"THEORIES EXAMINED AND EXPLAINED." 



Mr. Levi Bartlett, the associate editor of the Boston Journal of Agriculture, in a 

 reply to our remarks on his series of articles headed " Theories Examined and Explained," 

 thus writes in the November number of the Journal : 



" Mr. King : — Last ovening I received through the Post Office, the October number of the Genesee 

 Farmer, which some one has kindly forwarded to me. The paper contains some severe strictures on 

 two o^ three communicfitions I have furnished for several of the last- numbers of the Journal. The 

 article in the Genesee Farmer, I presume, was written by Dr. Lee, one of the editors of that paper. 

 I regret that he did not wait till I had concluded the series, before he reviewed it. Perhaps if he had 

 done so, he would have been better prepared to judge correctly, whether I am so very heterodox 

 upon agricultural matters. He commences his review by heading it 'Theories Examined and 

 Explained,' and then says, 'such is the comprehensive heading of a series of articles, which Mr. 

 Levi Bartlett, of Warren, N. H., is writing for the Boston Journal of Agriculture.' I gave no title 

 to my commnications, but the editor of the Journal of Agriculture headed it 'Theories Examined 

 and Explained,' and is undoubtedly able to give sufficient reason for so doing, if he thinks proper to 

 do so. This, then, is the 'whole head and front of my ofifence,' in reference to this 'comprehensive 

 heading.' 



"I have not time now to reply fully to the criticism of the Farmer on my articles; but from ita 

 tenor I think the writer entirely misjudges my views. He seems to suppose me strictly an advocate 

 of the mineral theory, and opposed to the nitrogenous system ; and that I am calling in question the 

 correctness and utility of Mr. Lawbs' expensive and valuable experiments. If so, he, or any one else 

 80 supposing, labors under a great mistake. My object in writing these — what the reviewer, in the 

 height of his courtesy, terms — ' gassy articles,' is not to build up or put down either of the above 

 named theories. After many years of reading and observation, joined with unremitting labor on a 

 farm, I do not find myself wedded to either system to the exclusion of the other ; nor have I ever 

 blindly written in favor of one side of the question, forgetting the merits of the other. In the course 

 of my agricultural reading, I have come across a great many contradictory statements as to the 

 results of different experiments, from the use of different manures, and also from the use of the same 

 kind of manures on different soils. These diverse results, in connection with the contradictory opin- 

 ions among scientific agricultural writei-s, are sorely puzzling to the great mass of working farmers, 

 and serve rather to foster their prejudices than to throw light on their calling. Now if any correct 

 explanations of thc=e apparent discrepancies are ever to be made, it must be done by scientific fhves- 

 tigations. In beginning the series alluded to, it was my great aim to reconcile, as far as possible, 

 some of the 'vexed questions' of farming ; — to explain them in such a manner as every farmer could 

 understand them ; — and thus to do away with much cf the opposition against the application of 

 science to agriculture. How far I may succeed in accomplishing said objects, I shall cheerfully leave 

 to the good judgment of the readers of the Journal. The reviewer says I promised to bring forward 

 facts and stat-ements to support the mineral theory. Again he says, ' in number three of the series of 

 letters, we have repeated assertions, but none of the promised experiments or facts.' Had he waited 

 till the publication of my October number, he would have found some of the experiments reported ; 

 and for aught I know. Profs. Daubeny, Lindlet, Rogers, Henslow,&c., are entitled to fidl credit. 

 Having a few more facts of the same kind on hand, I shall bring them forward, not, however, for the 

 purpose of attempting to kill the ammonia theory. If the reviewer will turn to page 69 of the 

 Journal, he will find that I am as strong an advocate of ammoniacal manv.res on some soils, and for 

 smne crops, as he is himself. 



" The reviewer says, ' that neither Liebig nor Mr. B. appear to have read the pamphlets written 

 by Mr. Lawes' himself but have taken up their able pens to refute what they have obtained only at 

 second hand.' Again he says, 'as our article on plowing in green crops appears to be the source of 

 Mr. B.'s information, why does he not attempt to refute the positions there maintained by us and not 

 attack Mr. Lawes ?' I did not attack Mr. Lawes, or undertake to refute the correctness of his exper- 

 iments or statements, or even to express a doubt thereon. My sole object, in writing the articles in 

 question, is, as I have said before, to attempt to reconcile some of the disputed points in agriculture. 



The term "gassy" was applied to the articles of a well known class of agricultural 

 writers who do nothing but write, in contradistinction to those who investigate the laws 

 of nature in the field and laboratory, and not in any way to Mr. Bartlett's articles. 

 We have usually read Mr. B.'s communications with great pleasure, and were not a little 

 surprised and sorry that he had joined sides with the " mineral manure theory" advo- 

 cates, as we most certainly thought was the case from the tenor of his " Theories Exam- 

 ined and Explained." We are, however, glad to find that we were mistaken, and that 

 Mr. Bartlett is " as strong an advocate of ammoniacal manures on some soils, and for 

 some crops, as" ourselves. 



