inovation, to elaborate a distinctively American system of flax 

 treatment, however, requires, while giving due consideration to 

 the experience of other and older countries, an independence of 

 thought and action untrammled by any fear of "what will they 

 say in England," at a departure from their honored customs. 



The question before me is, Why is it considered in Europe 

 so absolutely necessary to pull flax instead of cutting it? The 

 cost of pulling being two or three times greater than of cutting 

 and occupying a much greater time at a season when prompt 

 and rapid work is of the greatest importance. When I began 

 to investigate this question and interview European experts on 

 the subject, I was met with several objections more or less theo- 

 retical and entirely unsupported by actual personal experience in 

 cutting flax, as contrasted with pulling it. In fact, many criti- 

 cisms were entirely imaginary, the gravemen of their arguments, 

 if epitomized, would amount to, "My father, grandfather, and 

 their ancestors all PULLED FLAX, THEREFORE THAT MUST 

 BE THE RIGHT WAY. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS TO 

 CRITICISE OUR EXPERIENCE ANYHOW?" and to clinch the 

 matter beyond any farther question. FLAX IS ALWAYS 

 PULLED IN EUROPE, and that settles the question to their own 

 satisfaction, but certainly not to mine. 



The principal objections to cutting flax for fiber and in favor 

 of pulling it that have been given me are: First, flax is pulled in 

 order to remove the roots from the ground. This is in view of the 

 important discoveries of Mr. O. Lugger, that the debris of the 

 flax crops remaining in the ground was injurious to succeeding 

 crops of flax (details of which have already been^iven) is the 

 most feasible argument that has been given, yet a little consider- 

 ation will show its want of force. The fact of the roots of flax 

 remaining in the ground really cuts no figure in the matter, as 

 with an interval of four or five years and upwards in cultiva- 

 tion under other crops before flax is again sown on the same 

 land, the roots of the former flax crop will have been decom- 

 posed and removed. 



Second, cutting flax wastes too much fiber owing to the 

 length of butts of straw left on the ground. This is also at first 

 sight plausible and was originally based on the old fashioned im- 

 plements usec^or harvesting grain, (such as the hook, scythe and 

 cradle). Our improved American harvesting machinery (Deering, 

 for instance) can be made to cut so close to the ground if it has 

 been properly tilled and leveled that little waste of material will 

 occur, and it will be more than offset by the great saving of time 

 and cost. In this connection it is well to remember that in some 

 of the districts of Belgium where the best grades of flax are pro- 

 duced are chopped off with a large knife before scutching. There 

 would be no greater loss of material by cutting in the field than 

 the Belgian producer experiences by cutting after retting. 



Third. — The reason that flax pulling was adopted instead of 

 cutting was in order to avoid weeds in the flax and the party 

 making this statement added, "1 see no reason why flax should 



42 



