20 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



[February, 



late as to the best site for setting out an apple 

 orchard— and we may add a peach orchard, 

 also. From our own knowledge of this sub- 

 ject, and from what we have learned from 

 others, and what we have seen in passing 

 through regions where the apple was a crop of 

 much importance, we showld undoubtedly 

 select a northern exposure. Leading apple 

 growers, we are assured, agree in this. "We do 

 not say that apples will not do well in valleys 

 or southern exposures, but not uniformly so 

 well by any means. Any one who does not 

 know and is desirous to be informed, should 

 understand that uniformity of temperature 

 and retardation in budding, are almost every- 

 thing in preserving the health and promoting 

 the productiveness of almost any fruit tree. 

 An orchard planted— say in Ibis latitude— on 

 a hillside with a full northern exposure, always 

 stands the winter and is almost unfailingly 

 productive. While, on the other hand, that 

 with a southern exposure, planted in valleys 

 or protected by bells of trees, is liable to con- 

 stant changes ot temperature ; but are sub- 

 ject to the visitation of early, and late frosts, 

 which generally prevail only in low situations, 

 and to the consequent destruction of the 

 crop. It may be just as well for those who 

 may contemplate the setting out of an orchard 

 the coming spring to bear this in mind. All 

 of us desire to know the surest way to success 

 in the cultivation of any crop, and this is un- 

 questionably the surest way in apple growing, 

 and in peach growing too. — Oer. Telegraph. 



CONTRIBUTIONS. 



For The I^ancaster Farmer. 

 GRAPE CULTURE. 

 As the grape is one of the most useful ob- 

 jects of fruit cultivation, a proper knowledge 

 of its planting and pruning is absolutely ne- 

 cessary in order to succeed welU; atbough 

 some varieties will bring forth abundantly 

 without much care in regard to locality or 

 training. Among those most common are the 

 Concord and the Clinton, wliich may produce 

 ordinary crops without much cultivation, but 

 in some localities, with a well prepared ground 

 and proper pruning, their productive qualities 

 are very much increased and improved. Many 

 varieties will do well enough wlien planted as 

 single vines in pot-loam and gardens, but will 

 fail in vineyards. I have so far succeeded in 

 vineyards only with Concord and Clinton. 

 But I saw the Brighton and Worden's seed- 

 ling thrive to perfection in a vineyard last 

 year, on an old piece of ground on the brow 

 of a gravel ridge, sloping a little north, but 

 the owner was an old and well-experienced 

 grape-grower, and an expert in fruit cultiva- 

 tion. What I wish to impre.ss is, th.it grape 

 growing, more than any other fruit, accom- 

 modate itself to one's own hand, depending 

 only on a proper location, and care after 

 planting. The Catawba and Delawai-e rank 

 among the best of grapes. It is said that the Ca- 

 tawba is in (Jhio,what the Concord is in Penn- 

 sylvania or in Lancaster county. It is also said 

 our season is too short for tlie Catawba, yet I 

 have seen it and the Delaware come to per- 

 fection in Niagara county, N. Y., bordering 

 on the lake. Five, years later, when I visited 

 the same place, the people informed me that 

 they still raised the Catawba, but failed with 

 the Delaware. 1 never succeeded with the 

 Delaware, either in my garden or my vine- 

 yard, but my neighbor had a healthy vine on 

 the east side of his brick house, with perhaps 



a bushel of the finest grapes that ever came 

 under my observation, t have experienced 

 the same thing in other fruits, failing in one 

 place and doing well only a half mile away, 

 .so there must be causes and effects in these 

 things not yet discovered. I planted three 

 grape vines 35 years ago — two Catawbas and 

 one Isabella. The first vines on the Isabella 

 failed, but the Catawba grew luxuriantly, 

 and ripened a few berries. One was on tlie 

 east side of my house, and the other in my 

 garden on the north side. 



These vines stood for year.s uncared for. 

 At last I cut them off close to the ground. 

 The following year they sprouted a little, but 

 were neglected. The one in the garden run 

 at last oil the fence, and from there on to a 

 pear tree, and last year it had reached the 

 very lop. It bore fine clusters of grapes for 

 the last three or four years, improving all the 

 time. It had over half a bushel of fine grapes 

 last season, and we used them until late in 

 the fall, and the one near the house, also had 

 some fine clusters,* which hung under the 

 porch, and were very perfect. We let ihem 

 remain until late in the season for ornaments. 

 When I started out on my place, forty years, 

 ago, there was not a single fruit or ornamental 

 tree in my whole yard, now I am surrounded 

 by fruit and other trees, including many ever- 

 greens. I believe the raason my Catawbas are 

 now doing better again, is, that the climate 

 or temperature is somewhat changed by the 

 contiguity of its surroundings acting as a 

 shelter belt. I believe that all kinds of fruit, 

 and fruit trees, will improve by being sur- 

 rounded by a thicket of trees. There will be 

 more or less of a climatic change and an 

 amelioration of 'the surroundings attrac- 

 tive to "Borers," " Curculios " and other 

 noxious insects, as they will seek refuge and 

 subsistence on forest trees instead of fruit trees. 

