JUNE 19 
MOORE’S RURAL NEW-YORKER: AN AGRICULTURAL AND FAMILY NEWSPAPER 
199 
THE DISCUSSION ON PEAR CULTIVATION. 
An article on this subject in the May number of 
The Horticulturist, from the ready pen of Mr. 
Lewis F. Allen, has elicited considerable discus¬ 
sion in the Agricultural and Horticultural journals. 
Among others, the Rural New-Yorker offered 
some remarks on the subject—taking exceptions 
to the summary manner in which the question was 
treated, and dissenting from the conclusions of 
Mr. A. in prematurely ignoring Pear Culture.— 
This article (given in the Rural of May 15,) was 
followed the next week by one from an intelligent 
and experienced horticulturist, also in opposition 
to the positions and arguments of Mr. Allen. In 
the Rural of June 5th, the author of the Horticul¬ 
turist's essay replied somewhat tartly, repeating 
the drift of his original article, and stating (in a 
concluding paragraph,) that he should not change 
the venue of the controversy from the journal in 
which it was commenced. To this article the 
Editor of our Horticultural Department appended 
some remarks, embracing further arguments in 
support of the position previously assumed — in 
favor of Pear Culture. Mr. A.’s article was given 
entire— verbatim et literatim, as near as the com¬ 
positor could make it out, and it was quite legible 
—and yet the author, in a note accompanying the 
article which we give below, erroneously intimates 
that the matter was purposely distorted, “with an 
alteration or two of the text,” and answered ac¬ 
cordingly by the Horticultural Editor. 
Now, the Conducting Editor of the Rural hap¬ 
pens to know that Mr. A.’s article was printed 
according to the original text, as near a3 possible— 
and if a single omission, addition, or alteration can 
be cited by the author, it shall be most cheerfully 
corrected. Mr. A. asked for “ fair play,” and it was 
accorded to the fullest extent, as it would have been 
without any special request. In the same catholic 
spirit we publish his present article entire—altho’ 
decidedly “personal,” and more objectionable in 
that respect than any other given during the dis¬ 
cussion, (a feature which its author strongly con¬ 
demned inhis opponents,)—but of course allow the 
Horticultural Editor, as we shall the correspondents 
attacked, “ample room and verge enough” to 
respond. As to Mr. A.’s intimations, in both his 
note and article, relative to the Rural being in the 
least controlled by, or in the interest of Nursery¬ 
men, it is perhaps unnecessary to say more than 
that he is mistaken. Having survived nearly a 
decade, and attained some little circulation and 
influence, entirely independent of any other than 
legitimate aid and support, the Rural New-Yorker 
has no desire or temptation to become the organ 
or advocate of any special business or interest, 
further than such business or interest may be cited 
as promotive of the advancement and prosperity 
of its subscribers, and the agricultural and horti¬ 
cultural public.—E d. 
PEAR CULTURE. 
Eds. Rural:—I ought not, perhaps, to be sur¬ 
prised that I meet with no favor at the hands of 
your horticultural editor, when it is so apparent 
that he is in the nursery interest, and considers my 
pear article, on which he so feelingly animadverts, 
directed mainly against it (a) 
I take “ friendly criticism " with a bad grace! If 
a tirade of personalities in reply to a simple propo¬ 
sition is “friendly criticism,” then, indeed, I am 
ignorant of the common terms of language. But 
I shall not bandy words, merely. (A) It is evident 
that my Horticulturist article has truth, and evi¬ 
dence in it. If not, why not state my points fairly 
in your paper, and then refute them? No such 
thing is done or attempted. Instead of that, an 
interested feeling dictates the pen which essays a 
reply, shifting my argument from the thing itself, 
to my own person, and “Black Rock,” “Buffalo,” 
“Erie County,” and “Lewis F. Allen,” become 
prolific terms in not only the columns of the Rural, 
but in sundry other papers, when their writers con¬ 
sider their own pecuniary interests touched, (c) 
I shall let all this pass. I can bear as much of 
that sort of nonsense as is necessary to relieve the 
bile of all who choose to indulge it; and with your 
leave, will proceed very briefly to state the points 
of my pear article in the Horticulturist, that your 
readers may understand them as I put them, instead 
of through the distorted statements of others. My 
propositions are these: 
Some ten or twelve years ago the pear, worked 
on the quince, as a dwarf, was strongly recommend¬ 
ed through our horticultural and agricultural pa¬ 
pers as the most successful and ready way to obtain 
that fruit. They could be grown in small gardens, 
bear early, and every body could have them. 
