Part I. Report of progress in 1869, by J. S. Newberry, chief geologist. Part II. Report of progress in the second district, by E. B. Andrews, assist. geologist. Part III. Report on geology of Montgomery County, by Edward Orton, assist. geologist.

107
Thus it will be seen that this great seam of coal is not uniform in regard to the ash of its several parts. There are generally two sources
from which the ash of our coals is derived; first, from the inorganic matter which belongs to all vegetation, and shows itself, for example, in the
ash of our firewood; second, from fine sedimentary matter brought by
water and distributed through the coal marsh when the vegetation of the
coal was growing. In regard to the first, it is difficult to ascertain the
exact amount of inorganic matter properly belonging to the coal vegetation. Different plants and trees yield different amounts of ashes, and
different parts of the same plant or tree yield different quantities.
The least ash thus far found in any coal in my district was from a coal
in Jackson county, which gave 0.85 per cent. Whether in this we have
more than the original vegetation of the coal would supply, it would be
difficult to decide. When the Jackson county coals are hereafter studied
some light may be thrown on this interesting problem.
In regard to the second source of ash, viz., sediments intermixed with
the vegetation, it is unnecessary to state, that we find no two seams of
coal alike in the quantity of their earthy matter, and indeed no two portions of the same seam. Sometimes the sediments amounted to a deposit of mud thick enough to make a clay or slate parting in the coal,
but more often, a few inches of the coal are principally affected, and we
simply find, on analysis, the coal to show an excess of ash or earthy matter. The great Nelsonville seam of coal illustrates both of these statements, for in it we find well-defined and continuous slate partings and
also portions of the coal showing far more ash or earthy matter than
other portions.
(3.) Again, much of the coal of this great seam contains a small percentage of sulphur. Nothing is so injurious as an excess of sulphur in
coal. It unfits the coal for smelting iron, and for gas making. It attacks
the iron grate bars when used for the generation of steam, and for all
domestic uses a highly sulphurous coal is extremely disagreeable.
By reference to Prof. Wormley's analyses, it will be seen that in the
Nelsonville mines and at Haydenville, the most sulphur is found in the
top of the seam, and next in the bottom, while that in the middle layer
of the seam has comparative little. At Straitsville the most sulphur is
found in the upper part of the seam. On the other hand, the most sulphur in the seam, at the Sands bank on Sunday creek, is near the bottom,
and next to this, in the third sample from the bottom, as given in No. 18,
in the table of analyses. The other five samples, which represented the
larger part of this great seam, revealed a comparatively small percentage
of sulphur.
On Lost run the analyses revealed more sulphur. As, however, there
was very little visible sulphur in the usual form of bi-sulphide of iron
in the samples analyzed, I was led to request Prof. Wormley to under