I desire in this article to mention various examples of successful soil analyses, for the purpose of showing their utility. The logic of facts is irrefutable. Very many samples of soils are forwarded to the Department of Agriculture for analysis. Among others one from Saint Mary's county, Maryland. A water extract from this soil had acid reaction; it also gave decided reactions for sulphates and chlorides of iron, lime, magnesia, potash, soda. The extract amounted to 11.84 per cent, of the original soil. The soil showed a large amount of soluble iron salts. Even in small quantities they are injurious to vegetation. In this soil a free access of air was necessary, so that the soluble salts of iron should become insoluble and harmless. An analysis of peat muck from Louisiana gave 38 per cent, organic matter, principally carbonaceous, constituting it an excellent absorbent in composting stable manure. A sample of decomposing rock - shale - from Wisconsin, sent to the Department to ascertain its value as a fertilizer, showed it to be deficient as a fertilizer. I call special attention to the triumphant results of analyses of the "poison soils " of Texas. In Dallas county they are extensive.

G. W. Danover writes : " All our soils for many miles in every direction are of the same character, 'poison soils.' " It exists in limited areas throughout the State, in every variety of soil; sometimes 50 acres of cotton on one plantation dies from the poisonous matters. Cotton, fruit trees and root vegetables disclose its presence. Top root vegetation is most liable to die. Trees die in one or two years. Root vegetables and cotton die and rot just before fully developing themselves. An ultimate analysis of the soil sent gave no sulphuric acid, or any of the sulphur compounds. Other details of the analysis demonstrated that these "poison soils" needed thorough underdrainage, to relieve the subsoil from saturation and for the free circulation of air; then to be subsoiled to bring it more fully under the influence of the air. A heavy dressing of quick lime, deeply plowed in, to take up and neutralize a large amount of humic acid, and so relieve other elements of plant food, locked up as insoluble humates. An application of gypsum also, to furnish sulphuric acid, so indispensable as a plant food. The money value of this analysis would be difficult to estimate.

Says Prof. Kedzie : " In the early history of chemistry, analysis of certain barren* soils revealed the cause of the barrenness in the sulphate of iron present. When this was removed or decomposed by lime, the soil was fruitful." In view of the triumphs of soil analysis so far achieved, I think we can entirely assent to the reasoning of Professor E. W. Hilgard, University of California : " If the agricultural chemist can do nothing to help the farmer in these important questions, his practical utility will be limited, indeed." And how is he ever to be able to render these services if he continues to ignore the chemical examination of the soils, upon the strength of the " non-possumus" pronounced by some high priests ? The claim of soil analysis to practical utility has always been rested on the general supposition that, " other things being equal, productiveness is, or should be, sensibly proportioned to the amount of available plant food within reach of the roots during the period of plant's development; provided, of course, that such supply does not exceed the maximum of that which the plant can utilize, when the surplus simply remains inert." I think we should not admit the power and efficacy of analysis as applied to plants, animal bodies and vegetation, and ignore it as to soils.