MELDOLA-TEE FIR6T SYNTHESIS OF ETHYL ALCOHOL.
737 amling held at Burlington HOWC, 011 Xmitky, June Ofh, 1 small proportions." (' In determining thc ' vnpum ' 1 prcscnt in oil nnd con1 gns it is nn object to possess m a n s by I which their presencc and qiinntity may be ascertained;
, nnd this I find mny be done with considcrnblc cxnctness by the uac of sulpliiiric arid, oil, 8 c., in consequcncc of their ] solvent powcr over tlicm." " Sulpliuric ncid is in this THE FII{S'J' GYNTIIESIS OF IWHYIA ALCOIIOL. I rcswct a vcrv exrcllcnt nrent. It nets umn all theso 1910. -D L J. LE\VKOWITSCII I S TIIE CIIAIR. DY 11. JIELDOLA, F.1l.S.
I n tlic course of on inquiry into the history of organic synthesis prepnrntory to the pul)licntion of my book on this subject in 1004, I came to thc conclusion tlint with respect to the first synthezis of n vitnl product our countrymnn, Henry Hcnnell, wns in precisely tlie snnic position, so fnr ns concerned the nrtificinl production of nlcohol. ns wns WGhIcr with respect to tlic ~ynthesis of urcn, whicli wns accomplished in thc snme ycnr, 1828. This conclusion wns stnted in my nddrcss to section B of tlie British Association n t Ipswicli in 1895,? nnd was repentccl in the introductory chnptcr to the book nbovc referred to. The conclusion at which I hod nrrivcd after n quitc impnrtinl and indelandent exnniinntion of the originnl pnpers by Fnrndny and Hennell was by no means new ; i t wns simply an independent confirmution of views prochimed n t a much cnrlier p e r i d by such authorities ns Clievn?ul, Wurtz, F e h h g , Roscoe and Schorlemmcr, Henry Watts, Be. Tho reopening of tlic question of HcnneUs claim cnlled forth in 1899 n counterclnim by the lntc illustrious French chomist, Berthclot,$ from which lins arisen n polcniicnl discussion, tlic lntest contribution to whicli is by M. E.
Jungfleiscli, tlic distinguished Professor in the Cou6gc dc Fmncc, who, in a remurkably lucid pnper, nrgues tlic cnsc for 31. Berthclot both with p n t skill and with scicntific moderution. ยง Disputes nbout priority with rcspect to scientific discurcry nrc, ns n rule, unsntisfnctory. I sliould not have ventured into tlic nrenn of polemics on the present occnsion were it not tlint tlic emincncc of 31. Jungflcisch niid the nbility with which he nttncks my conclusions, nrc ~i i c l i ns to rciidcr his oivn dclibcrnto verdict worthy of tlic most scrious nntl respcctful considerntion. With every desire to give full nciglit to >I. Berthclot's rcclnnintion nnd to nbnndon m y owi position if found untcnnble, 1 linvc bccn induced by tlic publicntiori of JI. Jungflciscli's articlc to look once ngnin niitl more criticnlly into the evidence.