 I failed some years ago with the Prune varie- 

 ties, but have lately started in again, and the 

 indications are that I will succeed. If I do I 

 shall iiscribe it to the shelter belt comyiosed 

 by surronnding trees.— i. S. i?., Oregon^ 

 Feb., 1SS.3. 



For the TjAsca.ster Farmer. 

 WEIGHED IN THE BALANCE. 



Editor Farmer : Your very belligerent 

 Delaware correspondent, I observe, has an- 

 other communication in the last number of 

 The Farmer, and after a fashion attempts to 

 answer my article on " The Balance of Trade 

 Delusion" in the December number. How 

 successful he has been, I leave the reader to 

 judge. 



As to my statement in The Farmer of 

 April, 1H79, wliich after nearly four years' 

 waiting he so fiercely attacked and designated 

 ''false statistics," I repeat, that to the best of 

 my belief, the figures were correctly con- 

 densed from the " Quarterly Report of the 

 Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, issued by 

 the Treasury Department at Washington for 

 the quarter ending March 31, 1S7S;" and 

 from that report it appeared that from 1S60 

 to 1S77 there was a large excess of exports 

 over imports. I am confident that the figures 

 I gave were substantially correct, as con- 

 densed from that official report. It seems, 

 however, that Nimmo, who succeeded 

 Young as Chief of the Bureau, gave quite dif- 

 ferent figures, for which it would appear that 

 the imports were greater than the exports in 

 that period, as in all the previous decades. 

 The explanation of this difference in the fig- 

 ures if the two Chiefs, it now appears, is, that 

 Young gave the valuation of the exports, as it 

 appeared on the custom-house books, in 

 United States currency (greenbacks) then 

 greatly depreciated, while Nimmo gave the 

 gold valuation. If your Delaware contro- 



versialist, knowing this fact, as I have reason 

 to believe he did, had given that simple ex- 

 planation of the discrepancy his candor would 

 have been more conspicuous, and he would 

 have been left without plausible excuse for 

 his charge of " false statistics." 



Besides the depreciation of the currency at 

 the time referred to, it is to be remembered 

 that the United States were then borrowing 

 money very largely and a great many millions 

 of dollars of Government bonds were going to 

 Europe, though these of coursedid not appear 

 in the Custom-house returns, but they went 

 to pay for imported merchandise of equal 

 value ; so that altogether our foreign trade at 

 that period was in an entirely abnormal and 

 exceptional condition, such as it never was 

 beforf , and is not likely to be again. 



The greater part of his last essay calls for 

 no reply. Let any reader who cares about 

 the controversy, read his two communications, 

 compare them with mine iu the December 

 number of The Farmer, notice the character 

 of his answers and what he omitted to an- 

 swer, and then judge accordingly. However, 

 there are two or three minor points in his last 

 that it may be worth while briefly to refer to. 



He says "J- P. has made the astounding 

 discovery that consumption is gain and pro- 

 duction loss." Quite an unwarrantable as- 

 sertion. I said nothing about production be- 

 ing loss, and I did not allege that consump- 

 tion necessarily or always is gain, but merely 

 that certain kinds of consumption are gain- 

 ful and other kinds are loss. 



He laid it down as "axiomatic" that '■'■all 

 consumption is loss." From this it follows 

 Ihat consumption of necessaries and luxuries 

 must be loss alike, the one no more so than 

 the other— the very .thing thought so irra- 

 tional when attributed to me. And he says 

 everybody knows that "grain or coal con- 

 sumed for food or fuel, is just as much lost as 

 when sunk in the sea or burned up." I main- 

 tained, on the contrary, that when grain is 

 fed to hogs, for instance, and the result is 

 pork of greater value than the grain consumed, 

 the loss is not the same as if consumed in the 

 fire. He says, however, that though in the 

 one case we may produce something of value 

 while the destruction is going on that makes 

 up for the loss and in the other case not, still 

 " the loss is precisely the same ;" as much as 

 to say, unless his words have some hidden 

 meaning that does not appear, though by and 

 through its consumption as food for hogs the 

 owner of the corn increases his wealth, the 

 JOSS is just the same as if he had thrown it in 

 the fire! 1 believe the owner of the corn 

 would not think so! In Pennsylvania (I 

 won't speak for Delaware) farmers who feed 

 their corn to hogs, think they make a gain by 

 its consumption in that way. 



To prove that consumption is alwavs loss 

 he quotes Noah Webster as defining consump- 

 tion to be " waste, decay, destruction, loss." 

 But on turning to Webster's Unabridged Dic- 

 tionary, the latest edition and also the pre- 

 ceding edition, the very first definition given 

 of consumption is, "The act of consuming by 

 use." In overlooking this definition S. P. no 

 doubt was saved some trouble, for it would 

 have been rather an up hill business to argue 

 that consuming a thing by use is of no use or 

 value. 



