It is scarcely conceivable that anything pertaining to the development of chemical science in America would fail to interest its chemists. The response to the needs of the Nation in the last few years has shown how marvelously they wrought and the wonderful things which they brought to light. Yet in the long ago—in the days of which we only know by hearsay, and through desultory reading, there lived chemists with enthusiasm, knowledge and initiative, whose aim it was to have their chosen science contribute to the welfare of humanity. In the labors of such men as James Woodhouse, Robert Hare, Adam Seybert, Henry Seybert, John Redman Coxe, Joseph Cloud, Gerard Troost, and many others, the scientific spirit predominated, although with it went the purpose, more or less sharply defined, of making their acquirements useful. Particularly noticeable was this in the instance of Woodhouse.

The general consensus of opinion among present-day chemists is that chemistry should be helpful to all. It may and should be scientific, but its principles ought to be scientifically applied in every useful manner.

The reader, desirous of learning the aims and ambitions of the fathers of the science in our country, will profit by turning to the files of the Aurora, an old daily paper of Philadelphia, for the year 1808, and beginning about the middle of July will there encounter a most interesting series of articles on the applications of chemistry under the general heading

APPLICATION OF CHEMISTRY TO ARTS AND MANUFACTURES

There are fifteen separate papers. In considering the period—1808,—the age of the young Republic, and that the times were far from quiet; that unrest and uncertainty prevailed as to the fate of the Republic, it does not surprise that thought should have been given to means of protection; hence gunpowder was the very first product to engage the author of the series of articles. The proving and analysis of the powder are discussed at length. The methods appear very primitive in the light of present-day knowledge, but one must not forget the period. One hundred years hence the masterpieces of present-day chemists will perhaps provoke smiles upon the countenances of those who perchance read them. In this pioneer contribution on gunpowder analysis the charcoal of the powder is often called "oxid of carbon." In referring to the separation of potassium and sodium it is recommended to precipitate out the first in the form of tartrate. Naturally, nitre itself comes in for serious thought and the explosibility of the mixture of charcoal, nitre and sulphur arrests the author's attention, for he emphasizes the fact—

Recently, under the pressure of a national necessity, which will not soon be forgotten, the problem of getting nitre—nitrates and kindred bodies—had the earnest attention of chemists. So, in the period before and after 1808, methods of forming nitre had grave consideration. For instance, this question, now amusing, was propounded—

It is quite proper that mention should have also been made of the natural nitre beds, as well as of the artificial beds built up from slow experience. Reference is made that in France nitre was won from the lime and rubbish of old, ruinous buildings, and from the floors of stables and pigeon houses, while it is also recorded that during the American Revolution, the

that in the Southern portions it was obtained from the earthen floors of tobacco houses.

The presentation of the earliest methods of getting nitre is extremely interesting, extended and elaborate, giving the reader a full view of pioneer conditions and endeavor. The scheme of purification of nitre for gunpowder use is illuminating and attractive. Attention is directed to the saltpetre rock and caves of the western portion of our country.

The preparation of charcoal is discussed. The adaptability of charcoal from various sources receives careful thought in connection with its use in gunpowder; so, too, the sulphur used for this particular purpose, and there is recommended as a source of this ingredient, the common pyrites so abundant throughout the States. Among other topics, of vital interest in these days, discussed in the continuing articles, is the manufacture of spirit from potatoes. The method employed in Germany is presented in detail after which it is said—

Fermentation, yeast and baking receive mention. Brewing and the different kinds of beer are fully examined. In those days adulteration was practiced, for wormwood and quassia were found as substitutes. The preparation of beer and ale for home consumption would very likely find little favor in the "dry-bone" spirit of the present, much less would the refining of wines and other spirituous liquors of high alcohol content meet with approbation. However, such prohibitory questions as are now discussed did not vitally concern our forefathers, so that it was most proper and praiseworthy to advise the public how, through the instrumentality of chemistry, many of the needed articles of life might be made in the highest degree of purity. In many homes there existed miniature brewing plants.

At the other extreme, among useful commodities, were the manufacture of fish glue, common glue, gelatine, albumen, magnesia alba, etc.

