272 QUARTERLY JOURNAL. 



faults, because we did not wish to bring pointedly before the public 

 the errors of individuals, but hoped that what we did say might lead 

 the readers of those volumes to examine cautiously what they con- 

 tained, and sift for themselves the true from the false. We looked 

 upon our article with no small degree of satisfaction, as one which 

 gave sufficient praise, and found as little fault as possible. We 

 fondly thought that no one could object to our review. But, alas ! 

 for our hopes, a writer in the Cultivator for September censures us 

 because we did not expose what we thought wrong more pointedly. 

 Since we are called upon thus publicly to give our views plainly, 

 we feel that it would be injustice both to ourselves and the public to 

 refuse. Our intention, then, in taking up these volumes again, is to 

 answer the call of the writer in the Cultivator, and to state plainly 

 some of those things which we found fault with before ; and also to 

 point out some of the contents of the work, "which had better been 

 left out, because it has no connection with agriculture ; and some 

 which had better never been written, for it is full of error." 



But before entering upon this, we cannot refrain from expressing 

 our surprise at the bold charge of the writer referred to, that, m 

 speaking of the men who had been selected to deliver the annual 

 addresses at the Fairs, we alluded particularly to Mr. Bancroft. If 

 the writer had carefully read what we did write, he would be troubled 

 to find in what we said any thing which could by any possibility 

 allude to any individual. We admire Mr. Bancroft as much as any 



Cultivator, appeared a paper signed " Senex," taking us severely to task for our mild 

 review of the " Transactions." As soon as we received it, we directed a note to the 

 editor of that paper, requesting him to reserve room for us, in the October number of 

 his Journal, to reply. We wished to answer the writer in the paper he had chosen to 

 bring us before the public in, so that the readers of his unprovoked article might have 

 the opportunity of reading our defence. To our letter we received the following reply : 



Albany, September 25, 1845. 

 Dear Sir — I have just now, for the first time, seen your note of the twelfth instant. It was pro- 

 bably laid on my drsk when first received, where it has Inid till this time with a mass of other papers 

 ■wailing my examination It appears to me that your own Journal would be the more suilalile plane 

 to sustain the criticisms therein made upon the Trnnsaclious. I cannot conceive that you have any 

 just claims upon the Cultivator, so long as the work iu which the controversy commenced is under 

 your own control ; and 1 must, therefore, respectfully decline the publication of your proposed reply 

 to Senex. JlcspectfuUy yours, LUTHER TUCKER. 



Now our readers will judge of the necessity of using our own columns for this 

 purpose. As to " controversy," we admit nothing of the kind into this Journal ; but 

 when wo arc challenged to duty, we arc always ready. 



