f 
SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR. 
266 
there was a conflict of opinion between the representa- 
tives of commercial and of agricultural constituencies, 
which perhaps made the friends of the resolution fearful 
that it would — if pressed to a vote — be defeated. Besides, 
it was associated with a recommendation for a Military 
Academy, which Mr. Jefferson had openly opposed, on 
the ground that “none of the specific powers given by 
the Constitution to Congress would authorize it.”* 
Three days after the termination of his Presidential 
career, the 6th of March, 1797, and when about fo return 
to rural life at Mount Vernon, the “haven of his hopes,” 
General Washington wrote to Sir John Sinclair: “lam 
sorry to add, that nothing j^?iann Congress, has been de- 
cided respecting the establishment of a National Board of 
Agriculture, recommended by me, at the opening of the 
session. But this did not, I believe, proceed from any 
disinclination to the measure, but from their limited sitting 
and a pressure of, what they conceived, more important 
business. I think it highly probable that next session 
will bring this matter to maturity.” 
These brief extracts show clearly the desire of the 
“Father of his Country” to see a Central Agricultural 
Organization established, under the fostering care of the 
Federal Government, and they call for a conspicuous re 
cord on the monument now being erected to his memory, 
that “the encouragement of Agricultural Improvement 
and Information, was among the favorite wishes of his 
heart.” 
If the recommendations of Gen. Washington had been 
adopted, we will venture to say that in 1859 France 
would have been sending wheat and flour to America, or 
England supplying us with wool to assist in clothing our 
people. Whatever deduction from the weight of Gen. 
Washington’s opinion may occur in the minds of some 
persons, from a difference in their construction of the 
Constitution, that opinion applies in its full majesty to 
our State governments. In them it is a question not of 
power, but of policy. It is not in the American heart to 
treat lightly a deliberately expressed opinion or cherished 
wish of the man whose calm wisdom in aflfairs equalled 
his distinguished skill in arms. When we ask from our 
Legislatures, that they should give material aid to agri- 
culture it is fortunate that the just demand may be forti- 
iied by the impressive opinion of Washington ; which we 
quote again and place by itself that it may posess its due 
weight: “It will not be doubted that with reference 
either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is 
of primary importance. In proportion as nations ad- 
vance in population and other circumstances of maturity, 
this truth becomes more apparent and renders the cultiva- 
tion of the soil more and more an object of public patron- 
age, Institutions for promoting it grow np^ supported by 
the public purse ; and to what object can it be dedicated 
with greater propriety ?” 
*Col John Taylor, of Caroline, in one of his admirable 
essays signed “Arator,” censured Congress for their ac 
tion in recommending a society, which he called a “toy 
for its amusement,” and said : “This toy was found to be 
unconstitutional, because it would add but little to the 
power of the general government, and the infant was 
turned to graze in impoverished fields. The constitution 
was construed to exclude Congress from the power of 
fostering agriculture by patents or bounties, and to give it 
the power of fostering banks and manufactures by patents [ 
and bounties.” 
DEEP PEOWING — ITS OBJECT. 
Editors Southern Cultivator — My observation and 
experience have satisfied my mind that subsoil plowing is 
only beneficial under a certain set of circumstances. 
Subsoil plowing is not to be resorted to in order, ;??m- 
arily, to loosen the land, with any expectation that any 
beneficial result is thereby directly obtained. I admit, 
without any hesitation, that subsoiling is highly useful — 
indeed, in my judgment, its benefit cannot well be over- 
estimated. But what I wish especially to insist upon is 
that its benefit to the soil does not consist in making the 
soil more light or more porous. 
I» other words, I desire to maintain that the subsoil 
plow, of itself, cannot make the soil more productive. 
I am satisfied that the main — the chief — excellence de- 
rivable from subsoiling consists in the atmospheric 
changes which it occasions in’ the ground, Hence I sub- 
soil — not simply to subsoil, but in order, by that means, 
to admit the atmophere. Hence, to subsoil is not a prim- 
ary object with me. I subsoil for an end, which mere 
deep plowing of itself can never produce. I subsoil for 
an object aside from that operation. 
In other words, were it not for the wealth which the 
atmosphere holds and which it will lodge in the pores of 
the earth when these are made ready for it, at the proper 
season of the year, subsoiling, according to my notion, 
would be a waste of labor. 
In order to show that subsoiling, of itself, does not di- 
rectly tend to increased productiveness of the seed, let any 
man plow his land during the winter season however 
deeply he pleases and cultivate that land, he will find that 
its productiveness will be in proportion to the depth of the 
summer plowing. If the summer culture be shallow, the 
land will answer to it in diminished vegetation; if it be, 
on the other hand, deep and thorough, a better result will 
be obtained — a result corresponding to the summer til- 
lage. 
If subsoiling were the cause of increased crops, it would 
answer this end, whenever effected, which it notoriously 
does not. 
The cause of increased crops consequent upon deep 
plowing is, therefore, not deep plowing, but the gasses 
generated in the earth by the action of atmosphere in por- 
ous land, and taken as food by the plants. 
It is better to feed horses in troughs than on the ground 
— not that troughs cause the increased strength of the 
horses more than the ground, but that they are better 
means for the cause. So in regard to subsoiling. By sub- 
soiling rather than surface plowing we institute means for 
the cause of increased productiveness which is the action 
of air in porous ground. In other words, the atmosphere 
introduced to the roots of growing crops of the land causes 
those crops to grow, i. e.: is a prime agent in their growth,, 
or vitality. We plow deeply, therefore, as a means, hav- 
ing for our object the introduction of the gasses of the air 
to the roots of the plants — all life reposes on gasses. 
If this theory be sound, we are prepared to use the sub- 
soil plow scientifically— to use it, not with reference to 
the ground, but to the atmosphere. 
The ground plowed, may be compared to cups out of 
which very thirsty men are constrained to drink water. 
If the cups be small the men get but little w'ater So, if 
plowing be shallow, the plants get but small supplies of 
their peculiar nourishment ; if it be deep, the cups are 
larger, and, as a consequence, larger supplies are at hand. 
If men plow their lands in the winter very deeply and 
throw under a large crop of grass and weeds, they will 
thereby increase the summer results; but why I We, 
thin'c, because of the crop turned under, and not the plow-- 
ing. 1 hold winter plowing to be decidedly injurious. 
[ Nothing, therefore, can justify it in my estimation, but the 
! addition of some fertilizer plowed in. When you, start 