The several articles thus published in one of the most respected and influential papers of that early day—1808—had for their purpose the education of the general public in the application of a science to their use, but there was also a desire to arouse a deep and steady interest in science in general, which seems quite plain from a quotation from that remarkable address of Dr. John Morgan—at one time Physician-in-Chief of the American Army. The passage was—

Doubtless deeply moved himself by this impassioned appeal, the author of the Aurora papers exclaimed—

And then, probably overpowered by an inner, compelling force and conscious of the possibilities of his science in the cause of man and the undeveloped resources of our country, quietly awaiting the oncoming alterations to be performed by applying chemistry, he continues with like spirit—

Throughout the whole series of these papers there is manifest that noble patriotic spirit which shows itself in the last paragraph. There exists also an intelligent and unselfish spirit, so that as one finishes his reading there comes to mind a query as to the author who wrote thus in 1808—who was this early advocate of applied chemistry—this enthusiast in chemistry? Each article bears at its conclusion the initials J.C., which in several of the earlier articles are erroneously given as I.C. They throw no light on our curiosity and probably no one would ever have known whom J.C. represented had not the man himself in later life confessed that as a lad of twenty years he penned these papers. They are exceedingly well composed. They show a wide, general knowledge and also great familiarity with the science of chemistry. Their young author was James Cutbush.

When Robert Hare was twenty years of age he gave to the world one of the finest discoveries made by a chemist. Cutbush presented known chemical facts for the use and improvement of natural conditions. Might not the young men of these days, surrounded by every sort of help, make similar earnest and worthwhile contributions? They surely can do this if they are imbued with the spirit of the forefathers—the American spirit in chemistry.

Additional evidence of Cutbush's chemical activity at this early age may be seen in a contribution to the Philadelphia Medical Museum (1808) upon mercury fulminate. This interesting body he declared to be mercury oxalate and cited as his authority Aikin's Chemical and Mineralogical Dictionary. He believed that its oxalic 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—

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° 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 facts were laid bare. Frequent favorable mention was made by Cutbush of John Redman Coxe, hence probably the appearance of several of his contributions in the pages of the Philadelphia Medical Museum, edited at this particular time by Coxe. For example, in 1809, Cutbush published an article on the formation of ether in this journal, and suggested that the product of the interaction of sulphuric acid and alcohol could be best purified by distilling it over manganese or lead dioxide and not over caustic potash as was customary. He also dwelt on the production of ethylene in this process, attributing its presence to the dehydrating action of sulphuric acid upon the alcohol. Momentarily, he rejoiced over this observation, believing it was new, but promptly subsided when he discovered that Fourcroy and Vauquelin had long before made the same observations and given the same explanation. Two years later (1811), in the same journal, Cutbush reported results gathered from experiments to determine the value of the hop to brewers. He said much in regard to its essential oil in the preparation of malt liquor and repeated earlier personal observations upon the importance of chemistry in the brewing operations—

Here is one of the few references to Robert Hare made by Cutbush. It was when Hare was devoting most of his time and mental energies to the development and improvement of his father's business. He applied his scientific knowledge to it, only in the end to have it fail through the conditions which came upon the country during the period of the War of 1812. One cannot easily forget the filial devotion of Robert Hare to his father in this particular business. Gladly would he have pursued pure science, but he knew his duty and assumed it, although unable to devote much time to science until 1818. But that story has been told. Another appreciation from Cutbush which appears years later reads as follows:

The next few years in the life of Cutbush were most interesting. He enjoyed mingling with his fellows, and it is recorded that in 1810 he became a member of Lodge No. 2, Free and Accepted Masons, comprising in its membership General Peter Muhlenberg and many other distinguished Philadelphians in various walks of life. Upon them he made an exceedingly favorable impression, because in June of 1811, Cutbush was made presiding officer of his Lodge and frequently thereafter he was invited to address his brethren upon some of the topics of the moment. It is quite certain that he also availed himself in his dignified position to inculcate a knowledge of science, and his favorite science chemistry in particular, for on the pages of the Freemason's Magazine for 1811 may be seen "Subjects and Importance of Chemistry"—an article for laymen in which is plainly set forth how the science enters every walk of life. In many respects it recalls the introductory chapter of Parke's Chemical Catechism, for it advises how chemistry

The offerings of Cutbush were fitting and most timely. They aroused the interest of his audience and induced many to enter upon scientific pursuits. At one place he enlarged upon the wonderful medicinal properties of a chalybeate water near Colestown, N. J., giving its analysis and the healthful effect it seemed to produce on those who used it.

Again, in the December issue of the Freemason's Magazine (1881), he presented a most interesting, readable and succinct historical sketch of our science which concludes as follows:

Imagine for a moment the effect of such an enthusiastic proclamation of the powers of chemistry on the readers of the Magazine! It would be and no doubt was contagious, with the consequence that our science was called upon to aid infant industries. Cutbush was far-visioned and dreamed of the development of our Country's national resources. He had the spirit of Woodhouse, Seybert and others, who, too, were actuated for our Country's welfare, for its development physically and spiritually, and how better could this be accomplished than through the medium of science, and in large measure by chemical science?

