AN OPEN CHARGE 



AGAINST 



PROF. L. M. NORTON, 



PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, 



OF THE 



Cincinnati, 0., April 12, 1888. 



)rs of the Massachusetts* 

 lology. J 



Gentlemen :— We are compelled to prefer a charge as follows, against 

 i^rot. h. M. Norton, of your Institute, and we respectfully ask investi- 

 gation and action in the matter. 



In the March issue of The Eclectic Medical Journal of Cincinnati, 

 (and elsewhere also) appeared the following "analysis" of a pharma- 

 ceutical preparation that we manufacture under the name of " Lloyd's 

 Hydrastis.' 



(COPY.) 



Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 



m „r r, Boston, March 9th, 1887. 



The Wm. S. Mekrell Chemical Co., 



Cincinnati, 0. 



,,Ti^^'^^"^^'^'~^ ^^^^^ carefully examined the solution called 

 ^joyds Hydrastis." supposed to contain Hydrastin, the white alkaloid 

 of Hydrastia. The sample examined was purchased from B. O. & G 

 C. Wi son of Boston. The solution is a glycerine preparation. It con- 

 tains A lumina and Magnesia, and traces of an organic base, which may 

 be Hydrastin ;— the quantity is too small for determination. The white 

 precipitate caused by the addition of Ammouia-water to " Lloyd's 

 Hydrastis is a mixture of hydrate of Akiniina and hydrate of Ma«- 

 iie8m,anQ la not an aittaioitl. A pint bottle of "Lloyd's Hydrastis" 

 contains 19} grains of Alumina and ]5;| grains of Magnesia. 

 Yours very truly, 



Lewis M. Norton, 



ffrofessor of Oiganlc Chemistry, 



Massachiiselts Institute of Technology. l 

 The above analysis issued under the name of your Institute, was 

 made the basis of a charge against our integritv, in a public advertise- 

 ment, by a rival manufacturing house, which advertisement we append 

 We charge : 



1st. That the foregoing analysis is absolutely false, and does not 

 represent the constituents of "LLOYD'S HYDRASTIS," either or- 

 ganic or inorganic, as it appears in commerce in original bottles. 



