374 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



eating it, whether they were conducting commer- 

 cial or agricultural papers. /Fe, on the contrary, 

 deem the system dishonest, flagitious, and espe- 

 cially injurious to agricultural interests, as well as 

 to the general interests, morals, and happiness of 

 the people. Surely then we are right, upon every 

 ground of duty and of pledge, expressed or im- 

 plied, to attack and expose this iniquitous system. 

 It is possible, and probable, that, in attempting this 

 contest, almost alone, against such powerful and 

 overwhelming odds, we have been rash and 

 imprudent, and have risked our individual defeat 

 and destruction, without hope of success (or our 

 cause ; but if so, and our cause be good, and the 

 quarrel just, the blame and the disgrace should be 

 on those who, approving the course, hang back 

 from the conflict— and not on us, who have dared 

 the unequal contest. We may, and probably 

 have, argued feebly and impotently ; but, if so, 

 we have perhaps written or selected as badly, and 

 certainly as voluminously, on all these "five 

 points" of (what our censors ought to pronounce 

 equally) illegitimate discussion, without being 

 charged by these editors, or any other persons, 

 with "travelling out of the record." Indeed, we 

 must plead guilty of having admitted very many 

 articles in these volumes, which we deemed likely 

 to instruct or entertain our readers, but which, if 

 tested strictly by the plan, would belong to none of 

 the heads of subjects staled in the prospectus. And 

 why were we never blamed for these admitted de- 

 viations 1 Simply because the deviations were 

 upon immaterial subjects, the course of argument 

 on which could not aifect the interest of any reader, 

 or any class of the community. 



But even if our prospectus had not distinctly 

 stated that various other subjects besides matters 

 of practical agriculture were to be embraced in 

 our journal — and even if our procedure had been 

 conformable to the prospectus, from the be- 

 ginning — it would have been absurd to expect to 

 fill all the 768 large pages of each of our annual 

 volumes, with matters merely and exclusively 

 agricultural. Throughout our eight completed 

 volumes, a large proportion of each volume, and 

 generally of each number, has been filled with 

 other subjects than those of practical agriculture ; 

 and articles on no other questions have been 

 deemed more important, and more willingly admit- 

 ted, than " the discussion of such subjects of politi- 

 cal economy as are connected with the preserva- 

 tion and support of the interests of agriculture.^' 

 If the present condition of the banking system 

 of this country does not strictly come within the 

 imperative requisition of those words of our pros- 

 pectus, then we are unable to conceive any possi- 

 ble case that could be therein embraced. 



Our friends of the Compiler have never before 

 objected to the large proportion of our pages 

 which have been devoted to the many subjects we 

 have before thought proper to embrace; neither 

 to the discussion of the policy of public works, 

 roads and canals — (though we, like many others, 

 went mad on that subject, and have paid dearly 

 for our great folly — ) nor to the treatment of sub- 

 jects of natural history, though totally unconnect- 

 ed with agriculture — nor to any previous ques- 

 tions of political economy. It is only when 

 we have made war upon the paper banking sys- 

 tem that our friends deem it necessary to censure 

 and protest against what they deem an illegi- 

 timate procedure, and a departure from our pro- 

 per limits. Now, if we had taken an opposite 

 course, and, like our brother agricultural editor of 

 the American Farmer, had taken the strongest 

 ground in favor of the paper credit and banking 

 system, we ask of our friends and brother editors, 

 and appeal to their candor for the answer, whe- 

 ther they would have thought it necessary to 

 check and reprove us for departing from our pro- 

 per course and vocation? We may fairly infer 

 not ; for we have never before heard of any one, 

 editor or reader, who found fault with the subject so 

 undertaken in the American Farmer, as unsuited 

 to an agricultural journal. We copied that 

 piece at length, (beginning at page 156 of our cur- 

 rent volume,) and endeavored to meet its argu- 

 ment ; but we did not in the least question the pro- 

 priety of the subject being introduced by the editor, 

 or his sustaining that side which he deemed most 

 beneficial to agricultural interests. We, on our 

 part, liave but done the same ; and even if we 

 had no better warrant, we might justly thereupon 

 claim the like privilege, and equal toleration. 



We have confined our defence to the main 

 question, (the propriety of the discussion of the 

 abuses of banking, and the effects on agriculture,) 

 and do not mean to be drawn off to subsidiary and 

 immaterial issues. We shall therefore not defend 

 the manner of our argument against the censure 

 of the editors of the Virginian — especially as their 

 few words of censure show that they had not read 

 the article censured ; nor could we expect them to 

 read what would be so unpalatable. Another 

 minor objection of our friends of the Compiler is 

 the harshness of our expressions and denuncia- 

 tions. This plain dealing is called for by the sub- 

 jects treated. We have ever been accustomed to 

 call things by their right names, so far as we can 

 judge of them ; and we will not seek for "holiday 

 terms," and polite and deferential expreesions, to 

 designate what in private individuals would be 