In his historical resume Cutbush mentions some

To the modern chemist these names probably represent little. Perhaps a few sound familiar, but the majority are unknown to him. For instance, who would be apt to say much about the Bishop of Llandaff, who wrote to Henry, author of one of the earliest and most delightful texts:

Cambridge, Oct. 28, 1787."

And this celebrated Bishop was no less a personage than Dr. Watson, whose "Chemical Essays" are most charming, instructive reading at the present moment. Students of the history of our science will find them to be so.

But all these early chemists—ancient, if you please—are gone. They cultivated chemistry with pleasure and ardor. Some left visible imprints, while scarce a vestige remains of others. Their labours have made our path easier. A century hence, many honoured to-day and respected for their achievements, will receive scant consideration, though the work of the present looms up large in our judgment.

The founding of the Columbian Chemical Society in 1811 was an event in the chemical circles of Philadelphia. The old Chemical Society of Philadelphia went out of existence in 1809, with the death of Woodhouse. The new organization was founded "by a number of persons desirous of cultivating chemical science." It comprised many young men zealous in research. The names of eminent foreigners and distinguished Americans are upon its rolls. Its meetings were monthly. Each year, at the fall opening, "an oration on some chemical subject" was delivered. Every month some member was appointed to read "an original chemical essay." It was recorded that

This feature was held to be important; at least the daily papers made note of it, as is evident from the subjoined excerpt:

The monthly meetings were announced in the city papers. The announcements appeared at intervals through a period of years, hence it may be assumed the Society was an active organization and that its members regarded it as of consequence. The personnel of its official family is not devoid of interest at present. A single volume of memoirs, printed in 1813, is still extant and may occasionally be seen; from it will be learned that the "Hon. Thomas Jefferson, Esq., was the Patron" of the Society and its President was "James Cutbush, Esq., Professor of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and Mineralogy in St. John's College."

Turning to the table of contents two contributions from the President are observed. The first relates to the "Prognostic Signs of the Weather" and the second is "On the Oxyacetite of Iron as a Test or Reagent for the Discovery of Arsenic." There is little chemistry in the first contribution, and the second possesses value chiefly in the qualitative way. They were evidently dashed off with the idea of arousing discussion, in the hope that serious efforts might be set in operation in certain directions.

The thought which intrudes itself in looking through the Memoirs, noting the character of the individuals in the membership, and upon recalling the chemical activities of Cutbush, is as to the man himself. Why should he, barely twenty-three years of age, be chosen to such an important and prominent station as that of President of the Columbian Chemical Society? What manner of man was he? What his qualifications, his fitness and his position in the science world of Philadelphia? A search through ancient volumes in many libraries failed to bring to light any facts bearing on these points. The only fact discovered that had any value came from a newspaper advertisement bearing the date October, 1819. It read:

"JAMES CUTBUSH
"Chemist and Apothecary
"No. 25 South Fourth Street, Phila.

Here is a hint as to the occupation of Cutbush. He was a chemist—presumably a manufacturing chemist, supplying the necessary reagents to persons desiring them for their chemical studies; and further he was a pharmacist serving the various requirements of the medical men of the City.

Thorough search through newspaper files disclosed that from the year 1811 and perhaps two years earlier, and extending up to the year 1813—various announcements were made by Cutbush as to lectures of a public nature. These help us realize the character of the individual and his work. For example—

and several months later the following notice was found—

"LECTURES
on
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PHARMACY

"James Cutbush."

This was in the year 1812. Early in 1813, a year after the preceding announcement, there appeared—

These announcements exhibit a phase in the development of chemical science which is worthy of pause and reflection. Science subjects had taken hold of many persons in the early years of the Nineteenth Century. Some of them became ardent enthusiasts and missioners in the extension of those subjects. As early as 1808 M. Godon gave lectures on Mineralogy, and in 1810 announced a work of two volumes with a quarto supplement of charts. The science of chemistry also had its advocates. Cutbush was evidently one of them, although not the first. This honor belongs to Dr. Patrick Kerr Rogers, father of William B. Rogers, founder and first president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and President of the National Academy of Science, of Dr. Henry D. Rogers, the eminent geologist, and of James B. and Robert E.—both distinguished in the chemical field.

