodies, analogous in their mode of combination to 
chlorine or iodine. 
19. I presume it will be granted, that if similitude in proper- 
ties be a sufficient ground for inferring an analogy in composi- 
tion, dissimilitude ought to justify an opposite inference. And 
