32 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 1. 



induced to hope from every day observation, that 

 I may say something which will be of service to 

 some one individual, who might be more active, 

 and exert more influence in behalf of our own old 

 Virginia. 



Mr. Editor, it is not enough lor me, to hear that 

 a man is a patriot — he must be a Virginia patriot. 

 Have we not great reason to doubt the patriotism 

 of our political editors, when we see room, and to 

 spare, in their papers, (if we are to judge from the 

 trash which they sometimes present to us,) and 

 not one single extract from your invaluable paper? 

 Are they afraid of infringing upon your rights, or 

 do they believe that your paper, (as good as all of 

 them acknowledge it to be) is taken by all of our 

 citizens? Or are they so absorbed in the subject of 

 politics, as not to see that it would benefit rather 

 than injure your paper? Or are they indeed ene- 

 mies to the formerly sturdy and honest, but now 

 withering and disreputable agriculture of this 

 good old commonwealth? I would not charge 

 them with want of patriotism, or with being ene- 

 mies to the cause of agriculture; but I would 

 charge them with a heedless forget fulness of the 

 best interest of our people. 



There is an old proverb frequently used to pre- 

 vent poor people from marrying, that "when pov- 

 erty comes in at the door, love will jump out at the 

 window," which although not always true, is 

 somewhat applicable to patriotism. When pover- 

 ty comes in. patriotism, I was going to say, would 

 take its departure, but at all events I will say, we. 

 see daily the hardy yeomanry of our state, when 

 they begin to feel the secret but chilling blight of 

 penury creeping in upon them, after a long and 

 desperate struggle between patriotism, and the 

 want of bread, yielding to the imperious require- 

 ments of the first law of nature, and Avith almost 

 bursting hearts, bidding farewell to the land of 

 their nativity to seek a home in a more plentiful 

 country. 



But sir what is the remedy for this- state of 

 things? You will say, improve our lands and the 

 people will not move. But how are we to im- 

 prove our lands? In many ways, which our peo- 

 ple will not listen to, but which they might be in- 

 duced to attend to if proper means were used. 

 Cannot the press throughout the state be enlisted, 

 to encourage agricultural societies — to call upon 

 enlightened practical farmers, when they are elec- 

 tioneering, if at no other time, to give their more 

 uninformed neighbors some new notions on farm- 

 ing, and whilst they enlist their feelings in favor of 

 the candidate of their choice, enlist them also on 

 the side of agriculture — which is to injure no par- 

 ty, but enable them to enjoy more perfectly the 

 blessings of civil liberty in their native land. Mr. 

 Editor, I differ from you, if you think your paper 

 alone sufficient to bring about an entire reforma- 

 tion in a short time.* " There are a great many 



* Most assuredly we hold no such opinion — and 

 none could be more absurd, at least while our sub- 

 scribers do not amount to a fiftieth part of the far- 

 mers, even in Eastern Virginia — and perhaps bear no 

 greater proportion to the number of those who read 

 party politics, and almost nothing else — a kind of 

 reading, which alone, and especially when (as is usu- 



ol" our good citizens who take political and other 

 papers who do not take yours, but who might be 

 induced to read communications in your paper 

 upon the recommendation of their favorite politi- 

 cal editor. But there is one subject particularly on 

 which we need the aid of the press generally and 

 that is the present fence law. We would not ask 

 them to join us, but only to call upon the people to 

 examine the subject fully and impartially, but par- 

 ticularly that the poor would look into it— for late- 

 ly it has been objected that the poor would be op- 

 pressed by the alteration. And when I took my 

 seat to write it was mainly to say something on 

 the subject of the fence law, as oppressive to the 

 poor. And although you may be tired of my 

 stuff, I will try and give you some of my notions 

 on that subject. 



I take it tor granted that the richer class of the 

 community ought generally, as they have the 

 means, to be the most enlightened; and if so,< 

 they will very readily see the propriety of uniting 

 in support of the proposed alteration: unless in- 

 deed they, or some of them, see the benefit which 

 the poor would derive from it, and be unwilling 

 that they should receive and enjoy that benefit. 

 I have the charity to believe that there are very 

 few, if any of that sort. But that it would not 

 oppress the poor, I shall try to give a few amongst 

 a great many reasons. I will start with thi3 self-" 

 evident proposition, that it requires half as much' 

 fencing to enclose a square of one hundred acres* 

 of land that it requires to enclose a square of four 

 hundred. The richer man has a tract of land of 

 eight hundred acres, half of which, is arable land; 

 the poorer man has a tract of two hundred acres 

 with the proportionate quantity of one hundred 

 acres of arable land. The richer man has twenty 

 hands on his farm, the poorer the proportionate 

 number of five. The poorer man, (I use the 

 comparative degree as 6rie would not be consider- 

 ed very rich or the other very poor,) has to per- 

 form-annually with one-fourth the hands half the 

 labor in fencing that his richer neighbor does: and 

 the richer man has to cut annually twenty acres 

 of his wood land for the purpose of fencing with 

 his twenty hands whilst the poorer has to cut, not 



al) confined to one side, teaches more falsehood than 

 truth, and results more in ignorance than knowledge. 

 In reply to a previous observation of our correspond- 

 ent — so far from Considering the extracting for repub- 

 lication from this journal', however frequently or co- 

 piously, as "infringing on our rights," it would be 

 highly gratifying: and whether beneficial to our pri j 

 vate interest or not, it would be greatly aiding what- 

 ever the Farmers' Register can do for the service of 

 agriculture. But the true and sufficient reason for ex- 

 tracts being so seldom made by our brother editors, is 

 simply this: their object is to make their papers as 

 agreeable as possible to their readers and patrons — and 

 to the great majority of them, subjects of party politics 

 and their usual accompaniments and embellishments, 

 are the most pleasing. The censures of our corres- 

 pondent then should be bestowed on the general taste 

 of readers, even among the agricultural class, and not 

 on the editors who minister to their pleasure, and aim 

 to supply their intellectual demands. — Ed. Far. Reg. 



