8 TlMEHRI. 
tained in our experiments may, perhaps, be sought to be 
explained by the assumption that the microbe and its 
spores lose all vitality during the time which elapses 
while the samples of rum are in course of transit from 
Liverpool to this Colony. 
But if the presence of the organism is the cause of the 
" faultiness," the rums after the removal of the microbe by 
death should recover from their " faultiness." This is not 
the case, the rum examined by Mr. Veley in June 1897, and 
declared to be ** faulty," was so when received here in 
06lober last and still is so after a lapse of six months. 
Fui'ther, among the samples which we have submitted to 
examination are samples of " faulty" rums which were 
bonded in the Colonial Bond in 1889, which were then 
*' faulty" and at the present time are still more so. 
Mr. and Mrs. Veley in their later communication to 
the Sugar Cane^ advance as a proof of their theory that 
the "fluorescence" in the diluted spirit is removed by filtra- 
tion through a ba6lerial filter and that the organism can- 
not be dete6led in the filtrate. Ot this we were aware 
months ago, but it appeared to us and still appears quite 
valueless as a proof that the presence ot the organism is 
the cause of the " faultiness." If they were anxious to 
show that the " faultiness" is due to the presence of sub- 
stances in the rum soluble in strong spirit but not in 
weaker ones, we could easily understand their adducing 
this fa6l as a proof. We have filtered " faulty" rum 
through a Pasteur-Chamberland filter, have produced 
cloudiness in the filtered spirit by dilution, and then fil- 
tered the opalescent liquid through the same filter with 
the result of removing the cloudiness completely. We are 
of opinion that far from showing that the "faultiness" is 
