, and the
expressed fear that his labours "will be in vain." And so it proved.
Present day chemists would acquiesce in this statement after reading
Mitchill's "middle-of-the-road" arguments. They were not satisfactory to
Maclean and irritated Priestley.

In June 1798 a second letter was written by Priestley to Mitchill. In it
he emphasized the substitution of zinc for "finery cinder." From it he
contended inflammable air could be easily procured, and laid great
stress on the fact that the "inflammable air" came from the metal and
not from the water. He wondered why Berthollet and Maclean had not
answered his first article. To this, a few days later, Mitchill replied
that he felt there was confusion in terms and that the language
employed by the various writers had introduced that confusion; then for
philological reasons and to clarify thoughts Mitchill proposed to strike
out _azote_ from the nomenclature of the day and take _septon_ in its
place; he also wished to expunge hydrogene and substitute phlogiston. He
admitted that Priestley's experiments on zinc were difficult to explain
by the antiphlogistic doctrine, adding--

It would give me great satisfaction that we could settle the
points of variance on this subject; though, even as it is, I am
flattered by your (Priestley's) allowing my attempt 'to reconcile
the two theories to be ingenious, plausible and well-meant....
Your idea of carrying on a philosophical discussion in an amicable
manner is charming'....

But the peace-maker was handling a delicate problem. He recognized this,
but desired that the pioneer studies, then in progress might escape
harsh polemics. This was difficult of realization for less than a month
later fuel was added to the fire by Maclean, when in writing Mitchill,
who had sent him Priestley's printed letter, he emphatically declared
that

The experiment with the zinc does not seem to be of more
consequence than that with the iron and admits of an easy
explanation on antiphlogistic principles.

And he further insisted that the experiments of Priestley proved water
to be composed "of hydrogene and oxygene."

Four days later (July 20, 1798) Priestley wrote Mitchill that he had
replaced zinc by red precipitate and did not get water on decomposing
inflammable air with the precipitate. Again, August 23, 1798, he related
to Mitchill

that the modern doctrine of water consisting of _oxyg