FARMERS' REOISTER— AN APOLOOV FOR BOOK FARMERS. 



17 



in his power to investigate, minutely, his claim. 

 Your committee had got but an imperfect view 

 of Mr. Taylor's farm, before they discovered suf- 

 ficient assurances that they were where a system 

 of management existed. In approaching Mr. 

 Taylor's house you p-ass through the centre of his 

 fiirm, and leave three square fields on the right, 

 the same number on the left, presenting that gen- 

 tle untlulation so desirable in a Virginia farm, 

 where the lands are liable to baking. Around 

 these fields there is the most uniformly good fenc- 

 ing that your committee have ever seen in Fre- 

 derick, and at the corner of each an admirable and 

 lasting gate. His fences are made of substantial 

 locust posts, well pinned together at top, and 

 placed alternately fifteen inches from a strait line, so 

 as to fomi, Avhen it is completed, a worm of dou- 

 ble that distance, (2 1-2 feet.) The rails are laid 

 upon a stone foundation, and in every respect the 

 fencing is such as particularly pleased the com- 

 mittee^ AVhen your committee state that Mr. 

 Taylor's farm is laid ofT in the northern style, they 

 hope they will be considered as saying much in 

 its ftivor. His plan of dividing a farm of 165 

 acres of cleared land into three "lots of 10 acres, 

 and six fields of 22 1-2 acres each, they highly 

 approve of; because they believe with our soil, 

 and in our country, a feto fields only on afarmwa 

 totally inconsistent with an improving rotation. 



Considering Mr. Turner justly entitled to the 

 premium — because "his crops, allowing for the 

 diflerence of force employed," are at least as good, 

 "his method of improving the land" and "his ro- 

 tation" better, and other manifestations given of 

 his being a "better manager of a farm,'''' and "more 

 deserving of reioard''' — your committee do with 

 much pleasure award it to him. They deem it 

 not impertinent to ask of Mr. Turner that hereaf- 

 ter he should not conceal his "lights under a bush- 

 el," but that he should endeavor to do good by 

 precept as well as example. To Mr. Taylor they 

 would say, "go on, do tvcll, and thrive;" and to 

 the society, that they regi'et they had not placed 

 under their control another premium. The most 

 pleasant part of their duty is to re^vard merit 

 where they discover it. 



■ The trustees have, to the best of their abilities, 

 performed the duties of their laborious and mi- 

 thankful office, wilhout the hope or the wish of 

 any other reward than the promotion of the pub- 

 lic good. Under these assurances they doubt not 

 their decision Avill meet the approbation of high- 

 minded and generous competitors. 



By order of the members, 



WM. M. BARTON, 

 President of the Board. 



A. S. TiDBALL, Sec'ry. 



AN APOLOGY FOR "bOOK FARMERS." 



To the Editor of tlic Faiincrs' Register. 



I believe it is a rule of evidence in our courts of 

 law, that general concurrent opinion, expressed by 

 lonp; existing and public report, is good testimony 

 to fix the good or bad character of any individual. 

 We cannot expect the public to be more strict in 

 scrufinizinp; and rejecting evidence than are our 

 judges; and by the testimony of common report, 

 and general o|)inion, "book farmers" are already 

 condemned to take their place aiiiong the cIubs of 



Vol. H.— 3 



bad farmers — and placed even in a lower rank 

 than the greater number of that numerous body. 

 There has been truly so much justice in this de- 

 cision, in the greater number of cases, that it is 

 difficult to establish any exceptions — and almost 

 as difficult to obtain an admission that there can 

 be any valuable hist ruction inihe writings of those 

 who have been confessedly unsuccessful as practi- 

 cal farmers. It is not only that this low estimate 

 of farmers who write, or who are even addicted to 

 reading on agriculture, is made by those who do 

 neither, but we may find in the ex})ressions of 

 writers themselves, that they concurred in thia 

 opinion, as to their fellows. In this manner, the 

 most distinguished names have been treated. 

 Those men wlio undoubtedly have rendered the 

 most important services to agricultural science or 

 art, were probably, wilhout exception, ridiculed by 

 their neighbors lor their practical operations — and 

 have been indebted to strangers lor all the repu- 

 tation they may have acquired. But without re- 

 garding merely verbal, and, therefore, evanescent 

 censure, I will offer a few proofs of how "writing 

 farmers" have stood with each other. Lord 

 Karnes, to whom Scottish agriculture owes so 

 much,is the subject of sundry standingjcsts in print, 

 all of whicli go to show him very much wanting in 

 practical knowledge, as a farmer. Marshall, who 

 has written so many volumes on agriculture, and 

 who is quoted with so much respect, is spoken of 

 in the Edinburgh Farmer's Magazine, with con- 

 tempt. Arthur Young, the most distinguished, as 

 well as the most voluminous writer on agriculture, 

 the one who stands perhaps the highest among its 

 zealous and effective friends, is thus addressed by 

 the reviewer of his Agi'icuhural Survey of Lin- 

 colnshire: " If we turn our observations to Brad- 

 field farm, in Suflbilc, the seat of ijour improve- 

 ments, the most useful lesson of practical husbandry 

 may be instantly learnt, by adopting the contrary 

 of jour example. Were the practical husband- 

 men of Suflblk, within the circle of your fame, 

 questioned by an inquisitive traveller, respecting 

 who was the worse farmer in the county, they 

 would immediately answer Arihxir Young?'' 

 Young himself speaks of the celebrated Rozier, 

 whom" he visited during his travels in France, in 

 such manner as to show that he considered him 

 utterly ignorant of the subject on which he had 

 written so much. Davy's chemical facts, in his 

 work on agricultural cliemistrj', could not be at- 

 tacked — but his dedudions from them have been 

 often made light of, with sundiy sneering allusions 

 to his being unacquainted with practical farming. 

 In our oAvn countrj'. Judge Peters has been held 

 up as a wretched farmer in Lorain's Husbandry — 

 the author of Avhich, in his turn, may meet with 

 equal censure from some other quarter, if he has 

 not already paid that penalty. Others of our 

 countrymen who have written oil agriculture, 

 though perhajis not yet denounced in print, have 

 equally earned their common rewai'd in the public 

 estimation. 



This state of things is indeed strange. It will 

 not be denied on the one hand, that there is much 

 of exaji'o-eralion in these censures: but on tfie 

 other, u!^must l)e confessed, that there must be 

 some solid foundation for such generally prevailing 

 opinions. I do not undertake to defend the ]irac- 

 tical operations of writers on agriculture — neither 

 on account of their imperfections, do I deny 



