Quarterly Report of the Chemical Committee , July, 1894 . 545 
After Mr. Stanier had commented on certain differences that 
appeared between the analyses, and had inquired what compensa- 
tion he was entitled to claim, Dr. Voelcker wrote : — 
June 8, 1894. 
As regards the difference of analysis between the two lots of cake, I am 
not at all surprised at this, and it in no way implies that the analysis of 
either was incorrect. 
When you get cake of this impure nature, the impurity may be very 
unevenly distributed, and the delivery be really a mixed lot. Referring to 
the certificate of Mr. Penney sent you by the vendor, you will note, in the 
first place, that, whereas the cake was described to you as “ Linseed Cake,” 
it was called by Mr. Penney “ Oil Cake also, there is no statement as to 
whether the cake was pure or not, nor reference to the mouldy condition it 
was in. 
Again, though the ash is stated, the percentage of sand is not given 
separately. You would do well to write and ask for information on these 
points, as the certificate does not give them. As to any seeming discre- 
pancy of analysis, this can soon he set at rest by your asking the vendor to 
instruct Mr. Penney to send me a sealed sample of the cake which he 
examined, and which gave 9 08 per cent, of ash, and I will be happy to 
submit to Mr. Penney a portion of either of the two samples I had from 
you, and which I reported on as containing respectively 9'75 per cent, of sand 
and 7\ per cent, of eand. We can then readily see whether there is a dis- 
crepancy of analysis,, or if the variation is in the samples themselves. 
But, even taking Mr. Penney’s low figure of 9 08 per cent, of ash, I can 
maintain that this would (if the quantity of sand were stated) show an 
amount which would alone render a cake impure, and not one which 
should he called Linseed Cake, and this, even apart from the presence of 
weed seeds and the mouldy condition, would justify you in refusing delivery. 
As regards the oil, this is not the real pomt of the case, and you have 
nothing to do with how the cake came to be in its mouldy condition or how 
it lost some of its oil. Your position is that you had Linseed Cake guaran- 
teed to you with 16 per cent, of oil, and that you had a right to expect that 
you should receive linseed cake, and that it would be in fit condition for 
feeding. As ic now has turned out, you have received a cake which I 
consider to he highly dangerous to give to stock, and which is not, and 
should not be, described as linseed cake. I would certainly advise you not 
to use the cake, but return it at the vendor’s expense. 
The matter is not one which can be decided merely by compensation for 
inferiority of quality, It is a case of a cake not being fit or safe to use, and 
you cannot assess the difference between a good and wholesome cake and 
one like that which I examined for you, on such a basis as you indicate. — 
Yours faithfully, J. Augustus Voelcker. 
Mr. Stanier, on receipt of this letter, wrote to the vendor, draw- 
ing his attention to the various matters alluded to in Dr. Yoelcker’s 
communication. The vendor received the following reply from 
Messrs. Denniss & Co. : — 
Hull : June 22, 1894. 
Dear Sir, — Yours received dated 13th inst. We would point out that 
we sold the cakes as Polish Cakes of the usual quality. See our invoice. 
They are always high in ash and a little gritty, as anyone conversant with 
the usual quality of this make will affirm. We gave no guarantee of purity, 
