54 
THE PRINCESS TRIEE OF SHORTHORNS. 
and distribution of population. They all embrace 
lowlands and highlands. In the former, slaves 
perform nearly all the manual labor; in the 
latter, there are comparatively few slaved, and 
white labor predominates. In the states further 
southwest, labor is nearly all performed by 
slaves, but is more valuable, because more pro¬ 
ductive, arising from greater fertility of soil.” 
The grouping of these states presents a curious 
feature to a native. If the writer, or anybody 
else, can tell why wages in New Jersey should 
be set down at “ 75 cents a-day,” while in New 
York and Pennsylvania, lying upon three sides 
of her, they are only 50 cents, he will unravel 
a mystery. Our explanation is, the mystery is 
like many others, when inquired into—it don’t 
exist. The states marked with a * are grouped 
together on account of “ similar features of po¬ 
sition, &c.” The only similarity as regards 
wages, is, that they are all slave states. Two 
of them are great cotton and rice-growing states, 
and two others grow little, or none ; two others 
grow a small portion only. Virginia is a great 
wheat state, and Kentucky and Tennessee, 
great corn-growing states. The greatest error, 
though not intended to be so understood, yet, as 
it is worded, cannot well be understood as the 
author intended it should be, is in the state¬ 
ment that says, “ in the former, slaves perform 
nearly all the manual labor, &c.” The ante¬ 
cedent of the word former , appearing to be the 
first-named in the list of states. “ Further south, 
labor is more productive, arising from greater 
fertility of soil.” How far south? In Texas, 
or some other unannexed state, the others being 
all named, excepting Delaware, which seems to 
be so small it is entirely overlooked, and Cali¬ 
fornia, which has since become a state. It is 
a very great error to convey the idea that the 
southern states have a much larger proportion 
of fertile soil than the northern ones, for such 
is not the fact. 
THE PRINCESS TRIBE OF SHORTHORNS. 
Mr. Stevens stated some time ago, that the 
Princess tribe of shorthorns traced further hack 
in the Herd Book , than any others, which position 
I thought doubtful. He undertakes to prove it 
by running back to Tripes by the Studley bull. 
On page 41, volume 1st, English Herd Book, 
you will find, (No. 188,) Dalton Duke, bred by 
Mr. John Charge ; got by Mr. W. Dobson’s bull 
d. by the Studley bull. This bull traces back 
as far in the Herd Book , as any of the Princess 
tribe, and of course, I am right. I showed, also 
in my former article, that Mr. Bates had used 
other blood in his herd besides the Princess 
and Duchess blood, since 1831. So that I con¬ 
sider this position cannot be reasoned or ex¬ 
plained away. It will be seen by referring to 
Mr. Bates’ catalogue of sale, that he had used 
the descendants of his Matchem cow very ex¬ 
tensively. Samuel D. Martin. 
Colbyville, Ky. 
REPLY TO DR. MARTIN. 
Dr. Martin has unfortunately selected in the 
bull Dalton Duke, (188,) a poor weapon to de¬ 
feat me. He quotes from the 1st volume of the 
Herd Book. In that volume, page 147, is this: 
“691 Wetherell and Maynard’s bull (see Dal¬ 
ton Duke).” The numbers are of the same 
bull. Mr. Charge bred Dalton Duke, and sold 
him to Messrs. Wetherell & Maynard; he was 
known both as “Wetherell & Maynard’s bull,” 
and as “Dalton Duke.” A second edition of 
the first three volumes of the Herd Book was 
published in 1846, and was edited by Mr. Hen¬ 
ry Strafford, than whom there is no better au¬ 
thority ; indeed, none so good in England. In 
this second edition, under the head of, “ (691,) 
Wetherell & Maynard’s bull, or Dalton Duke, 
(188,) is this bred by Mr. John Charge; got by Mr. 
William Dobson’s bull, (218,) d. by the Studley 
White bull (627).” Mr. Strafford both corrected 
and extended the pedigrees, in his edition, and 
from information properly derived. On exam¬ 
ination of Mr. Charge’s pedigrees everywhere 
in the Herd Book, they will be found to end 
with a descent from the Studley White bull 
(627) ; and Dalton Duke descended in the same 
way. In the first edition, in the pedigree of 
Dalton Duke, the word white was omitted, 
and the pedigree thus made incorrect, and 
Mr. Strafford corrected it in the second edition. 
It is due to Dr. Martin to say, that he could not 
know this, unless he had the second edition of 
the Herd Book, which is not probable. So, then, 
Dalton Duke does not go back in the female 
line to the Studley bull, (626,) and of course. 
Dr. M. is wrong, and I am right. I will take 
occasion here to mention, that the following 
bulls in the first volume of the Herd Book, are 
of the Princess Tribe, viz: Bacon’s son of 
Comet, (46,) Baron, (58,) Carlisle, (115,) Cleve¬ 
land, (142,) Robert Colling’s white bull, (151,) 
Custard, (183,) Foljambe, (263,) Harlequin, (289,) 
Marske, (418,) Plato, (506,) Simon (590). The 
following cows in the first volume of the Herd 
Book, are also of the Princess family, viz: 
Barmpton, page 169; Belinda, page 178; Blos¬ 
som, page 187; Brighteyes, bred by R. Colling, 
page 194; Brighteyes, bred by R. Colling, page 
195; Buxom, page 203; Countess, bred by R- 
