THE FARMERS' CABINET, 



DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE AND RURAL ECONOMY. 



Vol. I. 



Pliiladelpbia, June 1, 1837. 



No. 22. 



For ihe Farmers' Cabinet. 



The Observer — No. §. 



The observant and experienced Locke 

 inquires, " Whoever, by the most cogent 

 arguments, will be prevailed upon to disrobe 

 himself at once, of all his own opinions and 

 pretensions to knowledge and learning, which, 

 with hard study, he hath all his lifetime been 

 laboring for, and turn himself out stark naked, 

 in quest of fresh notions? — all the arguments 

 that can be used, will be as little able to pre- 

 vail, as the wind did with the traveler, to 

 part with his cloak, which he held only the 

 faster." This appears to be the precise situa- 

 tion of "Subscriber." He acknowledges 

 having "dissected a considerable number of 

 horns, all from cattle said to have died of hol- 

 low horn, but has not found any satisfactory 

 evidence of waste ur decay in the pith or 

 bone of any of themy Yet, only holding 

 his cloak the faster, he immediately says, 

 " as to the existence of the disease^ I have 

 found no reason to change my opinion.'''' 



I feel as much reluctance to engage in a 

 war of words as he can possibly do ; and I 

 anxiously desire to avoid any thing which 

 would induce him " to love his own opinions 

 better than the truth." But I am willing to 

 pursue the " investigation of facts," let what 

 will become of the cloak. 



In speaking of the horn, I said that "dur- 

 ing life, the blood must circulate thro-jgh the 

 horn." By what " Subscriber" calls " a mis- 

 take," he understood this to mean, " during 

 the life of the animal," and not to apply 

 " merely to the life of the horn." I made 

 life a necessary condition to preserve the cir- 

 culation in the horn. This life could only 

 be understood in relation to the part referred 

 to. It was a mistake to understand the tail, 



Vol. I.— No. 22. 337 



or any other part, when the horn was spoken 

 of. I do not, however, profess to be a correct 

 linguist; and, exposed as I am, to the arbi- 

 trary exactions of an arduous profession, I am 

 often obliged to write with more haste than 

 is consistent with perspicuity of style. 



" We now come (says " Subscriber,") to 

 what Observer calls the pith of the contro- 

 versy ; does the pith of the horn waste, yea 

 or nay?" He seems sorely vexed that I 

 should have denied such a wasting of the 

 pith ; and quarrels, downright, with my chal- 

 lenge, for those who believe in it, to produce 

 the only proper evidence in the case, iAe horn 

 so wasted. These things are not strange. 

 My denial has thrown the onus probandi on 

 him ; he must either accept the challenge, 

 and sustain the position by proof, or abandon 

 it as untenable. He has preferred the latter 

 course. Having " dissected a considerable 

 number of horns, all from cattle said to have 

 died of hollow horn, but not having found any 

 satisfactory evidence of waste or decay in 

 the pith or bone of any of them," he very 

 prudently " chooses not to accept the chal- 

 lenge ; — first, because he does not know that 

 he can readily find a hollow horn ; and sec- 

 ondly, he desires to avoid controversy." The 

 former is a very good — the latter a very bad 

 reason for this choice. Facts furnish the 

 very best means, either to prevent or termi- 

 nate controversy. But it is always danger- 

 ous to persist in supporting an opinion with- 

 out proof, ybr the sake of controversy. It is 

 this which " induces people to love their own 

 opinions better than the truth, or reasonable- 

 ness of the case." 



At page 308, second column, " Subscriber" 

 has made a number of quotations, to show my 

 " novel manner of treating the subject," by 

 '• admitting the fact and then denying it." 



