266 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER, 



MARCH 1. 18 -r. 



simple denial as a proof of his innocence, Mr VV, 

 puts liimself on his dignity, and says, "it cannot 

 be be vvonhl stoop so low — would so de^^-ade 

 himself," and attc;mpts to raise a false issue. — 

 Without waiting to see whether 1 would publish 

 his reply to the charges against him, Mr Whit- 



hood as is contained in this charge of suppression 

 liy Mr Whitniarsh, if he in fact possesses the re- 

 spectability which he claims? 



The imputation that my exposition of Jlr VVhil- 

 marsh's baseness — (I say 6«se7if.9S, because he has 



own himself as destitute of truth, as his trans 



marsh seemed to take it for granted that ! would actions have shown him <lestituto of honesty) 



not, and an attempt was made to excite sympathy 

 for him in the Northnmpton [lapers, on the ground 

 that I had refused to publish his reply, — vihiclj, 

 however, I did publish in the very first paper is- 

 sued, after I received it, and I say with the utmost 

 sincerity, that I deeply regretted that he so entire- 

 ly failed to exculpate himself from the charges al- 

 leged against him. This ground of sympathy 

 being removed, .Mr Whitniarsh, as it would sfeni 

 to sink himself deeper in the mire, in his letter to 

 yon, instead of explaining the guilt laid to his 

 charge, endeavors to awaken the compassion of 

 the public in his liehalf, by representing that the 

 charges against him, have arisen from malice, or 

 the petty jealousies which sometimes spring np 

 among brethren of the same trade. 'J'o prove 

 this, he accuses me, 



1. Of having refused to pid)'iish communications 

 which ho ^^ knows" I have received in favor of 

 his seed. And, 



2. Of having suppressed an important part of 

 Mr Fancher's letter. 



Now, what will the readers of th'i New Eng- 

 land Farmer think of Mr Whitmarsh's veracity, 

 when assured that there is not the least shadow 

 of truth in either of these assertions.- Such, now- 

 ever, is the fact. In relation to the first, I can 

 only give to it my unqualified contradiction, as no 

 one else could know what I may have received. 

 I therefore say that I have published in my paper 

 one communication, and the only one I have re- 

 ceived from any source, in favor of Mr Wliit- 

 marsh'sseed. This communication, however, does 

 not in the least excul|)ate Mr W. ;Vom ilie direct 

 charge brought against him, of selling a spurious 

 seed forthat of the Morns Miilticaulis, forth" wri- 

 ter expressly says — " I fraid<!y admit that !, with 

 others, was disap|)ointed in' tlie character of the 

 plant produced from the seed, supposing that it 

 would be the same as the Multicaulis." He also, 

 it is true, gives it as his opinion that the plants 

 are equally as valuable as the Multicaulis, and 

 consequently the purchasers have no reason to 

 regret the deception practised on them. I liave 

 however, good reason to believe that the writer 

 has been as much deceived as to the value of his 

 plants, as he was in regar.l to their character ami 

 name. While I have thus published this otdy 

 communication I have received in any way fa- 

 voring Mr Whitniarsh, it may not be improper to 

 say, that I have suppressed at least half a dozen, 

 condemning him in the strongest terms and hish- 

 ly approving of the exposition I made oi' his fraud. 

 As to the second charge which Mr W. brini;s 

 against me, of "snp|iressing an important part cf 

 Mr Fancher's letter," ] am happy that the contra- 

 diction does not rest alone on me. I send you the 

 original copy of Mr Fanclicr's letter, and must beg 

 you, Mr Editor, to compare the original with the 

 copy published in the Genesee Fanner of the 

 14th of January, and to add your testimony to my 

 own. [See letter at the end of this communica- 

 tion — Ed.] I have just compared them, and 

 1 have not been able to discover the sU|ipression 

 of a single letter, much Jess a word. How are 

 we to account for the utterance of such a false- 



arose from [lostility to him or his establislinienl, 

 or was done at the iiistigation of any nurseryman, 

 or of any person who might by ])0ssibMity, have 

 any hostility to him, is as false as his other state- 

 ments. His own letters conveyed to me the first 

 intimation I ever heard of Ins petty quarrels with 

 other dealers in mulberry seeds or plants. The 

 exposition was made from a sense of duty to the 

 piblic. I knew the facts, I knew the opinions 

 of many highly honorable gentlemen who had ta- 

 ken a deep interest in the prosperity of that branch 

 of our domestic industry, and that they looked on 

 Mr Whitmarsh's conduct as no better than swind- 

 ling. I purchased some of the seed myself, through 

 a second (lerson, to present to some correspondents 

 of my paper, who were laboring zealously for the 

 promotion of the silk business, but so disgusted 

 was ! with the deception practised, that I never 

 made any use of it, and it still remains unsown. 

 1 knew many others who had purchased, some of 

 them largely, not one of whom would have bought, 

 had they not supposed they were buying the .Mo- 

 rns multicaidis. I had intemled to have exposed 

 the transaction last spring ; but did not do it then, 

 because it was too late to benefit the public, and to 

 save them from the trick. When, however, Mr 

 Whitmarsh, in November, renewed his advertise- 

 ment of Chinese Midberry atid Morns multicaulis 

 Seed for sale, ! thought it my duty, as the con- 

 liuctor of a paper devoted in |iart to the silk inter- 

 est, to caution my readers against pmchasingsced 

 of him, wlii(-h I did, by giving a perfectly fair and 

 true statement in relation to the sale of his seed in 

 the spring of 1S36. 



