REVIEW OP THE SEPTEMBER NO. OF THE AGRICULTURIST. 
377 
Adulteration of Milk. —There is but one way that 
X can see which will be likely to secure us pure, 
milk in the city of New York; and that is, by 
establishing an extensive milk company under the 
surveillance of the police, subject to a forfeiture of 
their privileges if ever found selling adulterated 
milk. Having a large number of regular customers, 
it will be the interest of the company to sell nothing 
but pure milk, and certainly the interest of pur¬ 
chasers to buy from no other source. This combi¬ 
nation would brush down dishonest dealers. The 
subject is worthy of further thought and discussion. 
W'heai in Georgia. —I am well aware that good 
wheat crops can be grown in all the Southern 
States; but I wish to inquire of Mr. Terrell, how 
the grain can be preserved from the destruction of 
the weevil, which so infest all the country south of 
latitude 37° or 38 p , that I have ever visited ? If they 
do not infest Georgia, and wheat can be profitably 
grown there for “ 37| cents a bushel,” it is cheaper 
than it can be grown upon the boasted prairie 
lands of the West, maugre a late article in the New 
York Journal of Commerce, asserting that it can be 
grown for 16 cents! Mr. Terrell is an observing and 
interesting correspondent; but I would recommend 
to him to take great care that his observations made 
while travelling by railroad, are not erroneous. 
We have too many railroad travellers’ publications 
now-a-days. His observation upon the true policy 
of the South to raise her own provisions, is worthy 
of all credit, and should be much more generally 
practised. But when that becomes the case, seve¬ 
ral of the North-western States will feel the loss of 
a home market, and at the same time learn that they 
have no foreign one. [Dear Reviewer, don’t be so 
certain of that fact, otherwise we fear we shall be 
obliged to suspect you as one of the Editors of the 
New York Tribune.] 
Drovers' Dogs. —This cut is not quite “ as clear 
as mud,” though somewhat muddy; for to us un¬ 
learnt in dogology, we are not able to distinguish 
“ Boxer” from “ Rose,” and therefore it is not so 
interesting as 
Domestic Fish-Ponds, with its clear, beautiful 
illustrations, and very lucid description, by an ex¬ 
cellent writer, whose new work upon the “ Trees 
of America,” I will read with pleasure, whenever 
the author sends me a copy. [You shall have one 
gratis, if we have to send it ourselves.] 
Practical Facts about Pork and Bacon. —This is 
from a prolific pen, from whence flow a great 
many practical facts upon a great many interesting 
subjects, and upon this one he writes exactly as 
though “ he was brought up among the hogs.” 
That this article is an interesting one, is proved by 
the fact that it is “ taking the round of the papers.” 
How to Destroy the Canada Thistle. —This is all 
very good doctrine; but how are you to induce 
<{ every man to weed on his own side of the fence?" 
W eeds in fence corners, is another of the evils of 
our wretched system of fencing, which has not 
been sufficiently adverted to by the advocates of 
cultivating land without fence. And until that day 
of wisdom arrives, I, for one, despair of ridding the 
land of this troublesome weed, as well as many 
other of the evils of the system of compelling one 
man to fence against everybody else’s cattle. Be 
'assured, “ old farmer,” that although you may 
“ chisel” out the thistle, a thousand others will not; 
and “ faith without works” will never rid the 
country of the Canada thistle, any more than in the 
negro’s sermon it could make “ de hog a gemman in 
de parler.” 
Imported Cattle. —I have said my say in remarks 
upon Mr. Bement’s communication. Mr. Vail is 
a very enterprising friend of improvement, and has 
a beautiful herd of cattle; but suppose you admit 
similar articles from all the eminent stock-breeders 
in the country, including pedigrees, would it be in¬ 
teresting to the great majority of your readers ? 
The half-dozen lines in your August No., with the 
addition of the importer’s name, is all the space that 
should, in justice to your paying readers, have been 
occupied by this subject. 
Private Agricultural Schools. —W ell, if you 
“ cannot agree with Reviewer,” we will not quarrel. 
Your politics, which you proclaim in this article, 
are so different from mine, that it will probably be 
useless for us to attempt to “ hitch our horses to¬ 
gether.” I believe the object of all governments 
should be to foster the interests of the people gov¬ 
erned ; and to collect and concentrate resources to 
accomplish great works, for great good, by a great 
combined effort of the whole people, through the 
agency of the rulers acting as managers for all the 
individuals, that no one individual can do. And I 
do not consider myself a bad citizen, though you 
do, because I advocate this “ plain political axiom.” 
But while you deprecate all governmental endow¬ 
ments of schools, why do you advocate “ an annual 
appropriation for the collecting of materials and 
sending forth substantial public documents, contain¬ 
ing real information to the agricultural community 
in regard to their business.” The late bundle of 
trash from-the Patent Office, I suppose you consider 
a substantial document of the class you wish to 
patronize. Verily, friend, thou art inconsistent, 
and I fear somewhat agrarianish in thy principles. 
At all events, thou art not well versed in true poli¬ 
tical economy. “ Let us have no national school,” 
you say. Then let us have no national monopoly 
of the public domain, which instead of converting 
the proceeds into schools, and roads, and harbors, 
for the benefit of those who pay their money for 
them, have diverted every dollar so wrung from the 
hard toil of the poor pioneer in the forest, for the 
cut-throat purpose of “ glorious war,” upon a de¬ 
fenceless people, to gain more territory to devote 
again to the same purpose. But this is not, I sup¬ 
pose, in your opinion, “ beyond the proper sphere” 
of government. 
Dr. Philips' Reply to Reviewer, is an interesting 
article, and I feel pleased to think that I have been 
the cause of drawing him out so fully. Still, he 
might have written more lengthily upon the several 
inquiries made, with equal interest. I am sorry to 
think from the closing paragraph of the Doctor’s 
letter, that perhaps he thought my remarks were too 
much in a vein of ridicule, for an entire stranger to 
indulge in. But the truth is, he is no stranger to 
me, and I know he loves a joke and would laugh 
heartily now if he could “ ferret me out,” and learn 
how I know that peas “ have a haulm.” 
Gardening, No. 7, should never have been thus 
entitled ; for, although an ir teresting article upor\ 
geological science, it has not one word upon the 
