AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
ablest writers in this country on this particular 
topic.- They have both been breeders of blooded 
stock for a quarter of a century or more, we be¬ 
lieve. 
Look well after the Farm Stock- 
As the Winter wanes, the farm stock requires 
all our attention. If they have been well looked 
after thus far, they are in good condition, of 
course. In the coldest weather the coarse fod¬ 
der can be most economically fed out, and the 
stock will readily eat what, in soft weather, they 
would reject or but barely taste. We believe in 
stable or shed feeding, mainly, but on most farms 
there is always a certain amount of rough fodder 
that is quite as well to be fed outside in the open 
yards or in the fields; and it should be done 
where the ground is either frozen, or covered 
with snow. Cattle may be even driven out, and 
fed at field stacks, in some cases to advantage, 
but not exposed to driving winds, or heavy storms. 
In such times they should always be sheltered, if 
possible. 
Milch-cows should now be looked after, and 
kept warm and comfortable at night, with plenty 
of sweet hay, and warm bedding. Calves, lambs, 
and colts should be well sheltered, watched in 
their food, to see that each gets its proper share 
and rations. If you have a weakly one, or an un¬ 
derling that the rest are running over, look to it, 
and separate it from the others, that it may not get 
poor and weak, and lose its hide before Spring. 
A few roots nicely cut up, a little oats or 
meal will revive a pining thing wonderfully. 
“ Murrain ” skins are not half so saleable at the 
tanner’s, as those from healthy, fatted animals, 
and the carcasses are good for nothing but crow’s 
or dog’s meat; crows and dogs can be fed cheap¬ 
er, if “ they must live —though “ we see no 
necessity for that,” as Samuel Johnson, L.L.D., 
told the thief who stole his herrings, and answer¬ 
ed, as an apology, that he “ must live.” There 
is an adage that runs, “ Well summered is half 
wintered,” and “ Well wintered is half summer¬ 
ed.” It is a wise saying, which we devoutly be¬ 
lieve, and if more farmers practiced upon it there 
would be a great deal more wealth in the farming 
world than now. 
--* <— — -- —- 
Breeding In-and-in. 
BY A CATTLE BREEDER.-NO. II. 
Mr. Cassius M. Clay, in the February number, 
rejoins to my article in the January Agriculturist. 
After saying what I did then, I intended to fol¬ 
low with some remarks on the Collings system of 
breeding Short-Horn cattle ; also on the practice 
of various eminent breeders since, as Bates, the 
Booths, and others. I shall come to them before 
I get through ; but as Mr. Clay hae classified his 
arguments in condemnation of this system, for 
convenience I will follow him in answer. I wish, 
however, to make this saving remark : I do not 
advocate the breeding in-and-in in all cases, and 
do not recommend others to do so at all, except 
under circumstances of perfect health and condition 
of the animals proposed to be so bred ; and in ob¬ 
servance of such principles, I quoted the examples 
of the celebrated breeders I named. Let us look 
at Mr. Clay’s line of argument against close or 
in-and-in breeding. He condemns it 
1st, from “ analogy .” The Divine law, as ex¬ 
pounded by Moses, forbade the Jews from inter¬ 
marrying within certain degrees of blood relation. 
Why, we are not altogether given to understand, 
but we may presume one of the principal reasons 
was to preserve and promote the decencies and 
proprieties of life. Physical considerations no 
doubt influenced the restrictions laid down by 
Moses, to some extent; for it is well known by 
every physiologist, that diseases run in certain 
families from one generation to another, arising, 
perhaps, from accident at first, but becoming 
chronic in the system, they were susceptible of 
perpetuation through a similarity of blood, of con¬ 
stitution, sympathy, and bodily habit, nervous sen- 
sibilities, and other subtle influences not always 
visible to the eye or understanding. The Jews, 
also, had a “ mission ” before them—being a war¬ 
like people, and demanding great bodily health 
and energy in action. Yet I deny the similarity 
of the premises which Mr. Clay institutes be¬ 
tween the breeding of men and the breeding of 
brutes ; the “ analogy ” is widely different in 
the two subjects. Man has an organization of 
brain, reasoning faculties, sensibilities, sympa¬ 
thies, nervous temperament, and other affections, 
added to the animal instincts and passions, all of 
which more or less affect the procreative and 
gestative functions and powers, and exert a wide 
influence on his progeny. It is unnecessary to 
go into this farther, as physiologists and medical 
men have taught it all from time immemorial. 
Brutes have instincts and passions alone, with¬ 
out the human attributes which I have named. 
Their physical organization is ruder and coarser, 
less complex and intricate. They subsist on 
simpler foods, fewer in number, and prepared 
only as nature produces them. Therefore “ ana¬ 
logy ” to the human race in close breeding bears 
little or no relation to that of the brute creation. 
