1848. 



GENESEE FARMER. 



267 



sheep. And when we go to the fair and see | 

 men exhibiting sheep which they call pure bred 

 Merino, we ask them what flock they were from, 

 and when they inform us, we at* once know 

 what they are, for there is not a flock of any 

 note in the United States but what we have 

 searched out, and know their pedigree. 



If the judges on Merino Sheep were selected 

 from among Merino wool groivers, instead of 

 wool dealers and manufacturers, and those on 

 Saxony sheep from among Saxony wool growers, 

 there would no doubt be better satisfaction given. 

 There were' premiums awarded to Merino bucks 

 at the late Fair at Buffalo, that we would not 

 have with our flock of ewes 24 hours in the 

 month of December for $50, and that because 

 they were mongrel sheep ; yet their • wool was 

 soft and nice. Very respectfully, yours. 



Reed Burritt. 



Burdett, Tompkins Co., N. Y., Oct., 1848. 



Lunar Influence, &c. 



Messrs. Editors : — The June number of the 

 Farmer contains a communication signed "H," 

 referring to my article article on lunar influence, 

 published in March, and asks for further infor- 

 mation in regard thereto, that he may no longer 

 be one of the " duped." He says, " if he had 

 made himself acquainted with modern philoso- 

 phy, (which he evidently has not done) he 

 would have ascertained that some of his remarks 

 though applicable oncQ, are inapplicable now, 

 and that some of his questions are very easily 

 answered." 



Good and cool. It is a very important part 

 of science, though rather humiliating, to learn 

 the extent of our ignorance upon a question 

 which we design to solve for the benefit of others. 

 I make no pretensions to originality, although I 

 have examined several systems of " modern 

 philoso[)hy." The ignorant pretender believes he 

 understands everything, while the experienced 

 philosopher is constantly affirming he under- 

 stands nothing. My former communication 

 was written in great haste, and without tran- 

 scribing. It contained an error or two, and an 

 acknowledgment that 1 was a farmer, from which, 

 "H," I suppose, inferred I must be unacquainted 

 with " modern philosophy." I regret he will 

 not argue the question with me, and that he did 

 not attempt to answer one of my former questions. 

 They have never been satisfactorily answered, 

 and probably never will be, until "H." can be 

 induced to undertake the task. It will immor- 

 talize you, " H.," even if you do not more than 

 half answer them. Try it. 



My remarks in regard to philosophy are "in- 

 applicable now." Why so ? Was there ever 

 a time when the masses were more easily 

 "duped" by designing men than the present? 

 Was there ever a time when as many crude 



and confident theories upon intricate subjects 

 were adopted as settled truths, as the present ? 

 Is not the present age noted as an age of hum- 

 bug ? Was there ever a more successful or 

 general imposition than Davis' Revela'ions ? 

 And yet, my remarks are " inapplicable now ." 

 " I still adhere to the Newtonian theory of th 

 tides." Of course you like the good old ways 

 of the fathers, and I have no iesire lo unhinge 

 your settled impressions. ]My remarks are de- 

 signed for those who are not so deeply m love 

 with long established notions as to believe no 

 reasonable arguments can be adduced to show 

 their absurdity, or simplify any new position. 



The principal argument in favor of Newton's 

 theory of the tides is their uniform motion in 

 certain latitudes, corresponding with the position 

 of the moon in the heavens. I consider them 

 mere coincidences and nothing more. In what 

 way can the moon possibly affect the waters of 

 the earth ? You answer, by the force of attrac- 

 tion. Just tell us " H.," what constitutes attrac- 

 tion. It will afford us a key by which we may 

 unlock the mysteries of nature's works. But I 

 will admit, for the sake af argument, the moon 

 governs the tide by her force of attraction. 

 This power is supposed to exist in all bodies, in 

 the earth as well as the moon. If two bodies 

 are suspended in the air, they attract each other, 

 in exact proportion to the quantity of matter they 

 contain. If one is larger than the other the at- 

 traction, considered as a whole, will be unequal. 

 The smaller the one body, when placed in oppo- 

 sition to the other, the swifter will be its motion 

 until they meet. If the moon attracts the earth, 

 it necessarily follows the earth attracts the moon. 



I must here repeat a remark made in my for- 

 mer communication because it is the corner 

 stone of my argument. If the above theory of 

 attraction is in accordance with the opinions of 

 "modern philosophers" and in consonance with 

 it the moon causes the water to rise in New 

 York 8 feet, and in the Bay of Fundy 70 feet, 

 what will be the effect of the earth's attraction 

 upon the moon, containing, as it does, 80 times 

 the quantity of matter ? Can any thing be 

 imagined more at variance with the general sim- 

 ple laws of nature, or plainly repugnant to the 

 dictates of common sense ? According to "mod- 

 ern philosophy," the earth is not round, but flat- 

 tened at the poles, (a theory I doubt very much.) 

 If this is the case the attractive force of the earth 

 is greater at the poles than at the equator, be- 

 cause they are nearer the center of the earth. 

 Now under the equator there is little or no tide. 

 How will you reconcile this with the laws of 

 attraction ? 



The surface of the earth under the equator is 

 much nearer the moon than the high latitudes, 

 and it would follow as a fair' consequence that 

 there, owing to the absence of attraction on the 

 part of the earth, to a certain degree, and its 



