NEW ENCJIiAN© FARMER. 



PUBLISHED BY J. B. RUSSELL, AT NO. 52 NORTH MARKET STREET, (at the Agricultural Wareuoose.)— T. G. FESSENDE.N, EDITOR. 



A OL, IX. 



BOSTOJT, Fill DAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1830. 



NO. 7. 



vS^sasa^sf ^^i\^ii«©sr3» 



FOR THE NEW ENGLAKl* FARMER. 



DESCRIPTION OF FARMS, AND MODES 

 OF CULTURE. 



Mr Fessenden — Nolliing lias recently contrib- 

 ited more to my cdiliciitioii, tliaii the statistic ac- 

 oiirit ill vol. ix. No. 3, of the New England Farm- 

 f Jlr E. I'hi.n.nev's Farm in Lcvingtou, — 

 md also his general management, and improve- 

 aeiits ill the si-ience of Agrietdture. In the 

 lanie publieatii)U I also noticed that in due time 



similar description of Mr D. Chandler's Farm, 

 vouKI appear in the New England Farmer. 1 

 or one of your snliscrihcrs must say, that I most 

 ordially apiirovi-, and earnestly re(iucst that such 



nd of notices of the management, and improve- 

 neiits of our ntost emiiieiit, and intelligent agri- 

 ulmrists, might more ficqiieiitly he found in your 

 ahiahle and interesting paper. I think much 

 seful information and instru<,-tioii might be thus 

 mparted, aud as it would he such as would he 

 funded on the result of actual experiment, it 

 rohably would he highly beneficial to all engag- 

 rt in the sciences — I make these suggestions. Air 

 Editor, flattering myself that many will hereafter 

 ave the goodness to f irward to you for insertion 



milar coinmunications — where your ei.gage- 



ei;ts may prevent vour attending to it personally. 

 Yours, J. N. H. 



Bennington, VI. August 24, 1830. 



August, eight boxes of pure honey and wax per- 

 fectly white and limpid, weighing net 31 lbs. 3 

 ounces, leaving the lower part of the hive entire- 

 ly tilled, and extending down below the bottom of 

 the hive, having kept the floor let down during 

 the season, as recommended by Mrs Griflith. 



1 have likewise taken several boxes from the 

 later swarms, leaving the lower part of the hives 

 nearly fliled, which remains for their winter pro- 

 visions. 



If you think tlie substance of this communica- 

 tion worth a place in your paper you are at liberty 

 to insert it. 



Yours respectfully, 



Bristol, R.l. Aug. 27. JOHN D'WOLF 2d. 



FOR THE NEW FN'fiLANI) FARMER. 



CANADA THISTLES. 



Mr Fessexde.v — In the summer of 1829 I dis- 

 3vered a patch of Canada thistles in my pasture 

 f about twelve feet square. I cut them repeat- 

 tlly, sprinkleil'*ilt on th.-m, but tliey looked flour 

 Ihingthis season. The first of July, 1830, 1 care- 

 illy dug round each stem, about two inches deep, 

 Jt about one gill of salt round each stem, aud 

 jyereii the salt with dirt, and jiressed it down. 



about a week the thistles were all dead, and 

 have never seen any signs of them since. If 

 is method is not the cheapest way to kill Can 

 la thistles, I presume it is the smest. 

 ■ Yours, &c, T. C. 



Windham co. Con., Aug. 20. 



lOU THE Nt 



VD FARMER. 



GREAT I'ROnUCE FROM BEES. 

 Mr J. B. RossELL — It seems to have b"Comc 

 fashionable of late, as well as laudable, to coiiv 

 unicate any good re.'^ult, from the culture anl 

 anagement of Bees, and being a subscriber am! 

 Imirer of your highly valuable paper, I take ih 

 lerty t>f transiiiilting to you an account of my 

 ccess in this branch of rural economy. 

 In December last, 1 purchased of iMr BeanI ol 

 larlestown, two hives of bees, from which I 

 ve received six swarms, all hived v\ilhout;ny 

 Biculty, iu B-ard's ne.w constructed Hive, il- 

 ougli an eniiie stranger i(i the Imsiiiess — tak ii. 

 f Thacher's Treatise (or my guide. 

 From the first swarm, wlfuli came off" on tii 

 it day of May, I have takeu out to the firsiol 



PASSE COLMAR AND NAPOLEON PEARS. 



Thom.as G. Fessenden, Esq. — 



Dear Sir — Had I supposed that there existed 

 a possibility of difference in opinion between the 

 enlightened writer who signs himself in your last 

 paper ' A Farmer,' and dates his letter ' Ilo.xbury,' 

 and myself, as to the subject matter of my com- 

 munication relative to the ' Passe Colmar and 

 Napoleon pears,' I should most certainly have con- 

 sulted his opinion before venturing mine. Lut, sir, 

 so repeated, and so forcible have been the proofs 

 presented lo me that I deemed the matter one 

 not to id contested or doubted. — I arrayed myself 

 against no man's opinioi^nor intended oftencc to 

 ".11/ one, but simply to explain an inadvertence — 

 My position however being contested, I will now 

 proceed to show, that if I was misled, il did not 

 origintite leith myself, and that the assertions made 

 vere supported by the evidence, after which it will 

 rinain for others to decide whether I advanced 

 ' luch confident language on a, topic'' which I < did 

 nit understand,' and whether my 'very confident 

 afscrtion is founded entirely and wholly in error 

 ard in very hasty examination.'' 



