FARMERS" REGISTER— REPLY TO J. M. G. 



669 



nioiiious than a Viroinian from etate-pride would 

 naturally bo, should endeavor to strip him even of 

 his own proper plumage. 



A case-hunter is not always a good lawyer — 

 so you mast not conclude from this "brislling of 

 inverted commas" that I amthereibre, a learned 



FARMER. 



RKPLY TO J. 31. G. ON PUTRESCENT BIA- 

 KURES. 



To the Editor of the Fanners' Eegistcr. 



iMarch lOth, 1835. 



When my confessedly crude ideas on putres- 

 cent manures were submitted to the consideration 

 of the readers of the Farmers' Register, [No. 8, 

 page 497,] I expressed the wish that others would 

 join m the discussion, and bring their aid to cor- 

 rect errors, or to diffuse light. This wish was 

 uttered in good faith: and therefore it was with 

 pleasure that I saw that another writer had come 

 forward — and still more so, that it was one whose 

 signature had often been seen attached to com- 

 munications in which I always found something 

 either interesting or instructive. My anticipations 

 of deriving both profit and pleasure from his views 

 of this subject, were not disturbed by the stric- 

 tures which his prefatory rerruirks promised to 

 inysclt^ — and I was prej)ared to receive ni}' right- 

 ful share of correction and reproof, without flinch- 

 ing or complaining, even though applied as sharply 

 as J. M. G's. keen sense of the ridiculous, and 

 talent lor satire, so well qualified him to mflict. In 

 his treatment of the general subject, I found some 

 interesting views, and still more valuable facts, 

 which I will advert to hereafter: but in his treat- 

 ment of my communication, I was both disap- 

 pointed and surprised, that J. M. G. should have 

 made strictures at such length, and yet have di- 

 rected them exclusively against mere words and 

 phrases — passages, which are so unimportant to 

 the general tenor of the arguments and statenjenfr, 

 that every one assailed might be yielded to his 

 mercy, or to be dealt with at discretion, without the 

 substance or matter of my views being affected 

 by the loss. But personally, I have no cause to 

 regret the adoption of this course. The applause 

 which he has lavished on my communication in 

 general, is much be3ond its due, and is certainly 

 a most abundant ofl'set (if an}^ was required) for 

 his fierce attack upon a few Avords, so unimportant 

 as scarcely to be worth a defence. Nor would I de- 

 fend them, but for the respect, which in common 

 with so many of your readers, I entertain for the 

 signature of J. M. G. I thcreibre hope to be ex- 

 cused for occupying so much space, with matters 

 60 little deserving notice, upon the ground that the 

 subjects of controversy are not of my choosing, 

 and that I shall act strictly in self delence. I feel 

 no temptation to exceed these limits, nor to use 

 the liberty ofi'ered by J. M. G. of treating his ar- 

 guments in the manner which he has thought 

 proper to adopt. I agree fidly with him in con- 

 demning the vitiated public taste, which has been 

 "sjiced" with personal controversies, until it palls 

 upon, and rejects mere argument and seaivh ibr 

 truth: but I differ from him entirely as to the pro- 

 priety of that vitiated appetite being ministered to, 

 bv those who desire its cure — and above all, in an 



agricultural or scientific journal. I proceed to 

 consider the objections of J. M. G. in their order. 



''The first of his assertions," says J. M. G. 

 " (pi^ge 640) "li'om which I must dissent, is that 

 " which he has italicised, or thrown into the form 

 " of an antithetical axiom. Since he seems to 

 " design it as a kind of corner-stone to nmch of 

 " his superstructure, it merits particular examina- 

 " lion. '/rtc/s,' (says he,) Hhe causes of which 

 " are not understood, are not truths, and serve only 

 ^^ to mislead usP '''' That this position is neither 

 literally nor universally true, my opponent then 

 shows at length, and most satisfiictoiily and tri- 

 umphantly, and uses both the force of logic and 

 of ridicule, to demolish this unlucky little sentence. 

 Unlucky not more lor its writer than for its critic, 

 for it is here mis-quoted — inadvertendy, I am very 

 sure — but yet thereby so changed, as to make his 

 ground of objection, and the force of his syllogism 

 nuich the stronger. He has changed "facts mis- 

 understood" to facts "not understood" — and be- 

 tween not understanding, and misunderstanding 

 operations and causes, there certainly may be 

 great difterences. Correct this mistake, and though 

 the sentence may still be very faidty, yet so much 

 of the point of J. M. G's. syllogisms would be 

 lost, that it may be saf(?ly inferred, that he erected 

 them upon his mistake. Rut even after correcting 

 this error, I am ready to admit, that the intended 

 meaning of this sentence, (if' taken alone) Avas 

 not so fully expressed — so guarded with exceptions 

 and provisoes, as to be sale from cavil, or even 

 free from solid objections — though if taken in con- 

 nexion with the paragraph of which it forms a 

 part, its intended meaning could scarcely be mis- 

 understood. It was not deemed necessary to be 

 thus guarded at all points, because the sentence 

 was a sort of condensation or abridgement of the 

 purport of the preceding sentences, and is ex- 

 plained by them. The mind of the reader, would 

 scarcely fail to supply itsimperfi^ct form and sense, 

 what will be here placed Un brackets: "Facts, 

 the causes [or mode of operation] of which are 

 misunderstood, are not truths, and [often] serve 

 only to mislead us." * In this sense, obvious I 

 I tliink, (except to hA'per-criticism's microscopic 

 eye,) I am as ready to defend the truth of the ex- 

 pression, as to admit its unimportance and use- 

 lessness. 



If any illustration is wanting of the meanin<T 

 and truth of the passage in question, it is presented 

 (and on this very subject of manures) in your re- 

 marks, Mr. Editor, on the piece which preceded 

 mine. You have there shown (['age 497) that the 

 mixture of quicklime with jnitrescent manures, 

 serves to hasten, and may increase greatly the 

 early effects of the latter. Those who have known 

 this "tact" by experience, but Avho "misunder- 

 stood" the cause of this early increase, would 

 naturally be led by it to a fldse conclusion, and to 

 found a practice thereon altogether wrong and un- 

 profitable. To such misunderstanding the tact 

 was not a truth, but served to lead to dangerous 

 error. But he who has learned the cause of this 

 fact, will not take it as a guide to follow, but as a 

 warning to avoid that practice, which to others 



*The reader who may refer to the passaj^je (pap^e 

 4S8) is requested to correct a tj'pograpbical error — iii- 

 st^'ad of ''carry the result,^' it was written "vary the 

 rwult." 



