Also, on the matter of the composition and decomposition of water, he held very opposite ideas. The French School maintained "that hydrogenous and oxygenous airs, incorporated by drawing through them the electrical spark turn to _water_," but Priestley contended that "they combine into _smoking nitrous acid_." And thus the discussion proceeded, to be answered most intelligently, in 1797, by Adet,[5] whose arguments are familiar to all chemists and need not therefore be here repeated. Of more interest was the publication of two lectures on Combustion by Maclean of Princeton. They filled a pamphlet of 71 pages. It appeared in 1797, and was, in brief, a refutation of Priestley's presentations, and was heartily welcomed as evidence of the "growing taste in America for this kind of inquiry." Among other things Maclean said of the various ideas regarding combustion--"Becker's is incomplete, Stahl's though ingenious, is defective; the antiphlogistic is simple, consistent and sufficient, while Priestley's resembling Stahl's but in name, is complicated, contradictory and inadequate." Not all American chemists were ready to side track the explanations of Priestley. The distinguished Dr. Mitchill wrote Priestley on what he designated "an attempt to accommodate the Disputes among Chemists concerning Phlogiston." This was in November, 1797. It is an ingenious effort which elicited from Priestley (1798) his sincere thanks, and the expressed fear that his labours "will be in vain." And so it proved. Present day chemists would acquiesce in this statement after reading Mitchill's "middle-of-the-road" arguments. They were not satisfactory to Maclean and irritated Priestley. In June 1798 a second letter was written by Priestley to Mitchill. In it he emphasized the substitution of zinc for "finery cinder." From it he contended inflammable air could be easily procured, and laid great stress on the fact that the "inflammable air" came from the metal and not from the water. He wondered why Berthollet and Maclean had not answered his first article. To this, a few days later, Mitchill replied that he felt there was confusion in terms and that the language employed by the various writers had introduced that confusion; then for philological reasons and to clarify thoughts Mitchill proposed to strike out _azote_ from the nomenclature of the day and take _septon_ in its place; he also wished to expunge hydrogene and substitute phlogiston. He admitted that Priestley's experiments on zinc were difficult to explain by the antiphlogistic doctrine, adding-- It would give me great satisfaction that we could settle the points of variance on this subject; though, even as it is, I am flattered by your (Priestley's) allowing my attempt 'to reconcile the two theories to be ingenious, plausible and well-meant.... Your idea of carrying on a philosophical discussion in an amicable manner is charming'....