THE NEW GENESEE FARMER, 



Vol. 3. 



ing it. The error arose in reducing the different 

 statements of accounts collected, some in cocoons and 

 some in fcilk, the latter of which Lad to be increased, 

 and the time of printing my Report did not allow me 

 to review the computation of the assistant. 



As to the wheat crop of Masaachitaetts, which 1 

 have estimated in 1841 at 189,571 bushels, I remark 

 there is only 31,648 bushels more than that of 1839, 

 on which the census of 1840 was taken. The census 

 was taken, you are aware, by peoons under oath, and 

 is high authority — the gain, about 16 per cent, in two 

 years, is not incredible, allowing for the increase of 

 population. The bounty too does not apply to any 

 fractions under 15 bushels. 



As to the quantity of green stalk per acre, at which 

 you marvel so much, you will find that 5 lbs. per 

 square foot is not an over estimate for the richest land 

 well prepared, in the latitude where the experiment 

 was made, and where the stalk grows much higher 

 than at the north. If you have seen the Bodcn corn 

 grow at the north, you may well imagine, that if, as 

 you admit, herds grass has produced, when green, 

 40,837 lbs. per acre, such corn sowed broad-cast, say 

 5 bushels per acre, and permitted to grow as thick as 

 it will flourish, may yield a crop five times as great as 

 that of the grass. You mugt not of course expect so 

 much in the short summers at the north, but I care- 

 fully weighed the produce of two feet square or four 

 square feet of ground of the stoutest in my field, and 

 the aggregate was 20 poundi, equal to 5 pounds per 

 loot. 



The march of improvement is onward, and when 

 you peruse the process of converting pork or lard into 

 •il and stearine, end examine more fully the data on 

 which the statistics are founded, you will be lees 

 sceptical as to the early period when you may " throw 

 up your hat." 



While the guardians of the Frees should sedulous- 

 ly avoid imposing on credulity, it must not be forgot- 

 ten that it requires strong encouragement and great 

 faith to induce the travellers in a beaten path to take a 

 different one. I will not say that your remarks will 

 have the effect to stifle effort, though the tenor of the 

 remarks is supposed by some to cast an air of ridicule 

 on the experiments mentioned. 



Wishing yon success in your zealous endeavors in 

 the cause of agriculture, I remain 

 Yours respectfully, 



H. L. ELLSWORTH. 

 Henbt Coi.man, Rochester, N. Y. 



Editorial remarks on the above. 

 We have much pleasure in presenting to our read, 

 ers the foregoing letter of the Commiesioner of Pat- 

 ents in reply to our strictures upon his late Report. 

 Mr. Ellsworth cannot, we are persuaded, for a moment 

 distrust the high personal respect, which we have for 

 years entertained towards him, and the grateful sen- 

 timents with which we have regarded his zealous, 

 disinterested and enlightened efforts for the advance- 

 ment of an improved Husbandry. W» shall add on 

 this subject nothing to what we have already said. 

 We dismiss, therefore, every thing personal from the 

 case, and look at the Commiesioner's Report as we 

 would look at any other public document of the Gov- 

 ernment. As such we hold it open, and deem it well 

 for the public and the Department itself, that it should 

 be subjected to foir and honorable criticism. If our 

 remarks have been of a different character, no one 

 will regret it more than ourselves. At present, how- 

 ever, ao unconscious are we of any intention of that 

 kind, that we do not see it. 



We write these remarks five hundred miles from 

 home, and therefore are unable to recur to Mr. Webb's 

 statement of his proceea of extracting sugar from corn 

 ■talks given in the valuable pamphlet published by 

 he National Agricultural Society, and which will ap- 



pear in this number of the Farmer.* We do not im- 

 pugn any of the statements there mads ; but we con- 

 fess we shall wait with some impatience to see th»»e 

 anticipations verified. 



The production of 108 tons of corn fodder to an 

 acreisslilla matter of surprise to ue ; not that we 

 doubt Mr. Ellsworth's testimony, but because the 

 amount is so very large. The editor of the New Eng- 

 land Farmer has kindly stated to us that the crop of 

 37 tone, to which he referred, was produced on the 

 place of Daniel Putnam of Danveis, one of tho beat 

 farmers in Massachusetts, and that in this care three 

 square rods were cut and weighed, in order to deter- 

 mine the amount of the whole crop. He states like- 

 wise, that in referring to a product of more than one 

 hundred tons to an acre, he rested on tho atatcmentof 

 Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. E.'e result was oblained by 

 measuring and weighing the product of foui square 

 feet. In both cases the seed was sown broad-cast. 

 There is alwoye an mncortainty or liability to mistake 

 where the whole crop is determiaed by the measure- 

 ment of suoh small parcels. Here for example is a 

 difference of 71 tons upon an aero between the results 

 obtained by two gentlemen of equal credibility and 

 undoubted truth. Mr. Ellsworth may account for 

 this difference in the different kindn of corn st.wn, 

 tbe gourd-seed at the South, the flint corn at ths 

 North, tho stalks and foliage of the former being 

 much more abundant than the latter. But we under- 

 stood Mr. Putnam to say that the gourd-seed er 

 eouthern corn was sown in Danvers, in tho case re- 

 ferred to. The difference in latitude or climate would 

 undoubtedly produce a difference in tbe amount in 

 favor of the South, but to what extent it is not possi- 

 ble for us to determine. When we admitted that 

 Herds Grass, out green, had produced at the rate of 

 40,8.37 lbs. to the acre, we did it upon authority, which 

 is deemed sufficient ; but, as will be seen from the 

 form of expression used, not as a matter which ever 

 came within our personal cognizance or eiperiense. 