In the spring of 1825 I received from a Boston 

 gaitleman the first Napoleon pear (then so call- 

 ed) — In November of 1827 I received another 

 tne from Boston under the same name — In April, 

 1529, I received three trees more, and the same 

 sping I received grafts from two different persons 

 at Boston all these bearing the same title — In the 

 sunnier of 1820, / saip in several gardens near 

 Btston, trees so called and said to be engrafted 

 lion the original, and in the spring of 1830, I re- 

 ceded gral:s from several persons under the same 

 uaiie. Each and all of these trees and grafts 

 haie proved to he identically the Passe Colmar 

 pea:, and in their transmission two persons re- 

 ferred to the original tret as the source whence the 

 giafis were obtained — at a number of those pe- 

 riod^ I received from the same persons trees and 

 grafs of the Passe Colmar (so called) and these 

 were in no case similar to those called JVapoleon, 

 and consequently were themselves inaccurate. 

 This point I deem important, as it evinces that 

 'lie error probably originated from a transposition 

 iif labels or sorts. 



It will be perceived by these remarks that one 

 inference drawn from my communication is con- 

 'rary to its intent — I never meant to assert 'thai 

 the two trees cultivated at Boston as the Napoleon 

 and Passe Colmar pears were identical, but that 



the one there called ' Napoleon' was identically 

 the Passe Colmar of correct authority, and thenco 

 I inferred that 'all the Passe Colmar trees not 

 identical with tlie Napoleon there so called were 

 also wrong,' and any one who will examine tho 

 passage will sec that I was right. — The writer to 

 whom I am replying, in his cpiotation of the re- 

 marks jusl referred to, accidentally omitted tho 

 word not; which impairs the meaning. 



Finding my impressions that- an error existed, 

 confirmed at each subsequent examination of the 

 trees and grafts received during five years, and 

 that all called Napoleon were the Passe Colmar, I 

 still felt diftideiU as to hazarding my opinion un- 

 confirmed by others, and evinced that I equally ap- 

 preciated the intelligence of IJostonians with tho 

 gentleman I am replying to, by addressing let- 

 ters to t\vo of the most accurate pomologists in 

 its immediate ^vicinity. To them I staled my im- 

 pressions on the subject, and asked them to exam- 

 ine crititally and advise if I were right — They 

 both ful'iy confirmed my opinion. Under date of 

 10th of last month one of them remarks thus 

 ' ir.y JVa^oleon came from Mr L.,* and he stil! 

 thinks it correct, but great errors have been com- 

 mitted somewhere ; my tree has fruit on it ; I had 

 the Passe Colmar from Mr Parmcntier ; it is no 

 doubt the same with the one wc call Napoleon; 

 I thought so for some time and told W. K.* of it, 

 but I said to myself that Mr Parmcntier had made 

 a niistake,and Mr L. must be right ; but last year 

 I got a r^::ii of Mr J. B. Russell, of the Napoleon, 

 which ;s unlike Mr L.'s, and this spring i got the 

 Passe Colmar Epineux from B. & W.,* which 

 agrees with Mr L.'s Napoleon and Parmentier'.s 

 Passe Colmar, and I think with the Pomological 

 Magazine. Mr L.'s Vasse Colmar is very different, 

 and resembles in leaf the pear seiit by you as 

 d'Aremberg — The Marie Louise exhibited at the 

 Hall last autumn was diflcrent from the figm-e in 

 the Pomological Magazine, No. 122. — I should 

 say your Naiioleon is wrong and you are right.' — 

 So much for this. The other gentleman writes as 



follows [under date of 8th of last month, ' The 



Napoleon 1 sent you is the identical same I re- 

 ceived from Mr L. * I mentioned to you once 

 that being there last summer, and on his pointing 

 out the original tree, I stood some time looking at 

 it; the tree is very peculiar, Ac has 7ioliced this; 

 the woo<l waving and twisting ; this sort of all 

 others I know for certainty mine to be the same 

 be calls so; yet that no mistake has ever arisen 

 since sent him from Mr K. by transposing, we 

 have reason to conclude, for he says the fruit so 

 far as produced is identically the same.' 



In addition to the foregoing most conclusive 

 <locumenls, 1 will hereafter, if necessary, refer to 

 the trees themselves that I have seen in different 

 collections. 1 think however it will now be con- 

 ceded that if 1 have not examined the original 

 tree, my information nevertheless flo\\;s from near 

 the fountain, and I also havj been taught to 

 suppose that a tree grafted from the original par- 

 look of the parental properties. As further proofs 

 that errors in names may arise even among the 

 most correct and intelligent, the Forelle pear, if I 

 mistake not, was first promulgated as the ' Florello,' 

 and the Capiaumont as the Cassiomont, a slight 



