250 
THE CABINET OF NATURAL HISTORY 
country where we may suppose a horse can he maintained 
cheaper than in Maryland, or any State farther North. 
I am convinced that the small breed of Mules will con- 
sume less in proportion to the labour they are capable of 
performing, than the large race, but I shall confine the com- 
parison to the latter — those that stand from fourteen and a 
half, to rising of fifteen hands, and equal to any labour that 
a horse is usually put to. From repeated experiments in 
the course of two winters, I found, that three Mules of this 
description, that were constantly at work, consumed about 
the same quantity of hay, and only one-fourth the provender 
that was given to two middling sized coach horses mode- 
rately worked. And from many years attentive observa- 
tion, I am led to believe that a large sized Mule will not 
require more than three-fifths to two-thirds the food, to 
keep him in good order, that will be necessary for a horse 
performing the same extent of labour. Although a Mule 
will work and endure on such mean and hard fare, that a 
horse would soon give out upon, he has an equal relish for 
that which is good; and it is strict economy to indulge him, 
for no animal will pay better for extra keep, by extra work. 
But if, by hard fare, or hard work, he is reduced to a skele- 
ton, two or three weeks rest and good keeping will put him 
in flesh and high condition for labour. I have witnessed 
several such examples with subjects twenty years old ; so 
much cannot be said of a horse at that age. The expense 
of shoeing a Mule the year round, does not amount to more 
than one-third that of a horse, his hoofs being harder, more 
horny, and so slow in their growth, the shoes require no 
removal, and hold on till worn out — and the wear, from the 
lightness of the animal, is much less. 
In answer to the charge generally prevalent against the 
Mule, that he is “vicious, stubborn, and slow,” I can assert, 
that out of about twenty that have been employed on my 
estate, at different periods during a course of thirty years, 
and those picked up chiefly on account of their size and 
spirit, wherever they could be found, one only had any 
vicious propensities, and those might have been subdued by 
proper management when young. I have always found 
them truer pullers, and quicker travellers with a load, than 
horses. Their vision and hearing* is much more accurate. 
I have used them in my family carriage, in a gig, and under 
the saddle: and have never known one to start or run from 
any object or noise: a fault in the horse that continually 
causes the maiming and death of numbers of human beings. 
The Mule is more steady in his draught, and less likely to 
waste his strength than the horse: hence more suitable to 
work with oxen; and as he walks faster, will habituate them 
to a quicker gait. But for none of the purposes of agricul- 
ture does his superiority appear more conspicuous than 
ploughing among crops, his feet being smaller and follow 
each other so much more in a line, that he seldom treads 
down the ridges or crops. The facility of instructing him 
to obey implicitly the voice of his driver or the ploughman, 
is astonishing. The best ploughed tillage land I ever saw, 
I have had performed by two Mules, tandem , without lines 
or driver. 
There is one plausible objection often urged against the 
Mule, that “on deep soils and deep roads, his feet being so 
much smaller than those of the horse, sink farther in;” but 
it should be considered that he can extricate them with as 
much greater facility. 
Few can be ignorant of the capacity of the Mule to en- 
dure labour in a temperature of heat that would be destruc- 
tive to the horse, who have any knowledge of the preference 
for him merely on that account, in the West Indies, and in 
the Southern States. 
It is full time to bring our comparison to a close, which 
I shall do by assuming the position, that the farmer who 
substitutes Mules for horses, will have this portion of his 
animal labour performed, with the expense of one spire of 
grass instead of two; which may be equal, so far, to making 
“two spires grow where one grew before.” For although 
a large sized Mule will consume somewhat more than half 
the food necessary for a horse, as has been observed, yet if 
we take into account the saving in expense of shoeing, far- 
riery, and insurance against diseases and accidents, we may 
safely affirm, that a clear saving of one half can be fully sub- 
stantiated. But in addition to this, the Mule farmer may 
calculate, with tolerable certainty, upon the continuation of 
his capital for thirty years: whereas the horse farmer, at 
the expiration of fifteen years, must look to his crops, to 
his acres, or a bank, for the renewal of his — or perhaps, 
what is worse, he must commence horse jockey at an early 
period. 
The intense interest with which the public mind is at pre- 
sent occupied on the subject of canals now in operation and 
progress, encourages me to offer the Mule as an important 
auxiliary in the economy of their management; as I trust, it 
will not be denied, that on the cheapness of transportation 
on them, depends their utility as well as profit to the stock- 
holders. The Mule seems so peculiarly adapted for the 
labour on canals, that compared with the horse, he may be 
considered almost equal to a locomotive power engine. 
Among the advantages we have enumerated respecting his 
use in husbandry, the most of which are applicable to canal 
labour, that of the much greater security from diseases and 
casualities, which must necessarily require a great number 
of supernumerary horses, to prevent interruption in the line 
of passage, is not the least important, nor is the very trifling 
expense at which the Mule can be supported during the 
winter months, as he will bear being taken off his feed till 