 But again, upon the supposition that by Mr. Ells- 

 worth's mode of planting, 1 08 tons of green corn fod- 

 der can be produced, it will be seen that tho growing 

 crop must cover entirely the whole ground, whereas, 

 on Mr. Webb's plan at least a third ol the ground 

 must be left in the open spaces necessary for the cul- 

 tivation of the crop and for access in order to pluck 

 the ears before thoir maturity. The product of corn 

 sowed for fodder is undoubtedly much beyond what 

 most persona would apprehend ; but how much may 

 be obtained is a matter of suoh easy ascertainment by 

 every farmer, that we may best leave it to every far- 

 mer to determine for himself. 



Our remarks on the amount of wheat given in Mr. 

 Ellsworth's statistical tables, as produced In Massa- 

 chusetts in 1841-2, were designed to show mainly how 

 little reliance can be placed upon statistics of that sort 

 when obtained by estimate, not to say co7ijctttire. An 

 error of 31,000 in a sum of ]6!),000, does not seem 

 to us a small error ; and if proper information had 

 been given to the Commissioner, we believe that the 

 return of wheat produced in Massachusetts in 1841, 

 instead of being increased over that of 1839, would 

 have been diminished, as the cultivation has evidently 

 fallen off since that time. Mr. £. says that his tables 

 give only 31,648 bushels more than was given in 1839, 

 on which the census of 1840 was based. Now we 

 have no disposition to be hypercritical in this case ; 

 but there appears some reason to suppose in this in- 

 stance, that in making out tho return for 1841 no ref- 

 erence was had to the returns by the census. The 

 returns by the census for 1840, gave 158,923J bush- 

 els. The returns made to the Massachusetts Secre- 

 tary's Office in 1838-9, with a view to obtain the 

 bounty, were 108,570^ bushels, 



See last month's Farmer. 



estimate in the Cornmisaioner's tables are 189,571. 

 Now to say nothing of the eitraordinory accuracy of 

 estimating or guessing in such case to a tingle bushel 

 the whole crop of wheat raised in the stale, yet tho 

 two numbers, 108.570i and 189,571, look so nearly 

 alike that we can hardly refrain from the conclusion 

 that the latter is somehow immediately related to the 

 former ; and that therefore the clerk, who made out 

 this return in Mr. E.'s tables, did not as Mr. E.'s let- 

 ter would seom to imply, make it out from the United 

 States Census, but from the return made to the Mas- 

 sachusetts Secretary's office, and wholly as matter of 

 arbitrary conjecture. 



The extraordinary error in the tables as to the 

 amount of Silk Coooons produced in Mossachusetls 

 in 1841-2, of 198,432 lbs. instead 27,219 lbs., Mr. 

 E. accounts for partly in the want of time to review 

 the computation of bis assistant. Clerical errors in 

 all numerical calculations are very liable to oc;cur even 

 with tho most exact ; but this was so large that we 

 can only adviso Mr. E.'s assistant to take shelter un- 

 der the distinguished example of the Secretary of the 

 U. S. Treasury, who we believe in his reports to Con- 

 gress only made a trifling mistake of one or two mil- 

 lions of dollars. Mr. E. would seem to suggest, that 

 we should have followed the example of the Editor of 

 the Silk Agriculturist, who kindly icrote to inquire if 

 this -tateraent of silk product were not an error, and 

 to (vhom Mr. E. has furnished an explanation. Had 

 this report been a private or personal matter with Mr. 

 E., we should certainly have adopted the same course ; 

 but in respect to a public document, published by 

 order of Congress, it might be coiuideied intrusive if 

 not imperlinont, if gentlemen requiring explanations 

 or information in such cases, should wiite private let- 

 ters to the different heads of departments in order to 

 obtain U^em. 



But our remarks had, we trust Mr. E. will do us 

 the justice to believe, a much higher aim than the cor- 

 rection of a mere clerical error. We deem otalistical 

 knowledge of great importance, and Mr. E.'s desire 

 to furnish it in ihe highest measure honorable to him ; 

 but in order to be valuable, statistical statements should 

 rest upon perfectly authentic data ; and we wish that 

 Congress should see tho necessity of making ample 

 provision for obtaining and publishing them ; and not. 

 euft'erthemto be given upon mere vague estimates^ 

 nor impose so much duty upon a public officer that he 

 should not have time to review and correct them, nor 

 especially that returns such as those of hemp and fln.x 

 should ha 80 jumbled together, (the fault of those who 

 took the census) that il could not bo determined how 

 much of flax or how much of hemp was raised, nor 

 whether the figures in which the returns are made 

 mean tone of hemp or pounds of flax. 



In Mr. E.'e extraordinary anticipolions respecting 

 the production of silk, we confess we have no sympa- 

 thy. We would, as we have done, ardently, constant- 

 ly, and indefatigably, through good report and evil 

 report, encourage its production as one of tho most 

 important agricultural interests of the country ; but 

 the calculation of one person in every hundred of the 

 iuhabilants of the United States producing annually 

 a hundred pounds of silk, and the product being 18,- 

 000,000 pounds, worth 90,000,000 dollars, seems to 

 us pure romance. If "some persons" suppose our 

 remarks in this case adapted to "cast an air of ridi- 

 cule" on the subject, we apprehend that this "air" 

 belongs to the thing itself and not to the spirit or ten- 

 or of our humble observations. The public would 

 suflcr far more from encouraging such expectations 

 than from showing their delusiveness. The cause of 

 silk culture has been already put back a quarter of a 

 century by the cxtravagonce of the statements and 

 The return given by I calculations of those, who called themselves its most 

 I ardent friends, and who, with the exception of a few 