I fear, Mr Editor, I should trespass too much 

 upon your pages, were ! to follow up Mr Whit- 

 marsh, and expose all the misstatements in his 

 loiter, for yon could hardly detach a sentence from 

 it which would not, to use the mildest language 

 eiidn-ace a misrepresentation. I will, therefore, 

 notice but one thing mure. Mr W. says : — "I 

 shall take no further notice of any assertions Mr 

 Tucker tnay make, till he proves tliem to be true." 

 I thought I had abundantly proved all the asser- 

 tions I have made against him. My statements 

 have been substantiated by the published certifi- 

 cates of men, every way as reputable as Mr Wliit- 

 inarsf; was belijre this transaction came to light, 

 and they pro\e him, to use Mr W.'s own words, 

 " guilty of fraud, deception and meanness." But 

 as Mr W. does not consider the testimony I hove 

 presented, conclusive, 1 beg leave to call ids atten- 

 tion to the following extract from the November 

 number of the Mbany Silkworm: 



" At the time of i\]r W.'s departure for France, 

 the seed of the Chinese mulberry was a thing 

 sought after above all earthly treasures, so much 

 so, that $500 per pound have been offered for it, 

 and the young trees were worth $300 per thou- 

 sand ; and fheir estimated value has rather increas- 

 ed than diminished. Mr W. must have known these 

 facts both in reality and in prospect. In the pos- 

 .session of this knowledge, he purchased in France 

 or elsewhere a quantity of seed, and of young trees 

 of some kind. The Seeds were put up in small 

 papers of about one quarter of an ounce each, and 



labelled in French as tlie Chinese mulberry. — 

 These trees and seeds were shipped to New Y(uk 

 and announced for sale, by his agent there, and 

 by others at Northampton. They were sought 

 after, and bought with unexampled avidity. — 

 Whether the trees were of the true ftlorus multi- 

 caulis or not, we have no means of determining. 

 We procured a few of them, and set them in our 

 nursery, and many of our friends did the same, 

 hut as no one of thetn that we have heard from, 

 lived, we have no means of jtnfging to what spe- 

 cies in the horticultural catalogue they belonged. 

 Fortunately, however, owing to some seasonable 

 caution, our investment in them was small. Cut 

 not exactly so with the seed. We purchased 14 

 Iiapers, amounting to leventy dollars. These 

 were sowed in excellent land, with every precau- 

 tion which could ensure success. The papers 

 contained a little over 2000 seeds each ; of these 

 seeds about 700 catne up, which amounted to one 

 seed in forty of those sowed. With the most 

 careful attendance, some of them have grown 

 to about a foot in height. 1 hey appear very sim- 

 ilar to the seedlings of the while mulberry grown 

 by the side of them, but show no relationship to 

 the Morus niidticaulis. The same results Ijave 

 followed in every instance we have heard from. 



Not a single tree has lived that we know of. 



From the reports we have obtained of the seeds, 

 they have vegetated in about the same proportion 

 — one to forty, and the product is the same ; lit- 

 tle, if any, dissimilar to the common white mul- 

 berry, — altogetlier different from tiie Morus tnul- 

 ticculis." 



Here, Mr Editor, you have the testimony cf the 

 editor of the Silkworm, who liimself bought sev- 

 enty dollars' worth of this^;;(o io!(5 seed. But pel - 

 haps Mr Whitniarsh will say this testimony ought 

 not to be admitted, inasmuch as the editor having 

 been himself cheated, is a paity interested, and 

 consequently not a competent witness. But I 

 may be permitted to ask, why the ciiarges prefer- 

 red against Mr Whitmarsh, by the editor of the 

 Silkworm, from which the above extract is taken, 

 are permitted to remain for more than two months 

 unanswered and unnoticed, while I have been de- 

 nounced for making similar chartfes, as a " malic- 

 ious libeller," " vile calmnniator," &c. .' is it be- 

 cause 1 live further off, and it is less dangerous to 

 denounce a distant person than one nearer home .' 

 Or, is it because Mr W. knows that the statement 

 of the editor of the Silkworm will be substantiated 

 if necessary, by the testimony of men of the high- 

 est character, and who an; well known abroad as 

 well as at home.' 



There are many other statements in Mr Whit- 

 marsh's letter, which I should refute, did not the 

 length to which this article iias already extended, 

 warn me to draw to a close. I cannot, however 

 believe it necessary to say more to justify myself 

 in the course 1 have thought it my duty to pur- 

 sue, or to prove the charges wliich others as well 

 as 111) self, have preferred against Mr Wliitmarsh. 

 Respectfully yours, 



Luther Tucker. 



[corr OF MR fanchke's letter.] 



NoRTHiMrToN, Dec. 31, 1636. 

 Mr Tdcker, — 1 have been requested by Mr 

 Huntingdon, to correct some statements in an ar- 

 ticle written by Mr Rowe, which apjieared in the 

 (ifty-second number of the Genesee Farmer. I 

 will make a statement of the facts as they were. 



