1861. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



53 



that these hairs are, in fact, tubular, and excrete 

 a viscid fluid, by means of which they adhere to 

 dry polished surfaces ; and on close inspection 

 -with an adequate magnifying pov/er, he was al- 

 ways able to discover traces of this adhesive ma- 

 terial on the track on glass both of flies, and va- 

 rious other insects furnished with pnlvilla, and 

 of those spiders which possess a similar faculty. 

 — Gosse's Evenings at the Microscope. 



For the New England Fanner. 



POTATO BLIGHT ATTD EOT IS CAUSED 

 BY INSECTS. 



Mr. Editor : — In your paper of Nov. 24th 

 appears from Mr. Goldsbury, of Warwick, anoth- 

 er attempt to make your readers believe his "sev- 

 en reasons" settle the question that insects can- 

 not cause the potato blight and rot. He also 

 wishes them to believe that his ''logical reasons" 

 of March 3d have become, (Nov. 24th,) real 

 "facts" — "reasons logical, "alias "facts." He says 

 my last communication furnishes "no new facts." 

 But that I "persist in asserting and reasserting 

 the old ones." I shall hold fast to my facts, my 

 ocular demonstration. They ai'C more reliable 

 than "logical reasons." 



And furthermore, I am taunted with being 

 "first in my own cause," that is, for having dis- 

 closed to the public the result of my microscopic 

 researches. And, because new to him,, they 

 amount to nothing — they are a "deception." Who 

 shall divulge and make known the result of re- 

 search and the development of new discoveries, 

 but the explorer or discoverer himself ? Did Co- 

 lumbus keep silent ? Were Arkwright, Fulton 

 and Whitney dumb ? Did these men make no 

 explanations ? Was Franklin's tongue and pen 

 bottled and sealed ? Have not Reaumur, Kirby 

 and Spence and Dr. Harris written out their en- 

 tomological researches ? Must I keep silent af- 

 ter making new discoveries, entomological and 

 embryological, undescrihed by them'i And must 

 I be told by Mr. Goldsbury, ignorant (admitted 

 by his own confession,) of the use of "microscop- 

 ic glasses," that he as "A neighbor cometh to 

 search me ?" 



His perfect ignorance of microscopy and what 

 it clearly reveals of God's mysterious works, dis- 

 qualifies him, (now, at least,) to unfold and des- 

 cribe the secrets of His power, embryologically 

 viewed, and pass judgment upon my new dis- 

 coveries. Must scientific research be measured 

 and considered ended, when the tomb closed over 

 the remains of Reaumur, Harris and others ? 

 Can no one else make entomological researches 

 and developments, and describe what the micro- 

 scope reveals ? Let Mr. Goldsbury take the beam 

 from his own eye before he attempts to "search" 

 and judge others. 



Mr. Goldsbury's memory appears very poor. 

 He forgets that March 3 he said that "Insects do 

 not cause the rot for the following reasons." 

 Seven reasons are written out, and he follows by 

 saying these are my "reasons for disbelief." No- 

 vember 24th he denies what he then said, and de- 

 clares they "are not reasons or logic" but "facts." 

 And he changes the name of "reasons" by an cdi- 

 as to the name of "facts." In another instance 

 his memory fails him, or he "argues in a circle." 



See what he says in your paper, March 3d : "It is 

 believed the cause of the rot is unknown." Again 

 in the same communication he says : "I repeat 

 therefore that the cause still remains unknown." 

 See what he says in a letter to me, March 16ih : 

 "It was not my object to assert in the N. E. Far- 

 mer that the cause of rot was unknown." He did 

 "assert" it, and what was his "object" of "repeat- 

 ing" it, and then denying it, and that it was 

 not his "object to assert" it, and "repeat" it ? In 

 his of November 24th he is particular to say that 

 he wants "no sophistry, no dodging, no quib- 

 bling, no arguing in a circle." I believe my state- 

 ments are expressed with directness and frank- 

 ness, and supported by secondary testimony, 

 named to him, and of high, unquestionable au- 

 thorit}'. I have searched out and proved by oc- 

 ular demonstrations, that insects do cause the 

 rot. Mr. Goldsbury must refute my facts, and 

 disprove the testimony which supports these facts 

 before he can make many converts. I Avill leave 

 all for the judgmemt of your readers. They can 

 decide whether I have been frank or not, and who 

 has "quibbled and dodged." I have asked him 

 to refute my facts — not my "reasons and logic," 

 but he fails to give one word in reply, or produce 

 one witness, or cite one authority, or describe 

 one research of his own, to disprove the fact of 

 the presence of insects, or their depredation upon 

 and infection of the potato plant and tuber. He 

 again repeats his old assertion that "decayed po- 

 tatoes were exhibited." Your readers must re- 

 member what I said in my last, that his assertion 

 on this subject was "positively imtriie." I then 

 explained the condition of the vines and tubers 

 which the witnesses examined. If Mr. Goldsbury 

 does not believe the truth, he may disbeleve. I 

 am satisfied that truth will prevail, and that the 

 public will decide who is right and Avho wrong. 

 Mr. Goldsbury says the "knowing farmers, by 

 observation, decide against insects as the cause 

 of the rot." I have asked him to furnish the re- 

 sult of the investigations and experiments of his 

 "knowing farmers ;" but this he fails to do. I 

 have asked him where the insects came from on 

 the "undecayed potato in Mr. Flint's corked bot- 

 tle ?" But he fails to answer this question. Now 

 let me ask him one more, upon this same subject. 

 Were the insects on the growing vines and sprouts 

 and undecayed tubers, the "consequence of de- 

 cay," or did these insects appear upon the sprouts 

 and vines, being warmed into life from the inhe- 

 rent, hibernated embryological condition of the 

 tuber, as it was, exactly, when placed in Mr. 

 Flint's possession ? 



I will thank Mr. Goldsbury to answer these 

 questions, that the public m.ay have a true defini- 

 tion of his meaning of his word "consequence." 

 He will doubtless repeat his old fallacy, that 

 "insects are the consequence of decay." But this 

 I unhesitatingly deny. Undisputed authority re- 

 futes every assertion which he has made in this 

 particular. Dr. Harris, on Insects, second Ed., 

 page 3, declares that "Insects never spontaneous- 

 ly germinate from putrid animal or vegetable 

 matter." Prof. Agassiz and others admit this as 

 a fact, and support this authority. Is not this 

 authority sufficient to convince Mr. Goldsburj', 

 or your readers at least, that he has all the while 

 been arguing against/t/c^s — stubborn facts, and 

 ocidar demonstration ivhich he cannot refute. 