It was in 1802 that Patrick K. Rogers received his medical degree and embarked upon practice. Having spare time, he began public lectures on the sciences, confining himself from 1807 to chemistry. He was very successful. One of his advertisements as it appeared in the Aurora, in 1809, read:

"EVENING LECTURES
MEDICAL AND CHEMICAL
For Gentlemen
DR. P. K. ROGERS

In 1810 Dr. Rogers gave out a Syllabus of 12 octavo pages "On Experimental Lectures on Natural Philosophy and Chemistry," in which great emphasis was laid on the practical application of these sciences. It also stated that "it is even esteemed, in some measure, a cause of shame, for persons of respectable education, to be ignorant of their general principles." In one newspaper announcement Rogers said that in order to get sufficient space for his audience he had procured the "use of the elegant and spacious ball room of M. Guillou." In this special work he was repeating the labors of Sir Humphrey Davy in London. In reality, Rogers and his contemporaries and coadjutors were pioneer University Extension Lecturers. They sought to popularize the natural and physical sciences and also broaden the vision or outlook of their hearers. In the case of Cutbush there was a strong desire to utilize chemistry in manufacture. This he emphasized more strongly than any other lecturer.

Another participant in the science propaganda was Dr. Thomas P. Jones, who devoted himself to Chemistry. The following notice of his lecture course is not devoid of interest:

On perusing early chemical texts and advertisements, such as those just given, attention is pointedly called to nitrous oxide, especially to its exhilarating properties, for then it was "laughing gas!" One Philip H. Nicklin published a brochure entitled

"THE ONLY GENTEEL WAY OF GETTING DRUNK

To-day, nitrous oxide means a benign anÆsthetic, so helpful and merciful when one is brought under the knife of the skillful surgeon.

The honor accorded Cutbush by his election to the Presidency of the Columbian Chemical Society was merited. He was not only an active, intelligent chemist, devoted to the advancement of his science in all directions, but he seems to have been an ardent enthusiast in the cause of education, for on the 7th of November, 1811, he delivered an Oration on Education before the Society for the Promotion of a Rational System of Education. His audience was large and consisted of the very best people of the city. The printed oration shows that in addition to his chemical knowledge he was versed in the humanities, in mathematics, in philosophy and ancient history. To-day the intelligent reader would pronounce the oration scholarly in every particular. His chief purpose seems to have been to introduce into what was then the customary curriculum in schools a definite amount of science—natural and physical. This is marked in the title of the organization before which he appeared on the occasion referred to, in Old St. John's Church. The whole community was interested in education. A society of educators had existed for a number of years. Neef had for a long time been advocating a system which was in reality a modification of the Pestallozian System, and men in every walk of life were seriously considering the innovations and advancements in this all-important subject.

Little can be found in regard to the Society for the Promotion of a Rational System of Education, but it may be inferred that the society had branches throughout the city and perhaps far beyond, because elsewhere Cutbush spoke of the society as under the Presidency of John Goodman, Esq., and that its purpose was to bring about a reformation in education. Further, Goodman was a prominent layman in the Church of Old St. John, who with his associates, Messrs. Greiner and Braeutigam, fellow churchmen, deeply impressed with the new thought, seem to have established a school "formed out of the Lutheran congregation of the Church of St. John ... instituted several professorships ... one of which, that of Chemistry, Mineralogy and Natural Philosophy" was conferred upon Cutbush, who proceeded to deliver courses on these subjects.

Desirous of learning something in regard to St. John's College, the authorities of St. John's Lutheran Church were consulted. It must be remembered that this is the oldest English-speaking Lutheran Church in America. It was founded by General Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, and a unique distinction of this church is that in a period of 113 years it has had but three pastors. Nothing in the minutes of the church showed that a movement toward the establishment of a college had ever been made. Moreover, search in the archives of the State Department failed to bring to light the granting of a charter for an institution bearing the name of St. John's College, although in an old directory of Philadelphia, reference is made to St. John's College, and to the fact that Cutbush was Professor of Chemistry, Mineralogy and Natural Philosophy in it. The same source of information declared that "the lectures were held back of St. John's Church in Race Street." It may be questioned whether Messrs. Goodman, Greiner and Braeutigam, who were the leaders of the congregation in the early years of 1800, and enthusiasts in regard to the reformation in education, did not, perhaps, carry out their thought without consulting the rest of their church associates. In the history of the church there is a singular reference to the purchase of houses and lots which were known as "the fourteen chimneys" and the statement is made that the object of the purchase is not given. These "fourteen chimneys" may have been the buildings back of St. John's Church on Race Street.

Benjamin Smith Barton was another professor in St. John's College, who devoted himself to Natural History and Botany. Mr. Greiner, who was associated with Messrs. Goodman and Braeutigam also taught in the institution, and the head of the college or school was a Mr. Bachman, who later became a Lutheran clergyman and naturalist of high repute in South Carolina.