Let us, however, look even at the human fam¬ 
ily, divested of our prejudices, education, and re¬ 
finements. Let us take the Bible for authority, 
as it is quite evident we have none better at 
hand. Out of Adam’s side, Eve was formed, and 
she bore children to Adam. “ In-and-in breeding,” 
that was, to a certainty. They had sons and 
daughters, who must have intermarried ; and in 
process of time a very considerable territory be¬ 
came peopled by their issue. We hear of no 
“ laws ” against close intermarriages in those 
days, nor of idiots or imbeciles arising from re¬ 
lationship in parents. When Noah,' his sons, and 
their wives, went out of the ark—the only living 
humanities on the face of the earth—close alli¬ 
ances must of necessity have been practiced 
for some generations at least, and from them 
strong physical families, tribes, and nations 
sprung. From an incest sprang Moab and Am¬ 
mon, strong men. They resulted also from a 
drunken revel—the worst possible condition ac¬ 
cording to our modern theories. From them 
sprung the Moabites and Ammonites, who grew 
to be powerful people. We hear of no adverse 
physical results from these descents. 
Leaving the Bible, let us consult the compara¬ 
tively more modern, but still to us ancient nations. 
In Greece and in Rome it was common for men, 
even in the highest walks of life, to commingle 
with their own offspring, and the children of the 
same parents often intermarried—revolting indeed 
and abominable in our eyes. Yet in many of the 
qualities of learning, law, and civilization, those 
nations were exalted beyond all others cotempo¬ 
rary with them. There may have been fools and 
imbeciles also, though we do not hear of them— 
but great F in sprung from those close relation¬ 
ships, and such practices were not considered 
by the people of those nations at all as we con¬ 
sider them. I speak only of fact, not propriety, 
morality, or right, in the matter. 
In the present day, suppose, for example, that 
two children of a family, born of healthy, robust 
7 6 
parents, should be separated from their birth,never 
knowing each other as relatives, and that by acci¬ 
dent, in after life, at proper age, they should inter¬ 
marry. Does any one suppose that their children 
would be less endowed with sound faculties of 
body or mind than the children af others, having 
no known relationship 1 Or, nearer, if you pleaso, 
suppose the same thing should happen between 
parents and their own offspring. Such things 
have been, in the annals of history, without re¬ 
mark of either idiocy or imbecility. Education, 
and reasoning, and the laws of society, as well 
as Divine instruction have taught us, that all such 
practice is wrong, and we condemn it. But aside 
from the mental and nervous affections of hu¬ 
manity, we have no proof that the simply animal 
physical functions of man would be deranged by 
the practice. 
Brains are the chief desirable endowment, and 
the results of brain activity and creation, are 
considered the great objects of human life. Phy 
sical strength and health are also important; but 
who thinks of rearing up man for obesity, to take 
on fat, like oxen, or swine ? The legislature of 
Georgia, in their new found wisdom may, as Mr. 
Clay remarks, enact laws against the inter¬ 
marriage of cousins, with the result, in all pro¬ 
bability, that when cousins wish to intermarry, 
they will quietly pass over the state line of 
Georgia,and do their marrying, instead of at home; 
and that is all there will be of it. By what sta¬ 
tistical tables do the Solons of Georgia know’ that 
more imbeciles are produced from cousins than 
from those who are not cousins. There is no 
well authenticated proof from public or private 
lunatic, deaf and dumb, idiot, or other asylums 
for unfortunates, that the children of cousins con¬ 
tribute larger numbers, in proportion, than others, 
to fill those institutions. Understand, I still speak 
of facts, not as advocating the practice of such 
close connections in marriage. But enough on 
this head, my readers will get at the drift of my 
meaning. 
In all of this previous remark it is to be under¬ 
stood that the parties in this close breeding, wheth¬ 
er man or brute, have been free from constitutional 
diseases, or sympathetic ailments, acting on a com¬ 
mon organization, and free from mental or bodily 
infirmity. Yet infirmities, mental or physical, in 
close blood relations, or in strangers as well, will 
descend in the offspring with more or less cer¬ 
tainty, as circumstances may determine; or, if 
healthy, they may exist in their offspring, 
produced by accidental influences, beyond 
the control of the parents, or at the time 
even beyond their knowledge in themselves, per¬ 
haps. Yet, Mr. Clay says, “ that man, outside of 
mental and sentimental phenomena is governed 
by the same physical laws as other animalsor, 
in other (and my own) words : make men savages, 
and they are like other brutes. That I grant; 
and for the animal development, simply, I will 
yield him more than he claims. 
Marrying cousins is “in-and-in breeding,” ot 
course ; and I will take the late and present royal 
families of England as examples—the Guelphs,no! 
the Stuarts, for they were French. The first ar.: 
second Georges were intensely German. Then- 
maternal origin, far away back, was English- 
Scotch, rather—but the English blood had been 
mostly bred out, and the third George, although 
fourth in direct descent, v r as almost wholly Ger¬ 
man, the descendant of generations of cousins, and 
even those cousins closely interbred. This third 
@e®rge married a cousin, a German, with no brains 
■ so spare on either side, but physically both well 
developed persons. English roast-beef and plum 
pudding had done its best on George, and German 
