368 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



Short-Horns or any other breed, but that if you 

 ■wished to commend any particular breed, to show 

 to the farming interest its peculiar qualities and 

 profits, and let the others alone. Was it wrong to 

 give such advice] Was it wrong advice] Who 

 will say so 1 In the whole discussion you misun- 

 derstood (it is harsh to say perverted) my feelings, 

 wishes and intentions. I never designed to influ- 

 ence your course, or directly or indirectly, or in any 

 other way "threatened to compel your silence or 

 commendation;" and no man, even by contortion, 

 can make either my communication or my private 

 note justly bear such construction. It exists only 

 in your disposition towards me. It was only my 

 advice, solely for the good of the paper, and I truly 

 stated in your September number that your com- 

 mendation was not sought. I did appreciate your 

 judgment as you seem to do yourself. Your edu- 

 cation and associations led me to expect at least a 

 courteous course, and I confess that in that respect 

 I was " disappointed in my man." 



Now as to the " puff to mislead the public." As 

 this charge is made, I earnestly ask the public at- 

 tention to this fact. My calculations were made 

 on the sales of yearling part bred muttons alone to 

 the butcher at rates that they sell at every year — 

 the butchers coming from one to three hundred 

 miles to purchase, and at such rates as they are 

 willing to make standing bargains at, and this for 

 consumption only — not even including the wool, 

 which always gives as much or more money to the 

 fleece than any other sheep, carefully leaving out 

 of the calculation all sales of animals that had 

 passed to two years old, and all sales for breeding 

 purposes. Now could a calculation be made more 

 to the disadvantage of the Cotswold] And can any 

 other breed of sheep produce such a state of things ] 

 Can there be any " puff or misleading of the public 

 mind" in this] Now look at your mode of calcu- 

 lation, April number, page 115, column 1, of a gen- 

 tleman " starting two years ago with a flock of 530 

 sheep," "up to August last had sold the wool and 

 increase of the flock for $3600 — (italics mine.) 

 This of both wool and for breeding purposes, both of 

 which left out by me as likely to mislead, and thus 

 be unfair in calculation, because such sales vary 

 and are too dependent on too many circumstances 

 to be relied on each year. Did that gentleman sell 

 all his (that he sold for breeding purposes) as high 

 each as the butcher gave me for my yearling part 

 breds for slaughtering ? Suppose I had taken into 

 my calculation my sales for wool and breeding 

 purposes and the sale of ten of my sheep in one 

 year, and ray yearling part bred muttons together, 

 would have (even without the wool) given me more 

 money than you instance in the two years from the 

 whole 530 sheep in sales of both wool and produce. 

 Even the 30 ewes you instance as sold {without 

 counting wool or lambs) brought almost as much in 

 one year as the 530 sheep you instance, with their 

 increase and wool, brought in either year of the 

 two. But was that a- fair way to show to the farmer 

 the general and certain profits from sheep ] I think 

 not. Sales for consumption alone is the only fair 

 way, unless the whole calculation is of profit on 

 wool ; and surely you would not compare the pro- 

 fits on wool against wool and mutton both, of Cots- 

 wolds, when each fleece of the latter will bring 

 more money than that of the former, and the mut- 

 ton of the Cotswold will sell for five times as much 

 as the fleece of the other. Now what intelligent 

 reader of your journal, farmer or not, will not see 

 that I, who have based, my calculations solely on 



consumption at prices that part bred yearlings bring 

 every year from butchers that come from 100 to 

 300 miles to purchase, have taken great pains to 

 avoid " misleading the public mind by puffs," while 

 you, by instancing sales for breeding purposes and ■ 

 wool that may and will vary every year, are endea- 

 voring to accomplish the very purpose of "mis- 

 leading the public mind by puffs" that you charge 

 me with. A fine "protection," truly. You give 

 them such as the, wolf would give to the lamb. In 

 this the public seems to need protection, not by, 

 but from you. 



You speak of your sale of ram lambs to the 

 butcher for three dollars before he* ever saw them, 

 and abated fifty cents because you thought it an 

 over estimate, no doubt. You were right — while 

 $6 50 is refused here for part bred lambs after the 

 butcher saw them. You at a city, we at least 100 

 miles off, over which our butcher has to pay trans- 

 portation. Now which to the farmer is the most 

 profitable breed, by your own showing] Need I 

 ask such a question] Your statements of my 

 dealings in sheep shows lamentable ignorance, but 

 as it cannot be of much interest to the public, I 

 must decline wasting time on it. Dealers with me 

 will see your errors and know whether I have dealt 

 liberally with them or not, and as far as yourself 

 is concerned — think as you please — I do not con- 

 sider it of any consequence, as I cannot consent to 

 manage my matters to please you. But Mr. Mor- 

 rell as authority about Cotswold sheep! This is 

 rich. When his book was prepared no Cotswold 

 sheep had been imported, and most probable he 

 had never seen one; certainly knew nothing about 

 them. I doubt even to this day if he ever owned 

 or even saw a thoroughbred — and he as authority 

 about Cotswold sheep against the best breeders in 

 England, even before you were born ! Pshaw — is 

 this not trifling with the intelligence of your readers] 

 I frequently purchase mixed bred and part bred 

 ewes — sometimes in numbers of ten, twenty and 

 thirty at a time, for various reasons. Gentlemen, 

 not willing to go to the prices for thoroughbreds, 

 wishing only to raise muttons, request me to do so 

 for them. I put such with my imported buck be- 

 fore going away. I charge nothing for his services 

 or my attention. I charge nothing and make no- 

 thing by them, and frequently buy them and com- 

 mon ewes to raise muttons from for sale and for 

 my own use, (thoroughbreds are too costly to alter,) 

 and I shall continue to do so. If gentlemen wish 

 such, they can be supplied. 



Now as to grazing sheep. They were hardly 

 mistaken as to seven to the acre, but probably not 

 in the way of your idea of grazing — " sheep chew- 

 ing up running briars by the yard" — but as they 

 graze their cattle, not turn them on their grass 

 lands until the grass is well up. I am willing to 

 believe with you that seven of your breed of ram- 

 bling, "active sheep" would not do well on that 

 land, for it takes food to sustain the rambling that 

 tramples over the grass, and thus injures, as well 

 as consumes the grass, but the Cotswolds are 

 "sluggish," not "active sheep" — fill themselves 

 and lay down and ruminate like cattle — have great 

 propensity to fat, and instead of rambling off their 

 food convert it into fat. I connot yield their judg- 

 ment to either your theory or judgment, as you 

 may choose to call it, and I really think had you 

 seen the yearlings that left here this summer and 

 fall and the pastures they were taken from, so burnt 

 from drought that it would have puzzled you to 

 form an idea as to what they fed on — bought by 



» 



