nderful figure in science, history, religion, politics and
philosophy is very dear to him. On all sides of him are relics and
reminders of Priestley. Not all, but many of his publications are near
at hand. After perusal of these at various times, and while reading the
many life sketches of Priestley, there has come the desire to know more
about his activities during the decade (1794-1804) he lived in America.
Isn't it fair to declare that the great majority of chemical students
think of Priestley as working only in England, his native land, and
never give thought to his efforts during the last ten years of his life?
It has been said that he probably inspired and incited the young
chemists of this country to renewed endeavor in their science upon his
advent here. There is no question that he influenced James Woodhouse and
his particular confreres most profoundly, as he did a younger
generation, represented by Robert Hare. Priestley again set in rapid
motion chemical research in the young Republic.[1] He must therefore
have done something himself. What was it? Is it worth while to learn the
character of this work? Modern tendencies are antagonistic to the past.
Many persons care nothing for history. It is a closed book. They do not
wish it to be opened, and yet the present is built upon the early work.
In reviewing the development of chemistry in this country everything,
from the first happening here, should be laid upon the table for study
and reflection. Thus believing, it will not be out of place to seek some
light upon the occupation of the discoverer of oxygen after he came to
live among us--with our fathers.

Noble-hearted, sympathetic Thomas E. Thorpe wrote:

If, too, as you draw up to the fire 'betwixt the gloaming and the
mirk' of these dull, cold November days, and note the little blue
flame playing round the red-hot coals, think kindly of Priestley,
for he first told us of the nature of that flame when in the exile
to which our forefathers drove him.

Right there, "the nature of the flame," is one thing Priestley did
explain in America. He discovered carbon monoxide--not in England, but
in "exile."[2] It may not be an epoch-making observation. There are not
many such and those who make them are not legion in number. It was an
interesting fact, with a very definite value, which has persisted
through many succeeding decades and is so matter-of-fact that rarely
does one arise to ask w