This statement, so plausible in appearance, took 
wonderfully with the publie, who soon demanded 
them of the nurserymen, and they, in turn, sup¬ 
plied, sent out, and sold them in great quantities, so 
that pears ought by this time to be cheap and 
abundant in our markets, and households. ( d ) 
I detailed my own experience, and the experi¬ 
ence of many of my neighbors, and gave the dif¬ 
ferent modes of culture adopted for several years; 
after all which, the dwarf pear, in the great majori¬ 
ty of cases, ha3 proved a failure— and the experi¬ 
ence thus detailed has been corroborated to my 
own knowledge by that of many other pear grow¬ 
ers in various sections of this, and other States. ( e) 
The mice finally killed my trees; yet in every 
previous year they died in considerable numbers, 
with the best culture and care that I could give 
them, on good, and appropriate soil, in a good po¬ 
sition, and exposure, where the pear, on its own 
stock, grew as well as in most other places, and the 
apple, and quince, on their own stocks flourished. 
But here is my strong point, which not a single 
writer, in answer, has seen fit to notice, and which, 
I fancy, they dislike to touch. It is, in my opinion, 
incontrovertible — a physical objection interposed by 
nature itself to the permanent success of the dwarf 
pear, as a continuous, lasting, fruit-bearing tree.— 
The pear is an open pored, thrifty wood, of large 
growth and stature. The quince is a close-pored, 
compact wood, of slow growth and small stature. 
These two oppositely constructed woods, except in 
a few varieties of pear, and extraordinary cases, 
will not unite and form a perfect growth, each run¬ 
ning into the other, as either the pear or quince 
will do, when worked on its own stock. For when 
the pear growth above overtakes the quince stock 
beneath, the quince ceases to supply sufficient sap 
for the elaboration of the pear shoots above, and 
as soon as that want of sap is apparent, the pear 
ceases to grow, becomes diseased, and either lives 
in a torpid, cankered state, or dies. Jn many kinds 
of the pear, the stocks refuse to unite at all, only 
at the bark and a portion of the sap wood, as the 
advocates of the dwarf have long ago admitted is 
the case ■with the Bartlett, and many others. Some 
recommend burying the quince stock below the 
surface so that the pear may throw out its own roots, 
and thus become virtually a stock for itself, and 
that practice is confessed by several of those culti¬ 
vators who claim to have succeeded in dwarf cul¬ 
ture. I should like to know what such practice 
means, but tacitly confessing that the quince stock, 
of itself, is a failure for permanently sustaining the 
pear ! (/) 
I also admitted, most distinctly, that there are 
some, indeed, many localities in our country where 
the dwarf had succeeded, for a while—also, where 
the pear, on its own stock, is eminently successful; 
but, also asserted that it is a capricious fruit al¬ 
ways, and in many localities perfectly refractory 
in growth and bearing. But I neither recommend¬ 
ed that people should not attempt to grow them, 
nor to dig them up when planted, a3 one of my 
commentators asserts. Nor have I charged either 
“ ignorance or dishonesty” to the propagators and 
venders of the trees, according to Mr. J. II* Hall, 
of West Bloomfield, N. Y. (g ) 
The above are, mainly, my propositions in the 
Horticulturist. Have they been answered at all, 
or even in part? The writer of your editorial 
comments, in answer to my question of the results 
of the “millions of trees which have been sold and 
planted,” says, that he, in 1852, planted fifty trees, 
and next year seventy-five more, and last fall (1857, 
five, and four years after planting,) they produced 
over thirty bushels. Very well; there is one tangi¬ 
ble fact, decidedly in favor of the dwarf; but as he 
is undoubtedly in the secrets, and under the tutel¬ 
age of the propagators and venders of the trees, 
and ought to know more than his own individual 
experience, why don’t he give us the results of 
some body-else’s trials? He also says:—“ We have 
few pear orchards in this county of five hundred 
trees, and those few planted recently.” It seems 
to me this is rather a damaging fact, that in the 
county of Monroe, known to be one of the very 
best, and most productive fruit counties, not only 
in the State of New York, but of the whole United 
States, where nurseries exist by hundreds of acres, 
and dwarf pears have been more extensively cul¬ 
tivated in them than in any others; and the pear is 
so valuable in market, the fruit-growers are so ob¬ 
tuse to their own interests as not to have discover¬ 
ed their merits sooner than “ recently.” (h) He 
also says, “ Austin Pinney, of Clarkson, has seve¬ 
ral thousand trees, and can give some light on the 
subject.” Mr. Pinney is a man of truth, as I know 
from an acquaintance with him of twenty years, and 
what he says I shall believe. He has sent the best 
Virgalieus to Buffalo market I have seen—healthy, 
and free from crack or spot, and is probably one of 
the most successful pear-growers in the country, 
having a most eligible soil and position for them. 
