368 
IS WHEAT THE ORIGINAL OF CHESS? 
any part. The inside of the tree, therefore, has 
almost entirely disappeared, but the portion left 
and the bark on it, are still vigorous. So far as 
can be judged, from its present appearance, the 
trunk was about twenty inches in diameter. 
From the top several young and thrifty branches 
shoot out, giving a present height to the tree of 
about twenty-five feet. It is of the variety called 
pearmane. It generally bears more or less, and 
this year bore about half a bushel. The fruit is 
very choice. It is often inquired for by visiters to 
the Charter Oak, who in some way or other have 
acquired a knowledge of its high antiquity. Be¬ 
sides this there are several other fruit-trees on the 
place, to which tradition assigns a great age; par¬ 
ticularly some pear-trees standing in the avenue 
leading to the house, and one on the brow of a 
hill a little northeast of the mansion. I am un¬ 
able, however, to fix their time of planting with 
any accuracy. 
A chapter on fruit-trees, as you remark in your 
paper for September, with the circumstances con¬ 
nected with them, would certainly prove curious 
and interesting. I hope you will be able to furnish 
the public with such a chapter. Should the facts 
I have communicated aid you in such a purpose, 
my object will be answered. 
J. W. Stuart. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
IS WHEAT THE ORIGINAL OF CHESS ? 
Virginia , November 24, 1843. 
I return my acknowledgments to R. L. Allen, 
for the courteous bearing he has shown in his ar¬ 
ticle on chess in your 10th number. He exhibits 
the spirit of an inquirer after truth ; and though I 
had no idea of provoking, or engaging in a discus¬ 
sion, it is a gratification to meet such an oppo¬ 
nent in a fair field. I regret, however, that he 
should have perceived anything in my communi¬ 
cation that indicated the spirit of a controversialist; 
and still more, that he should have regarded me 
as transgressing against the canons of good taste. 
Though my remarks were only intended as a little 
gond-natured raillery, I will endeavor to render 
myself no farther obnoxious to his criticisms. 
It was without due reflection that I mistook R. 
L. Allqn for “ Ulmus.” The paper had scarcely 
passed from my hands when I perceived the error; 
but I freely and cordially transfer to him the en¬ 
comiums I passed upon Ulmus. May the individ¬ 
uals of the genus continue to be multiplied. 
While Mr. A. offers to read every argument 
going to prove the inconvertibility of wheat into 
chess, if presented to him in a condensed form; 
and while, too, he appeals to nature in behalf of 
nis views; he not only takes no notice of the ar¬ 
guments, founded on the laws of nature, which I 
had advanced, but regards them as irrelevant. It 
seems to my comprehension that he has thus re¬ 
stricted me within very narrow limits. I have no 
argument to offer other than that which is founded 
on nature’s operations. We daily perceive that 
all organized beings are governed by immutable 
laws, one of which is, that like shall produce its 
like,—every seed and every animal after its kind. 
If a law of nature were found to fail in a single in¬ 
stance, everything would become unsettled, and 
liable thenceforth to be thrown into confusion. 
There could be no longer any truth in science, 
nor any uniformity of natural results. If wheat, 
for instance, which belongs to a tribe of plants pro¬ 
ducing a spike, or head, may by any process be 
converted into chess, which belongs to a very dif¬ 
ferent tribe, bearing a panicle, it follows of course, 
that every other vegetable and every animal, may, 
under certain conditions, be converted into some¬ 
thing equally different and distinct from its parent. 
If the juices which are elaborated by the leaves 
of wheat can go to the formation of chess, the 
pabulum of the apple may with the same certain¬ 
ty be directed to the development of the peach. 
But in no instances have these changes ever 
been observed, or even asserted to take place, ex¬ 
cept in the solitary case of chess. Does not Mr. 
A. then perceive, that in contending for this change, 
he offers extreme violence to nature? And how 
can he, as a man of observation and science, rely 
upon the testimony of any man—even upon his 
own, I was going to say—and not distrust it, when 
it goes directly to nullify a law of nature ? Should 
he not rather conclude that his witnesses, howev¬ 
er credible, were yet mistaken,—and that, instead 
of making patient and laborious investigation, they 
had been satisfied to draw inferences and jump to 
conclusions ? 
With these general remarks, which I trust Mr. 
Allen will not consider foreign to the subject in 
dispute, I will proceed, according to his invitation, 
to examine the facts he has submitted—premising, 
however, that similar cases have been frequently 
reported heretofore. Mr. Allen’s facts are briefly 
these: (See second November No., page 300, sec¬ 
ond column, first paragraph on to the end of the 
article.) 
In the careful statement which Mr. A. has given 
of the first three facts, there is still a most impor¬ 
tant omission, which deprives them of all claim to 
serious consideration. Before the result was stated, 
it should have been shown that there was no chess 
in the seed that was cast on the ground—for Mr. 
A. fully admits that chess will grow from its own 
seed. Every farmer knows that chess is a more 
hardy plant than wheat—that it will grow upon 
uncultivated land, and even by the way-side. In¬ 
deed, the above facts prove that it will flourish 
where wheat will not grow at all. But where 
the soil is fertile and properly prepared, the wheat- 
plant is so much more luxuriant, that it outgrows 
the chess, and prevents it from developing itself to 
any great extent. There appears then, to be no 
necessity at all, in these instances, to infer that 
the wheat had turned to chess, nor indeed any¬ 
thing to render the inference even probable; for 
the facts amount, at best, to nothing more than in¬ 
ferences from premises in which all the necessary 
conditions to a certain result are not alleged to ex¬ 
ist. , There is probably not one farmer in a hun¬ 
dred, who thoroughly purges his seed-wheat from 
all extraneous matter. 
The 3d fact, which is adduced to prove that oats 
also change to chess, may be regarded as being, 
