

0^i^^>^. 



Vol. III. Des Moines; Leavenworth, Feb. 15, 1872 



MAEK MILLER, Managing Editor and Pnbliaher, Dea Moines, Iowa, 

 Dr. J. Stayman, Dr. Wm. M. Howsley, Dr. S. H. Kridelbaugh, 



ABSoclate Editor, Lcuvenworth, Kaasaa. Corresponding Editor, Leaveuwortn, iiansas. Eaturaologtcal Editor, Clarinda, Iowa. 



Reply to Hussman's Criticisms. 



By the Associate Editor. 



It appears almo.st superfluous in us to reply to such criticisms as Mr. Hussman has made 

 in C'olman's Rural World of December ninth, upon what we said in the Pomologist aud 

 G-tRDENER, under the Vinej'ard head for November. Editorial courtes}', we should think, 

 ought to have induced him to give credit to the Pomologist and Gardener for the 

 article copied and then sent us a copy of his criticisms upon the same. Friend Hussman 

 reminds us of a sore headed, disappointed politician, who has become disgusted with every- 

 thing earthly, except his own opinions. He believes every person who does not agree 

 with him, a "novice" possessing nothing but "chaff" or gas." He appears much moved about 

 his sense of duty toward his fellow men, compelling him to point out our errors. Hear 

 him : 



" We regret that a sense of duty towards our readers compels us so often to tread upon 

 the toes of Dr. Stayman. Were the above spoken in one of our horticultural meetings by 

 one of the novices in the business, we might let it pass as belonging to the inevitable 

 amount of " cbatf," or "gas," of which some men relieve themselves, and to which their 

 unfortunate fellow-citizens must patienth' submit, as among the inevitable accessories to 

 such an occasion ; but, when a man assumes the province of a teacher and gives monthly 

 advice to his readers about the management of their vineyards and wine, he must expect 

 to be held to account, and if he commits errors or gives bad advice, we consider it our 

 dut)- to point out his mistakes and censure them when they deserve it." 



We would have supposed that after such labored attempt to work up the imagination of 

 his readers to .something awful we had done, that he would have been able to point out 

 some of those " errors," " mistakes," or " bad advice ;" but this is not the case, neither 

 does it appear to have been his design, from his misrepresentation and quibble about the 

 proper use and meaning of words and phrases. We fear it is not the " errors " we have 

 committed which has called forth his tirade upon us; but rather our disapprobation to the 

 use of sugar and water in making wine, which we think the sequel will prove.. 



He says : " The Doctor heads his remarks, ' e.'^sential qualities of a wine grape,' and 

 from this heading the reader would naturally expect that he would be told something 

 about them, or that any of the varieties named would be discussed. We do not hear a 

 word of this, however. We are only told that the Concord will not be popular as a wine 

 grape, and that the Doctor does not believe in adding sugar and water. He asserts that 

 by reducing the acid by the addition of water the result is a flery wine, without boquet or 

 aroma. We rather think it would become flat and watery unless sugar, also, was added. 

 But no doubt he meant this, although it is not mentioned." 



Is it possible that " sugar is not mentioned ! ! " Where is that sense of duty now, which 

 compels him to correct our frro?'s, but not his own mis-statements ? For we said, "Wine 

 made from the Concord, when it marked on the must scale seventy-five to eighty degrees 

 makes too harsh and unpalatable wine to ever become popular, although some contend it 

 can be made so by the addition of sugar and water." "If wine were made up simply of 



