On February 15, 1866, the Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch addressed a letter to Joseph Henry, then acting President of the Academy, requesting that a committee be appointed to report to the department on the best method of proving and gauging alcoholic liquors, with a view to the establishment of such rules and regulations as would insure a uniform system of inspection of spirits subject to duties." Professor Henry accordingly appointed a committee to consider the subject, assuming the chairmanship himself and designating as his associates J. E. Hilgard and M. C. Meigs. At the same time, F. A. P. Barnard, John Torrey and B. F. Craig were requested to prepare tables of standard mixtures of alcohol and water. Dr. Craig was not a member of the Academy. The chief difficulty regarding the system recommended by Professor Bache in 1848 was that the Tralles hydrometer, which was the one then proposed, gave percentage in alcohol, instead of percentages in "proof spirit," or a mixture of 50 per cent alcohol and 50 per cent water, upon which all commercial negotiations were based. While the former could readily be converted into the latter in most cases, it would lighten the labors of the inspectors if their hydrometers gave readings in proof spirits. Tralles' hydrometer, furthermore, was not adapted for quick observations within one per cent, which it was necessary should be recorded, on account of high duty; or for gauging large quantities of spirits out-of-doors in inclement weather, or under other unfavorable circumstances. It was also found that the tables used by the Treasury Department were not entirely correct. In view of these circumstances, the committee set itself the laborious task of finding a more convenient hydrometer, and of preparing new tables. Its report was submitted on July 21, 1866. The recommendations were that following the custom of the trade, the strength of distilled spirits should be estimated according to their equivalent in proof spirits, and be expressed in terms of percentage of proof spirits rather than by the use of the On February 15, 1866, the Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch addressed a letter to Joseph Henry, then acting President of the Academy, requesting that a committee be appointed to report to the department on the best method of proving and gauging alcoholic liquors, with a view to the establishment of such rules and regulations as would insure a uniform system of inspection of spirits subject to duties. Professor Henry accordingly appointed a committee to consider the subject, assuming the chairmanship himself and designating as his associates | E I'd and M. C. Meigs. At the same time, F. A. P. Bime: ', Joba Torrey and B. F. Craig were requested it ndard mixtures of alcohol and water. Dr. (ra gaas, tanmber of the Academy. 48 uity regarding the system recommended by In 1848 was that the Tralles hydrometer, which e ten proposed, gave percentage in alcohol, instead orges in "proof spirit," or a mixture of 50 per cent alcohol and 39 per cent water, upon which all commercial negotiations were based. While the former could readily be converted into the latter in most cases, it would lighten the labors of the inspectors if their hydrometers gave readings in proof spirits. Tralles' hydrometer, furthermore, was not adapted for quick observations within one per cent, which it was necessary should be recorded, on account of high duty; or for gauging large quantities of spirits out-of-doors in inclement weather, or under other unfavorable circumstances. It was also found that the tables used by the Treasury Department were not entirely correct. In view of these circumstances, the committee set itself the laborious task of finding a more convenient hydrometer, and of preparing new tables. Its report was submitted on July 21, 1866. The recommendations were that following the custom of the trade, the strength of distilled spirits should be estimated according to their equivalent in proof spirits, and be expressed in terms of percentage of proof spirits rather than by the use of the "Rep. Nat. Acad. Sci. for 1866, p. 18. |