It is interesting at this far-away day to note the purposes of the Society for the promotion of education as set forth in its constitution. Among other things, it is said "the education of youth in useful knowledge ought to be a primary object with parents and friends, that more especially ought every endeavour to be made in a religious community to lay a sure and solid foundation for every moral and social virtue. Impressed with a conviction of this important truth, a number of the members of St. John's congregation, willing to give every aid within their power toward the establishment and support of a Rational System of Education, have formed themselves into a Society for that purpose."

The copy of Oration on Education, printed by Cutbush, which it was the privilege of the writer to peruse, was the copy handed by Cutbush "To Dr. Seybert with the compliments of the author." In spite of age, these words are very clear and legible, and if the only relic by which to judge of the character of Cutbush, would indicate him to be a man of intelligence.

There were many other societies extant at this period and through subsequent years which had for their object the promotion of scientific education. Among these was the Linnean Society, of which James Cutbush was Vice-President.

Cutbush had the honor of being one of the few of the original Society of Philadelphia for the Promotion of National Industry, whose essays excited the attention of the citizens of the United States. Samuel Jackson, M.D., Professor in the College of Apothecaries, was one of the most active members.

Amidst all the activities of Cutbush as a manufacturing chemist, as a teacher of the science, as a promoter of educational reforms, as a member of many organizations, he was very busy in a literary direction. For example, in 1812 he published a brochure on Hydrostatics, in which were described various hydrometers and their application. Numerous tables appear in it as well as many interesting and serviceable problems. It was designed for and was helpful to artisans and to beginners in the science of physics and chemistry. It is appropriately dedicated to the Columbian Chemical Society.

In the year 1813, Cutbush placed before the public his "Philosophy of Experimental Chemistry" in two volumes. It was dedicated to the "Professors and Students of the University of Pennsylvania and to the Trustees of St. John's College." One cannot fail to wonder why Cutbush should have so honoured the University when there is no record anywhere that he ever pursued studies under the Ægis of the University. Indeed, it will probably remain a query as to where he was educated. He is often spoken of as "Doctor Cutbush" and in at least two instances the title "M.D." is placed after his name, yet it is a fact that in no place where he personally was responsible for the printing of his name is there any title affixed to it. Every source of information from which it was hoped to ascertain where Cutbush might have obtained the Doctorate in the first decade of the 19th Century failed to produce the fact. Libraries were searched and volumes that ordinarily convey such information were studied without positive result.

The little contribution on the "Philosophy of Chemistry" was favorably known, for Silliman, in his reference to Gorham's Chemistry as the first book upon this subject by a native American, credits Cutbush with having written a similar work, but speaks of the effort of Cutbush as more elementary and not as exhaustive as that of Gorham. The introduction in the first volume of Cutbush's work will always be interesting to American students of the science. For example, this quotation:

"Several original works have, accordingly, appeared, and some editions of European treatises have been published with revisions, corrections and additions by our countrymen. The Chemical and Economical Essays of Pennington, the edition of Chaptal enlarged by the late James Woodhouse ... that of Henry's Chemistry by Professor Silliman of Yale College, with some others, evince not only the learning and talents of our countrymen, but a growing taste for the encouragement of learning and the acquisition of chemical knowledge. Besides these, in the Transactions of our Societies and in the journals, or periodical works, several valuable papers have appeared. The genius of the medical students of the University of Pennsylvania, in particular, has been shown in a number of excellent inaugural dissertations, some of which have added to the improvement of chemical science.

"The first teacher of chemistry was Dr. Benjamin Rush ... who may justly be styled the father of chemistry in America. He commenced a course of lectures on this science in the then College of Philadelphia; and although chemistry at that day (1768) may be said to have been in its infancy, yet the Doctor did honour to the chair, the school, and his country. We now speak of him only as a chemist.... The advancement of chemistry in our city ... is also indebted to other institutions. The American Philosophical Society, the College of Physicians, instituted in 1787, the Medical Society, formed in 1771; the Chemical Society under the patronage of Doctors Woodhouse and Seybert, which has since been dissolved; the Linnean Society, instituted under the presidency of the learned Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton; the Columbian Chemical Society, founded in 1811; the Academy of Natural Science—all show the zeal for useful knowledge and philosophical inquiry.... For the introduction of popular chemistry, the citizens of Philadelphia are also indebted to Doctors Rogers and Jones, and to Benjamin Tucker, who have taught Chemistry with much zeal and talents."