56 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. I. 



no lower than they ought to go: the first is man's 

 process — the second that of nature. As to what is 

 usually called "the waste" of manure by fermen- 

 tation, my conjecture, (for it is nothing more,) is, 

 that the atmosphere takes up all which the 

 earth cannot take, and restores it, after proper 

 elaboration, by its natural conductors — rain, dew, 

 and gaseous vapor. Could the whole which is 

 drawn up from a particular quantity of manure, 

 return exactly to the same spot first covered by 

 the manure, or to the growth thereof, no waste, I 

 think, would ever be suspected. But after as- 

 suming a gaseous form and becoming an aeriform 

 fluid, its ditfusibility is so great that it spreads over 

 a much wider extent; some portion to be absorbed 

 by the low plants near the surface of the earth, 

 while the rest supplies food tor the leaves of the 

 fruit and forest trees. In this reciprocation, 

 nothing is wasted in any sense, but all alternately 

 given and restored — not exactly in equal propor- 

 tions between so many given square feet of earth, 

 and an equal volume of square or cubic feet of 

 atmosphere; but the earth, as a whole, receives 

 back the whole of every thing which the atmos- 

 phere draws from her, and which, through her, 

 i^ designed ;is food for her vegetable productions. 

 These remarks are here offered as explanatory of 

 those in my former letter, which J. B. seems to 

 have misunderstood: but here, as there I offer them 

 merely as conjectures. 



Another of my opinions which he has evident- 

 ly misconceived, and from which he, of course, 

 draws an unsustainable inference, is in relation to 

 the restorative power of nature in fertilizing by 

 means of leaves and other putrescent vegetable 

 matter, worn out lands, or in making rich those 

 which she herself had first made poor. From 

 what I actually did say on this subject, he erro- 

 neously concludes, that "upon my theory," (as 

 he calls it,) such "virgin wood-land" as he sup- 

 poses "I may own, or am acquainted with in 

 lower Virginia"— of which I am sorry to say there 

 are thousands of acres — "too poor to be worth 

 clearing or cultivating." would become as rich in 

 about "four thousand years, as the Mississippi 

 bottoms, or at least, as rich as it is possible for dry- 

 land to be made by putrescent manures." Now, 

 it so happens that "my theory" — if he will make 

 me the author of one, warrants no such conclu- 

 sion; although — strange to say, there is a passage 

 in his own former communication, which either 

 does warrant it, or something that is cousin-ger- 

 man to it. Here it is, verbatim et literatim: "For- 

 tunately however, for the fertility of the earth, 

 bountiful nature offers to the soil much more than 

 it is deprived of by fermentation: and however 

 great may be the losses sustained, still the gains are 

 far greater." Should I not therefore have ex- 

 pressed myself clearly on this subject, let me make 

 another effort to do so, lest the ingenious power of 

 inference be brought to fix upon me theories which 

 I have never either expressed or entertained. My 

 belief is, that on such "virgin woodland" as J. 

 B. describes — indeed on all virgin wood-land, 

 the annual deposites of leaves and dead wood, do 

 nothing more than restore the quantity of nutri- 

 tive matter drawn from the earth by the growing 

 trees and other plants; and that neither four thou- 

 sand nor an hundred thousand years would make 

 any of these virgin woodlands at all richer than in 

 their original state, when first covered with wood. 



If this, my supposition, and not the theory of J. 

 B. gives me by inference, cannot be reconciled to 

 what he states to be "the known facts," and 

 which I admit to be such, let it e'en travel the same 

 road with his own dismissed sentence concerning 

 "facts" that are not "truths." 



In another place he charges me with treating 

 "the manuring process of nature" "according to 

 my theory" "more as a question of morals than of 

 chemistry." If I really have done so, I must take 

 shame to myself for being in the situation of the 

 man who had been talking prose all his life with- 

 out knowing it: for verily I cannot even conceive 

 how a question of morals could possibly be man- 

 ufactured out of such a case. But if I have unwit- 

 tingly achieved this feat, I hope and trust my rea- 

 ders will award me due honor for it. In further- 

 ance of this novel charge J. B. proceeds to say 

 of himself "/do not treat the earth and atmos- 

 phere as "sentient and moral things;" nor do I de- 

 cide by the measure of the moral wrong, or by 

 the enormity of thus preferring against nature a 

 "slanderous charge of grand or petty larceny" 

 committed on the earth. / simply refer to these 

 facts, of the annual additions for countless ages 

 of fertilizing matter, and that scarcely enough has 

 been fixed in the soil to redeem it from sterility." 

 As to the "jeer," (if he will pardon me for using 

 his own term,) conveyed against myself in the 

 foregoing sentence, I leave it to our readers to 

 do what they please with it. But I beg leave to 

 call their attention particularly to the underscored 

 words of my quotation, and to contrast it with the 

 sentence quoted above, from his former commu- 

 nication. In that, he positively asserts that "boun- 

 tiful nature offers to the soil much more than it is 

 deprived of by fermentation; and hoivever great 

 may be the losses sustained, still the gains are far 

 greater." In the one just given he says, "of the 

 annual additions for countless ages of fertilizing 

 matter," (on poor virgin woodland,) "scarcely 

 enough has been fixed in the soil to redeem it from 

 sterility." I should call this a case of J. B. ver- 

 sus J. B., but shall leave it to others to designate 

 it as they may choose. 



Here ends, Mr. Editor, my attempts at expla- 

 nation and acquittal. But I cannot take my leave 

 without assuring both you and your worthy cor- 

 respondent J. B. of the real esteem I feel for his 

 talents, and character also, so far as I can infer it 

 from his writings. I can truly affirm what I for- 

 merly said of his two communications— that I 

 think them both interesting and valuable. Their 

 intrinsic merit I deemed quite sufficient to secure 

 them against being harmed, in the slightest de- 

 gree, by a little jocular criticism, written in per- 

 fect good humor, and with sentiments of respect 

 for their author. Although it is not probable that 

 J. B. and myself shall ever again write either at 

 or to each other, in your paper, yet it might hap- 

 pen. It may not therefore be amiss to say, that 

 should it be so — as he seems utterly averse to 

 every thing which even savors of a jest "in an 

 agricultural journal," /shall endeavor to write 

 (provided the subject be agricultural,) with as 

 much gravity as if I were treating about the 

 death, inhumation, and decay of human bodies, 

 instead of the accumulation, use, and destruction 

 of putrescent manures. A fugitive from the cave 

 of Trophonius himself shall not surpass me in ab- 

 stinence, either from laughing myself, or attempt - 



