1835.] 



FARMERS' REGISTER 



455 



in this way, than in the usual mode. And even 

 if it required more, we have the consolation to 

 know, that while, by the old mode, every hour's 

 work is an injury to the land, by this mode, every 

 hour's work is making the land better; for few 

 things can be better manure than the coating of 

 leaves put on in summer, when ploughed in the 

 winter or spring following. 



I used leaves raked up in the forest, because of 

 these there is an ample supply within the reach 

 of almost every person — and because there 

 seems, from my observation, to be a strong 

 antipathy between dead and decaying forest 

 leaves, and crab grass, that most harassing foe 

 of agriculturists. 



I make this communication, as I have already 

 said, with hesitation, because the idea of raising 

 corn without ploughing and hoeing, and at the 

 same time improving the land, by protecting it 

 against the influence of a scorching sun and wash- 

 ing rains, is so directly in the teeth of the univer- 

 sal practice for ages. The thing is, however, at 

 least, worthy of further trial. It may lead to most 

 important results. Those who think the plan 

 worth any attention, may easily make an experi- 

 ment with an acre or two, and note carefully its 

 progress through the summer. If they are satis- 

 fied, after the trial, that there is any thing in it, to 

 extend the operation will not be a difficult matter. 



If, on experiment, it should be found advisable 

 to extend the operation, the proper way would be, 

 I think, to collect the leaves in winter, and de- 

 posite them in heaps on the ground on which they 

 are to be used, and the next spring, during a wet 

 season, after the corn is up, spread them, taking 

 care to leave the tops of the young corn unco- 

 vered. 



There is one very important result that must 

 follow the success of this plan on a large scale — 

 and it was with an eye chiefly to that result, that 

 my experiment was undertaken. The constant 

 excuse for not improving our land, is, that where 

 cotton is grown, the time necessary, first to culti- 

 vate the growing crop properly — next to gather 

 it, and then to prepare for a new crop, leaves the 

 planter no time to collect manure. My plan will 

 put an end to that excuse at once; for wherever 

 leaves are to be had, half the time usually be- 

 stoAved on working the corn crop in the usual way, 

 spent in gathering leaves and putting them on the 

 ground, instead of ploughing it, may in a short 

 time, accomplish every thing that can be desired 

 in the way of manuring. 



Why may not the same process answer in the 

 cultivation of cotton? If it keeps the ground soft 

 and moist, and prevents the growth of grass and 

 weeds in a corn crop, it will surely have the same 

 effect with cotton — and be the means, further, of 

 preservingthe cotton, whenthe bolls open, from all 

 the injury it sustains from the soil in wet seasons. 



This is, however, but speculation. Let it be 

 tested by actual experiment. 



JAMES CA1VIAK. 



Athens, Ga. Oct., 10, 1835. 



For the Farmers' Register. 



"fence less" and the editor of the re- 

 gister, 



Have each mistaken the import of our remarks 

 with regard to the law of enclosures. We shall 



therefore with the permission of these gentlemen, 

 endeavor to make ourselves better understood. 

 When we asserted [p. 47, Vol. III.] that agri- 

 cultural reform called for no legislative enactment, 

 we had some reason to feel assured that the tenor 

 of our remarks would have exempted us from the 

 charge of maintaining the good policy of the law. 

 And the editor will recollect that the caption to the 

 article we offered, was his own. The one propo- 

 sed was simply, "remarks upon the existing law 

 of enclosures," or something equivalent. 



We distinctly admitted the necessity of agricul- 

 tural reform, when we pointed out what we con- 

 sidered the most approved method of stock man- 

 agement. The connexion of this subject with 

 profitable husbandry, is so well understood, that 

 we deemed it unnecessary to offer any argument 

 to prove it. And we were not a little surprised 

 that the editor should deny he was called upon to 

 discuss this particular question: particularly after 

 the publication of an article from an English ag- 

 ricultural paper, from which we make the follow- 

 ing extract: "Agriculture is divided into three great 

 branches, green cropping, white cropping, and 

 stock management; and they are mutually and se- 

 verally dependent for success on each other. 

 Without green cropping we cannot raise heavy 

 crops of grain, and without great crops of grain, 

 and consequently of straw, to be used as litter, 

 and partly as fodder in conjunction with the green 

 food for feeding stock through the winter months, 

 we cannot make dung, and without plenty of dung 

 we cannot raise green crops, and so on. And it is 

 such -a disposition of stock and crop as shall cause 

 the one to be instrumental in promoting the pros- 

 perity of the other. A reciprocity of services, as 

 it were, which ultimately converge to the generat 

 advancement of the whole, which in agriculture, 

 constitutes a system, which system must be rigidly 

 adhered to if any thing like profit is to be looked 

 for in farming." (F. R. Vol. J. p. 674.) 



There are two ways of effecting agricultural 

 reform — the one by legislation — and the other by 

 individual enterprise. We are opposed to the le- 

 gislature's interfering with this subject, for the fol- 

 lowing reasons. The present system of agricul- 

 ture in Virginia, although as bad as it well can be, 

 has become, by long usage, identified with the 

 very constitution of society. This system is based 

 upon the legal policy of enclosures — and whenev- 

 er this law is repealed, the whole superstructure 

 must tumble, and involve thousands in pecuniary 

 distress. We know that this consequence will be 

 denied. But we defy gentlemen to point out a 

 single instance where force has been used to di- 

 vert the labor of a nation from one channel into 

 another without producing great pecuniary sacri- 

 fices. It is difficult in this particular case to point 

 out the precise manner in which the loss would be 

 sustained, because the nature and amount of this 

 loss would depend very much upon the peculiar 

 circumstances of the individual. But innumera- 

 ble instances might be found in every part of the 

 state in which injury would unquestionably be 

 sustained by repealing the law. According to 

 this view of the subject, we are limited to a choice 

 of evils. On the one hand, the law of enclosures 

 is unjust in principle, and oppressive in its opera- 

 tion. On the other, its repeal would be attended, 

 necessarily, with great pecuniary sacrifices. In 

 our opinion, this difficulty may be avoided by lenv- 



