A D D II E S S . 25 



things, but sciolists in the cultivation of the earth, who spend a hun- "] 

 dred dolhirs to get a crop worth fifty from the soiL They are gen- , 

 erally the hvughing-stock of all common sense farmers, in their 

 neighborhood, and are thought to be a standing refutation of the 

 utility of book farming. But this argument is not fair. Agriculture , 

 is not their business, but their amusement ; and they do not conduct 

 their o])crations, at all, -with reference to profit. No farmer under- 

 stands the science of his business, until he sees his way clear, to get 

 back every dollar of capital, that he expends upon his soil, with a / 

 large increase. He is a man, who understands both the science, and 

 the practical details of every operation, uix)n the farm. He can tell 

 you not only why a thing should be done, in a given way, and how 

 to do it, but he can do it himself. He is a sceptic as to the wisdom 

 of his grandfather, and believes, that even all agricultural knowledge 

 did not die, with his father. He is 9 man who knows something 

 about his business, and looks for ncv/ revelations in the future. 



The man of science upon the farm, in the first place, knows same- 

 thing of the composition of his soils. These are the materials, on 

 which, he is to display his skill, and out of which, he is to rear his 

 harvests. There is a great difference in these, and without a proper 

 knowledge of their ingredients, he cannot tell how to grow a crop to 

 good advantage. It is all a matter of experiment, whether or not, 

 he have a remunerative harvest. "Witho-ut this knowledge, too, he is 

 unable to tell, what amendments his soils require, even when the 

 chemist has made an analysis of them. A farmer who does not un- 

 derstand this, is as poorly fitted for his business, as the smith would 

 be, who did not comprehend the different qualities of metals, or the 

 carpenter who could not tell the difference between white oak and 

 Avhite pine. The mechanic who should give you a pine plow-beam, 

 or a chestnut axe-helve, would be called a bungler, or a knave. 

 And yet his case would bo parallel, with that of the farmer, who 

 attempts a grain-crop, on a field that has lost itspotash, or its phos- 

 phoric acid. The folly, in either case, is transparent. You have the 

 form and semblance of strength, in the pine plow-beam, but no 

 toughness, or durability. You have the stalks and the heads of the 

 wheat, or the rye, but nog rain. ]3oth are shams, because bunglers- 

 have made them. In the case of the grain crop, the blame is thrown 

 upon nature, and it is declared that the wheat blasted. The poor 

 man does not suspect himself, of a vain endeavor,to rival the Almighty 

 — to make something out of nothing — and vet, that is practically the 



4 



