82 
BUILDING AND BUILDING MATERIALS. 
ments, from 12-} to 25 cents per foot extra; bor¬ 
ders, from 25 to 50 cents per foot extra; rosets, 
25 to 50 cents per foot extra. 
A specimen sheet, containing sixteen splendid 
designs, may be had gratis, on application at the 
warehouse of A. B. Allen &, Co., 189 and 191 
Water st., New York, or by letter post paid. 
BUILDING- AND BUILDING MATERIALS. 
The materials used for the construction of 
houses, are wood, brick, burnt and unburnt, iron, 
and stone. In the first place, I shall consider 
wood, that being in almost universal use through¬ 
out the country. The advantages claimed for it 
by its strong advocates, are, its comparative 
cheapness, beauty, facility of obtaining it, and the 
readiness with which it can be repaired. The 
disadvantages are, liability to decay, also to fire, 
subject to heat in summer, and cold in winter, 
its continued expense for a series of years, for 
repairing, painting, &c. 
Here the questions naturally arise—Can the 
advantages claimed, be sustained ? and do they 
more than counterbalance the disadvantages ? 
Let us weigh the matter, and then decide. 
First, its cheapness, to my mind, is just as “ clear 
as mudfor, it is my candid opinion, that most 
farmers, (those I mean who have their farms and 
buildings in decent condition,) spend as much in 
repairing these wooden structures, for a term of 
years, as would pay the interest on good stone 
ones. When a man sells his farm with wooden 
buildings upon it, such as are generally found 
in New England, it brings no higher price per 
acre, than if destitute of buildings altogether. 
Not so with those with stone buildings, which 
enhance the value at once, although they may 
not have cost more, in the aggregate, than the 
wooden ones. This shows conclusively, that the 
farmers themselves have no confidence in their 
cheapness nor in their excellence. 
But while I thus dwell at. length on the 
merits of wood, I must not forget it has also 
corresponding demerits, as its liability to take 
fire, for instance. This is a very serious objec¬ 
tion in the country, as it rarely happens that 
wooden buildings there once on fire are ever 
extinguished, owing to the scarcity of fire 
engines, and the combustibility of the material; 
and if they escape fire, the liability to decay adds 
a bill of expense. 
Another material, unburnt bricks, has lately 
been made use of at the west; and a few build¬ 
ings have been erected in New York. Still, the 
number is so small, as not to warrant a decided 
opinion, either for or against, if I may credit 
those who have built them, who consider them 
an excellent substitute for wood. 
Bricks, for the construction of country houses, 
are rarely used, except in districts where they 
are manufactured. Furthermore, they have but 
few advantages over other materials. They are 
also objectionable on account of their readiness 
to absorb and retain moisture; and, without a 
coat of paint, of some subdued shade, outside, 
are, to my taste, decidedly bad, and quite out of 
of place, among the green fields of the country. 
Let us next pass to iron, as a material for 
building, which, no doubt, is first-rate, but its 
expense will confine it, for the present, to the 
massive warehouses of our commercial cities, 
where great strength and solidity are required. 
But those who live to number this century with 
the past, may see iron farmhouses and iron 
barns—particularly if this branch of American 
industry is fostered as it should be. 
Last, but not not least, on our list, comes stone. 
This is, to my mind, decidedly and emphatically, 
the material for us at the north. Its solidity, 
durability, strength, beauty, imperviousness to 
moisture, its coolness in summer and warmth in 
winter, the facility with which it can be obtained, 
render it, take it all in all, the best; and when 
once built, there it stands, to be transmitted to 
“ the children, and the children’s children, unto 
the third and fourth generations.” The lamented 
Coleman said—“We build too much for the 
presentand when Agricultural Commissioner 
for the State of Massachusetts, he gave a very 
favorable opinion in regard to stone, over every 
other material for building purposes. A great 
many farmers labor under the mistake, that they 
have no stone fit to build a house, and still have 
miles of stone wall on their farms. Think you 
these men would buy stone to lay even a cellar 
wall? Certainly not. Then the objection is 
answered; for stone fit to lay a cellar wall, is 
fit for the outside walls of the house. Indeed, 
almost every farm in this rock-bound region, has 
suitable stone, enough and to spare. 
Connected with this subject, is the matter of 
roofing. Shingles are in most general use here, 
but they are expensive, and not durable; though 
there is a great difference in them. Those that 
are split, instead of sawed, are preferable. Slate 
is used in our cities; also, tin and zinc; but all 
these are too expensive for the country. Mastic 
has been tried, but with what success, I know 
not. So, also, has paper, and an article called 
asphaltum, been used in England; and a sample 
has been imported, but by whom, I cannot learn. 
Tiles are used a great deal in England, and are 
there considered cheap and good; and I see no 
reason why they might not be used, to some 
extent, in this country. Now, as Mr. Delafield 
has imported a tile machine, let some one try 
the experiment, and give us the results, through 
the columns of the Agriculturist. Perhaps, after 
all, stone houses, with tile roofs, after the fashion 
of the mother country, (only Americanise them 
a little,) will be the thing needful. 
One great reason why modern-covered roofs 
do not last as well as old ones, is the bad nails 
we use now-a-days. This cut-nail business was 
set out, in its true light, by Lieutenant Governor 
Reed, at the legislative agricultural meetings at 
Boston, in 1848. He said—“These nails area 
little better than cast iron—that is, of cast iron 
run only once through the rollers. The nails 
are also small, 500 to the pound. The proper 
size is only 400. These poor nails are sold at 
cts. per pound, but the manufacturers would 
make good nails, of refined iron, if ordered, at 
•5-} cts. per pound. Manufacturers would make 
good nails, but the public have called for cheap 
