In all that your committee have said in regard to patent potash, they refer to Parce's patent. There may be other patents of which they have no knowledge.

The petitioners also pray for an alteration in the law regulating the inspection of potash, by making another quality, to be denominated "pure potash," and which shall contain 85 per cent of alkali. But as it appears that not any of the samples which have been analyzed by Professor Beck or Hadley contained 85 per cent pure alkali, and as it is presumed that the samples were furnished from the best quality, if a superior grade was to be established, 85 per cent would be too high a standard.

But your committec, from all the information which they have been able to collect on the subject, are of opinion that any alteration in the present law is unnecessary. That it would injure the credit of our potash in the European market, by sending them a quality with which they were not acquainted, and also reduce the value of the quality now denominated "first sort," and which constitutes by far the greatest proportion of our commercial potash.

Another reason in the minds of your committee in favor of the present inspection law, and against its alteration is, that under its provisions New-York ashes have been gaining credit in the European market, and have now a preference in price over those from Canada.

Your committee have not been able to learn that any complaint is made of the inspection in the city of New-York, and as it appears from the returns of the different inspectors for the last three years, that most of the ashes, from some cause, are fast finding their way to that city for inspection, and as the manufacturer or merchant can always have his choice of inspectors, your committee are of the opinion that the evil complained of by the petitioners can be remedied without legislative aid.

Sensible of the importance of maintaining as much uniformity as possible in the law regulating the inspection of an article forming so large an amount in the exports of our State as that of pot and pearl ashes. And in view of all the facts which your committee have been able to collect, they have come to the conclusion that it is inexpedient to make any alteration in the law at this time.

William S. Tallman and James C. Tallman, of the town of Manlius, in said county of Onondaga, being duly sworn, depose and say, each for himself, that they have been engaged for a number of years in the manufacture of potashes, and that they have this day delivered to Dr. S. Pulford, of said town of Manlius, three samples of potashes in a box, which samples of potashes are marked and labelled No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, which were manufactured by these deponents this winter in the ashery of Messrs. Neely and Sherwood, of said town of Manlius; and these deponents further say, that the sample marked No. 1, was made on the old or common way of manufacturing potashes, without adding or using salt in any manner in the operation, and that the sample marked No. 2, was made on the lengthy specifications of Parce's patent, and that the sample marked No. 3, was made on the "abridged specifications of Parce's patent for leaching ashes and making potash," which is the usual manner of working on said patent; and further these deponents say not.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 2d day of February, 1833.

WILLIAM S. TALLMAN,
JAMES C. TALLMAN.

GEORGE N. TAYLOR, J. P.

I hereby certify that the above box was delivered to Dr. L. C. Beck, professor of chemistry, unopened, at the request of the hon. Mr. Myers, chairman of the committee on trade and manufactures, in the Assembly.

February 12, 1883.

SCHUYLER PULFORD.

No. 2.

Certificate of Dr. Pulford.

I hereby certify, that the samples which I furnished professor J. Hadley for analysis in September, 1832, were as follows: I had twelve bushels of ashes worked on Parce's patent plan, from which I obtained one hundred and forty-five pounds of potash, which he calls No. 1, which contained, as he certifies, 87.16 per cent of alkali; then I had twelve bushels of the same kind of ashes worked the old way, which yielded seventy-eight pounds of potash, which he calls No. 2, and found it contained 76.63 per cent alkali. SCHUYLER PULFORD.

Manlius, Dec. 10, 1832.

No. 3.

To the Hon M. Myers, chairman of the committee on trade and manufactures, Assembly of New-York.

SIR, Enclosed is my report on the specimens of potash submitted to me for examination, together with a few observations upon the peculiar mode of manufacture which has given rise to this inquiry. I have the honor to be, yours, &c. LEWIS C. BECK.

Albany, March 23d, 1833.

REPORT.

The following investigation was instituted for the purpose of determining the relative purity of potash manufactured upon the new plan, (commonly called Pearce's patent,) and that made in the ordinary way. Three specimens were delivered to me by Dr. Pulford, marked 1, 2, and 3, and manufactured by Messrs. Tallmans, in the modes specified in their affidavit here to annexed. (No. 1.) As the exact process was here stated, and as there was no doubt that these were the specimens thus prepared, it presented a good opportunity of comparing the two methods of manufacture. I selected Nos. 1 and 3 for this purpose, as the latter was said to have been made upon the plan now almost universally pursued, by those who had adopted this patent.

The process which I employed in the analysis of these specimens was, in the main, similar to that detailed in the report which I made in April last, to the Hon. William Seymour, then chairman of the committee on trade and manufactures; and it will not therefore, be necessary for me to repeat it here. I should state, however, that as the subject is one of much importance, the experiments were in most cases repeated, and the mean result ascer

tained. I selected fragments from different parts of the same specimen, in order to ascertain the average purity of the whole. And as the chief object was to compare the results of the two modes of manufacture, I was careful to make use of equal weights of each specimen, and in all cases to employ similar processes.

Before stating the results of my examination, it may be proper to mention, that what is ordinarily called pure potash, is, in fact, a combination of the real alkali with a portion of water, constituting what is termed by chemists, hydrate of potash. This portion of water it is not easy to dislodge. Now when potash in this form is exposed to the air, it absorbs from it not only an additional quantity of water, but also a portion of carbonic acid, by the last of which it is converted into a carbonate of potash. But the value of a specimen of commercial potash depends altogether upon the quantity of real alkali which it contains. The water and carbonic acid, though not ordinarily considered as impurities, increase the weight without adding any thing to the saturating power of any given specimen. This is an important consideration in estimating the value of potash, and points out the process of determining the amount of pure potash as the only one which can be relied on. The following table will exhibit the constituents of the two specimens:

No. 1, manufactured upon the old No. 3, manufactured upon the plan, as stated in the certifi- plan proposed by Mr. Pearce, as

cate.

Insoluble matter,

Sulphate of potash, ....
Chloride of potassium,.

Carbonic acid, ...
Pure potash, (hydrate,).

stated in certificate.

1.66 Insoluble matter,

2.50

6.95 Chloride of potassium &

From this statement it will be observed that No. 3 contains a larger amount of pure potash than No. 1, although the amount of what are ordinarily considered impurities is a trifle greater. It may also be stated that by a certificate of Professor Hadley, it appears that he found in two specimens of potash which he examined-the one made according to the ordinary method, and the other according to Pearce's plan—the proportion of pure potash greatly in favor of the latter. And of the specimens which I analyzed last year, that which yielded the largest amount of alkali, was said to have been manufactured in the same way. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that according to our present standard, these should

* Dr. Hadley's results differ considerably from those above stated; but he operated on different specimens, and I think by the process which he adopted, he would be likely to estimate a portion of what I call chloride of potassium and sodium, as pure potash. If this is the case, the difference between us will be much less. For 11.09, the amount of chloride of potassium and sodium in No. 3, is equivalent to about 9 hydrate of potash, which added to 74.21=83.21. So also 6.95 chloride of potassium in No. 1, is equivalent to 5.2 hydrate of potash, which added to 78.89=78.91.