AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
§mpd to htt$rato tlje Jarnm:, t \t putter, anir \\t fckurr* 
AGRICULTURE IS THE MOST HEALTHY, THE MOST USEFUL, AND THE MOST NOBLE EMPLOYMENT OF MAN. -Washington. 
PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY ALLEN & CO., 189 WATER ST. 
VOL. XIII.—NO. 10.] NEW-YORK, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1854. [NEW SERIES.-NO. 62. 
Jot* prospectus, Serins, $&., 
tg^SEE LAST PAGE. 0^3 
MR. J. J. MAPES AND HIS SUPERPHOSPHATE. 
A week or two since we received a sheet 
of two printed pages headed, “ From the 
Working Farmer for November,” the burden 
of which appears to be an effort to excite 
sympathy in behalf of “ Mapes’s Improved 
Superphosphate of Lime,” because the Amer¬ 
ican Agriculturist recently published some 
experiments made by one of its Editors, in 
which that manure did not appear to the best 
advantage. 
We should not deem this worthy of notice, 
did it not contain some hints at a want of in¬ 
tegrity on the part of the Editors of this 
journal, because, perchance, one of the pub¬ 
lishers happens to sell Peruvian guano, and 
Deburg’s superphosphate of lime, as well as 
Mapes’s, or that of any other manufacturer, 
which may be called for by his customers. 
We will state, once for all, that the Edi¬ 
tors of this paper embrace a number of gen¬ 
tlemen who are, both from principle and by 
special written contract , entirely disconnected 
from any interest in the private business of 
either of the publishers. This paper is edited 
solely with reference to developing the true 
principles of scientific and practical agricul¬ 
ture, no matter whose private interests it 
may advance or ignore. 
Guided by these motives, we have studi¬ 
ously avoided any allusion to the private 
nostrums, or special fert ilizers, either of Mr. 
Mapes or any other individual manufacturer. 
We have received numbers of letters con¬ 
demning this and that particular manure, but 
we have given them no more attention than 
we should had they treated of Brandreth’s 
pills, or the thousand and one sarsaparilla 
life-preservers or life-restorers. When 
speaking of superphosphate, we have con¬ 
sidered it only as superphosphate, and not as 
Mapes’s, or Deburg’s, or Coe’s, or Patter¬ 
son’s. During the “ superphosphate war,” 
we have frequently been called upon to give 
our views upon the subject; but our answer 
has been, that whatever is said, serves only 
as grounds for awakening sympathy in be¬ 
half of the would-be-persecuted, on the part 
of those who have the facilities of hearing 
only one side of the subject. 
Our recent article perhaps demands a word 
of explanation. Last Spring Rev. William 
Clift, one of the Editors of the American Ag¬ 
riculturist, residing at Stonington, Conn., 
proposed, through the Norwich Examiner, 
(the Agricultural Department of which is 
under his supervision,) to the different man¬ 
ufacturers of special fertilizers, to send him 
average samples of their manures, and he 
would give them “ fair trial, side by side, 
and publish the results.” We made no in¬ 
quiries of his progress, and heard nothing 
from him on the subject, till a short, time 
since, when he sent in, among other articles, 
one entitled “ An Experiment on Grass with 
Concentrated Fertilizers.”* As Mr. Clift is 
well known as a careful investigator, and an 
unbiassed experimenter, the article was pub¬ 
lished without revision ; and we still deem 
the results valuable—as much so as one set 
of experiments could make them, and this 
was all that was claimed. Had the article 
been carefully examined by the conducting 
editors, probably all allusion to individual 
manufacturers would have been dropped, ac¬ 
cording to our usual custom heretofore. 
Hereafter, we do not promise to spare any 
individual nostrums. 
With Mr. Mapes, personally, we have no 
controversy. He has done much to set 
farmers to thinking upon their profession; 
and possessing, as he unquestionably does, 
plausible native talent, he has engrossed no 
small share of public attention. We could 
have wished that he had been less a novice 
in practical agriculture; that his scientific 
knowledge had been less superficial; that he 
had looked deeper into, and taken more time 
to study, the true causes of agricultural phe¬ 
nomena, instead of too hastily publishing 
conclusions, founded on theoretical premises 
only. Had he done this, his opinions would 
have had more present weight with cautious 
scientific men, and ultimately with the com¬ 
munity at large. There would, even now, 
be fewer persons to distrust all the aids of 
science, because their first hopes have been 
blasted. His own reputation would have 
been more lasting, and in the end more bril¬ 
liant ; and others would have found less to 
contend with. Mr. Mapes has been quite 
too careless in stating his own results to the 
public. One error or misstatement, discov¬ 
ered, casts a shade of doubt over all others 
he may make. 
We also think it unfortunate for his repu¬ 
tation, that he has so publicly identified him¬ 
self with a manure, in which he is privately 
interested. His superphosphate, however 
well it may have succeeded in some in¬ 
stances, has signally failed to give expected 
* Since writing the above we learn from Mr. Clift that 
the superphosphate used was obtained from a quantity 
procured direct from the manufacturer, and for sale in 
the New-York market, and that he deems it afair average 
of what is usually sold. 
results in many others, and he must, individ¬ 
ually, endure the odium, for he has suffered 
his reputation to be identified with that of his 
fertilizer. 
We harbor no unkind feelings toward Mr. 
Mapes as a man, for we have no cause for 
so doing ; but he has made himself, his teach¬ 
ings, and his manures, public property, and 
as such we must express our honest convic¬ 
tions of them. Had he allowed it, we should 
probably have kept silent, though as conserv¬ 
ators of the public interest it is perhaps de¬ 
manded of us that we raise our voice against 
whatever is leading into error—and such we 
consider the tendency of his teachings, taken 
as a whole. 
We have no desire to enter the lists as 
combatants with Mr. Mapes. He will doubt¬ 
less court this. One of the shrewdest adver¬ 
tisers in the country said to us, the other 
day, ‘ he did not care what people said of 
him, only so that they talked. He could 
make as much money out of their animadver¬ 
sions as out of their praises. The sympathy 
of the public, for the time being, always goes 
with the apparently persecuted, however 
wrong they may be.’ 
THE OREGON PEA 
We received a small sample of this pea, 
last Spring, from a friend in Mississippi, 
where it flourishes well, and yields on poor 
land a very large amount of fodder. The 
gentleman who sent us the seed esteems it 
very highly, both for food and as a renova- 
‘or of the soil. W T e planted our seed on good 
soil, with a southern exposure. The seed 
came up well, and grew luxuriantly early in 
the season. They continued green through 
the drouth, but gave no signs of fruit or 
flower. We see, from the following article 
in the Rural New-Yorker, that other cultiva¬ 
tors have had similar success. It is mani¬ 
fest, that this pea is not adapted to our 
climate. It will be a long while, we think, 
before Indian corn will find it a rival as an ar¬ 
ticle of fodder. 
Glowing accounts have been published of 
this new plant, and considerable inquiry 
elicited for further information. For a south¬ 
ern latitude, it may be all that is claimed for 
it. But hereabouts, those who undertake its 
cultivation, we opine will be much disap¬ 
pointed. 
The writer received samples of this pea 
from three or four different sources the past 
winter, a portion of which he planted out the 
6th of May, alongside the Japan pea and a 
Stock pea from Mississippi, on soil but mod- 
