754 



FARMERS' REGISTER 



[No. 12 



December 22d, 1838. 

 P. S. Since writing the preceding short let- 

 ter, touching the morns multicaulis, I have seen 

 Mr. John Carter of Richmond, who, in a conver- 

 sation with Mr. Garretson of this place, and my- 

 Beli; and without our introduction of the sul)ject, 

 explained to us how he first obtained the niorus 

 muhicaulis. He stated, that Dr. Norton received 

 a tree from us in the spring of 1838 — that during 

 the summer, he spared him a branch, with which 

 he budded some white mulberry trees — and that 

 this was his commencement of his culture of the 

 tree. This is precisely as I some time since sug- 

 gested to Gideon B. Smith, Esq. At that period, 

 we were in the habit of receiving from Dr. Nor- 

 ton, and his friend. Dr. Hening, many native 

 plants, collected in the vicinity of Richmond, and 

 of transmitting them, in rettirn, such trees or 

 plants as they desired ; and I believe I can pro- 

 duce from amontj onr old papers, the ori<rinal in- 

 voice of trees sent them in the fall of 1828, or 

 spring of 1829, in which was comprised the "Phi- 

 lippine Island mulberry," it not having, at that 

 earlv period, received the title of "morus multi- 

 caulis." Most respectfully yours, 



Wm. R. Prince. 



The first portion of the foreizoing communica- 

 tion, was held back, in expectation of the more 

 full statement,! herein promised, being furnished lor 

 publication. That not having been received, the 

 piece is now inserted, together with the postscript 

 of a much later date. The piece in the Enquirer, 

 which called forth this letter, was that signed "J. 

 W.," which save to Dr. Norton so large a share 

 of the merit of introducmg and spreading the mo- 

 rus multicaulis ; which pretension was examined 

 in a former article of the Farmers' Register, (No. 

 8,) and its total emptiness then lully exposed. 



But though Mr. Prince was fully justified in his 

 expressions, upon all the lights before him, it is 

 proper, and but doinir justice to Dr. Norton, here 

 to state, that we have heard from a private source 

 of a fact, of whit;h neither Mr. Prince nor any 

 other person who has engaged in this controversy 

 had heard, until afler the last article referred to 

 had gone to press. This fact is, that Dr. Norton 

 received his first tree direct from France, in 1828, 

 as we understand he stated to a highly respecta- 

 ble gentleman, in answer to the inquiry, as to the 

 manner by which the first plant came into his 

 possession. This fact is one of some interest in 

 the history of the introduction of the tree ; but, if 

 ever so well established, it would not add one par- 

 ticle to the strength of the claim of merit before 

 made for Dr. Norton, if the importation was not 

 ordered by him upon knowledge of the plant and 

 its value, or if it remained long afterwards in his 

 possession before he knew either its character or 

 value. On these points, information is desired from 

 Dr. Norton, or others ; and if it should appear 

 that he has not received his due credit in our for- 

 mer remarke and deductions from the then known 



fiicts, we shall take pleasure in rendering to him 

 full justice. 



There was an evident mistake of the pen, in 

 the latter pan of the foregoing letter, where the 

 time of sending Dr. Norton his tree is stated by 

 Mr. Prince to have been in "1838." The time 

 meant to have been written, was doubtless 1828; 

 and even in this, we infer that Mr. Prince was 

 mistaken, as was Mr. Smith, in his former state- 

 ment of the time of receiving his first tree. 

 On this subject, the following explanation was 

 sent, and which now can be appropriately offered. 



Baltimore, Nov. 20, 1838. 



I have to ask the favor of you to cnrrect my 

 statement as to the year when I first received the 

 morus multicaulis. My former statement was 

 made from memory, not supposing at the time I 

 had any paper by which I could ascertain the ex- 

 act date ; but on looking over a large bundle oi' 

 old letters last night, I found the letter from Mr. 

 Prince, containing the invoice, in which the multi- 

 caulis tree is included. The letter is dated 11th 

 November, 1829, and the following is the invoice: 

 "Morus Tarfarica 

 "Morus alba lucida lobata 

 " latilblia ohscura lobata 

 " constantinopolitana 

 " ovalifolia 

 " Chinese, (very large and new.)"' 



The "Chinese" is the one now called morus 

 multicaulis. I was strongly under the impression 

 that it was first sent to me under the name of "Phi- 

 lippine Island mulberry" by Mr. Prince; but it 

 seems that name was given to it afterwards; and 

 that even after that the name " morus multicaulis" 

 was given to it. That it was not known then as 

 morus multicaulis, and that its good qualities were 

 not then known, is proved by the following re- 

 mark of Mr. Prince in a letter dated October 21. 

 1829, advising me that he intended to send me the 

 above trees. 



"1 hope, however, I may be able to aid you a 

 little in the silk cause, by sending you some of the 

 finest sorts of mulberries, particularly the cele- 

 brated Tartarian.'''' 



The packet that brought these trees to me sail- 

 ed from New York on Saturday the 7th of No- 

 vember 1829; I consequently received them about 

 the middle of^ that month. 'But you see that Mr. 

 Prince does not allude to the Chinese tree, except 

 in the invoice, as being any thing extraordinary; 

 but particularly mentions the Tartarian. My old 

 tree, therefore, has been in my possession but nine 

 years instead often, (as I supposed,) and therefore 

 it is now but ten years old. 



On the 12ih July, 1830, Mr, Prince wrote me 

 as follows: 



"I should have been pleased if you had stated 

 that your Chinese mulberry tree came from me. 

 I don't believe one tree exists in the country but 

 yours and mine — we have about twenty." 



On the 17th September, 1831, Mr. Wm. Ken- 

 rick, of Massachusetts, wrote me as follows: 



"I notice you cultivate the morus multicaulis. 

 Mr. P. wrote me last spring, (spring of 1831,) to 

 the same purport. I have or rather am beginning 

 to cultivate them since — since last spring — ^spring 

 of 1831,) otherwise except Mr. Cobb procured 



I 



