Virginia Beach Paper - Discussion of Mr. Stetefeldt's paper on the inaccuracy of the commercial assay for silver (see p. 530)

Prof. H. O. Hofman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. (communication to the Secretary): When Mr. Stetefeldt quotes me as saying that " silver-assays are uniformly made by scorification," he has evidently not understood that I was referring solely to the practice of silver-lead smelting-works. Everybody knows that silver-mills do not employ the scorification-assay for regular work ; and it is equally certain that in very few, if any, silver-lead smelting-works will the crucible-assay be found in use for determining silver. The second part of the quotation, "as it is adapted to all kinds of ores and gives excellent results unless organic matter is present," although, of course, also intended in a restricted sense, might very well be extended to a general one. Mr. Furman, in his Manual of Practical Assaying,* says, on page 123: "We believe that the Colorado practice is preferable, as most ores will yield higher silver-results by scorification." The fact that the scorification-assay is the accepted one in Colorado is strong presumptive evidence for its accuracy, as exactness would nowhere else be more jealously demanded. Mr. Stetefeldt cites Albert Arents- as a supporter of his preference for the crucible-assay, although I had already done so in favor of scorification. Looking up again the reference, I find that I was justified in quoting him, as, while Mr. Arents advocates the crucibleassay for low-grade gold ores, not on account of the greater accuracy of its results, but because it is quicker and less expensive, he condemns it§ for the assay of silver-ores, and prefers the scorifier for rich goldores, and for coppery ores, and in general for ores containing both silver and gold. As I, like Mr. Stetefeldt, have kept no detailed