Papers relating to the Fusion of Carbon. 116 
lated to give offence to our former correspondent, at the same 
ime that they are unnecessary to the scientific discussibn of the 
subject. 
The Committee object, in the first place, to the maordl “ erro- 
neously,” as untroduced into the title of the paper.” 
The title was “ Remarks respecting Mr. Vanuxem’s memoir on a. 
fused product, erroneously identified with the fused carbon of Professox 
Silliman.” 
The committee admit that my paper ‘“‘appears to prove that the sub- 
stance examined by Mr. Vanuxem was not the same as that procured 
and described by Professor Silliman.” It follows then, that it was un- 
truly treated as the same; either through error or design;—I have 
sincerely said it was through error. Would the committee prefer the 
only other alternative? 
“¢ Secondly—The Commitice object to the following passage, 
as peculiarly offensive: “* Mr. Lardner Vanuxem communicates 
his observations ona supposed specimen of fused charcoal, sent 
to Professor Cooper by Dr. Macneven of New-York, which ap- 
pears to have been iron; and the author appears to have re- 
ceived, and evidently intends to convey the impression, that 
the substances considered as fused or volatilized carbon by Pro- 
fessor Silliman, must have been similarly constituted.” If the 
Committee understand the force of language, this passage con- 
tains a very direct insinuation, that Professor Vanuxem may 
have wished to convey an impression that he had not re- 
cewved. 
I am astonished, that words, so innocent in their import, and so well 
intended, should be construed into an insinuation foreign to my thoughts. 
“ Thirdly—The Committee object to the paesane which ac- 
cuses Professor Vanucem of having given ‘abroad and un- 
reserved, though indirect contradiction to Professor Silliman’s 
representations’ The Committee do not perceive in the paper 
Mr. Vanuxem, any contradiction to the representations of 
Me. Silliman.”? 
Professor Vanuxem makes statements, and advances opinions, irre- 
concilable with the representations of Professor Silliman, although he 
does not name him. This | call an indirect contradiction—and I say it 
was broad and unreserved, because its force was not restricted, nor its 
final influence on the reader suspended, by any expression of doubt of 
his own premises or conclusions. nor of any deference for those which 
he controverted. 
