alic acid content was
due to the action of nitric acid upon alcohol. Such being the case, he
argued that he saw no reason why the salt could not be prepared in a
way by which "no alcohol is employed." Accordingly, he mixed
intimately two parts of salt of sorrel and one part of red
precipitate. Upon this mixture he poured sixteen parts of water, and
rubbed the solid mass intimately together. In time the red-colored
mass assumed an ash color, when it was collected on a filter and
dried. In his own words--

"On trying a part of this powder on an anvil with a hammer,
it exploded very violently, the comparison of which to that
prepared by Howard's process was nearly equal."

While Cutbush was in error, relative to the true composition of the
fulminate, he at least gave to the scientific world a characteristic
property of mercuric oxalate, which does explode with considerable
violence, while at 180 deg. C. it quickly breaks down with a mild
explosive effect. Singularly enough, he seems not to have abandoned
the view that the interaction of alcohol and nitric acid give rise to
oxalic acid.

While doing experimental work, Cutbush was active in the dissemination
of science facts through the medium of his pen. Thus it was in this
year (1808) that he published the "Useful Cabinet."

The surroundings of Cutbush were congenial. Woodhouse was at the
zenith of his career. John Redman Coxe figured largely in Philadelphia
science circles. The delightful and widely trained Benjamin Smith
Barton was a prime favorite with the younger men of science; Adam
Seybert was laying the foundations of mineralogical chemistry and
Gerard Troost was soon to appear and give additional zest and impetus
to chemical research. To all these men Cutbush was known and favorably
known, judging from his own allusions to them in his scattered
writings. Of them all he seems to have entertained the strongest
attachment to the celebrated Barton and the talented Coxe, although he
wrote of Dr. Woodhouse as "an experimenter unequalled." It is strange,
however, that his references to Robert Hare are few and meagre. It is
not easy to understand why this should be the case. True, there
existed local prejudices and cliques in the closing decades of the
18th Century and the opening decades of the 19th Century. They are to
be deplored, but humanity is frail and perhaps it is wisest to pass
them by, yet so many things could be better understood if all the
fa