Therefore, I should like to hear his report. But he, 
as yet, is silent. Where are the other pear-grow¬ 
ers; what has been their success; and what is the 
present condition of their trees? 
Your editorial writer affects to put me down in 
the statement, that I got a part of my trees from 
one of the prominent nurseries in Rochester, and 
says this “part” amounted to fifty trees — for he 
appears to have had some prompting from the 
nursery in question. I obtained one hundred and 
fifty trees in one invoice, for Avhich I paid forty-five 
dollars, and possibly, for I do not recollect posi¬ 
tively, the “ fifty” trees in another one afterwards; 
all from the same nursery. But they were not the 
kinds I sent for; it appearing that, although they 
advertised largely of the varieties I ordered, they 
had none of them to spare, and sent me instead, 
mostly Virgalieus, and a few Winkfield’s, which 
they said were “ better varieties” than I had order¬ 
ed— a sort of practice I have since ascertained to 
be very common with some nurserymen. Although 
I felt indignant at such treatment, I planted them, 
and gave them good culture; but they began to 
spot on the bark, canker, and die out within two 
or three years after planting, and I never got a fair 
looking fruit from a single tree of the Virgalieus, 
being cracked, shrivelled, and cankered; whereas, 
some inferior looking Virgalieu trees which I had be¬ 
fore received from New York and New Jersey, bore 
me sound and perfect fruit. The Rochester trees had 
a fair trial, of some years, before the mice cut them 
off. In this sort of fruit, and from the same nur¬ 
sery, some of my neighbors found just as I did. So 
much for that cavil on my veracity. (i ) 
Mr. J. H. Hall, in your paper asks, “is it possi¬ 
ble that all the Horticultural and Pomological So¬ 
cieties have been either laboring under a delusion, 
or conspiring to cheat the public ?" and, by infer¬ 
ence, asserting that I said so. I have said no such 
thing. That ive have all been laboring partially 
under a “delusion” in regard to the permanent 
value of the dwarf pear, I have little doubt; the 
other I have neither asserted nor believe; and that 
the man has lost his own temper at my remarks is 
quite evident. He, and others who attempt it, had 
better confute my arguments by facts, than by 
scolding. 
As for the rigmarole of the little hireling, 
calling himself “R. Robinson Scott,” who never 
owned a pear tree in his life, and probably was sent 
up by himself, or somebody else, to look at my 
“thousand acre farm” and detect me in a lie, I sim¬ 
ply say that his statements are in their entire con¬ 
clusions, false. I since heard, through my gar¬ 
dener, that a man calling himself by that name, 
called on him one rainy day, or after a succession 
of rainy days, when all the country had been al¬ 
most deluged in water, and did not stay an hour 
on the place. He might have seen what was once 
my pear orchard, now covered with a grass crop 
which will give me between two and three tons of 
good Timothy and clover hay to the acre, lying 
on a well-ridged and furrow-drained, declining sur¬ 
face to the east, elevated fifteen to twenty-five feet 
above the river, and not a spire of “sedge-grass,” 
or “ moss” upon it. As to his “ agricultural clay,” 
he knows nothing about it The soil is a strong 
vegetable loam, underlaid, at a foot or two below, 
by a limestone, marly clay, which, when turned up 
with the plow, and mixed with the top soil, bears the 
best of corn and other grains, and roots of all 
kinds — as good pear soil, farming land as any in 
Western New York. I am surprised that such bal¬ 
derdash, from such a source, should be admitted 
into the columns of the Rural New-Yorker by an 
editor who knows the perpetrator of it. 
This part of my talk, you may say is personal. — 
I think so too, and so mean it—for the creature, 
like other whiffets of a different kind, has been 
barking at my heels for several weeks, through the 
columns of two or three papers, over the letters 
signed, R. R. S. (j) 
Now, Mr. Moore, I have said all I have to say on 
this subject. You have my positions, and my argu¬ 
ment. If I am mistaken in the conclusions which 
I have arrived at, viz: that the pear, any way, is a 
capricious, and uncertain fruit in growth and suc¬ 
cessful bearing, but still worthy of trial and culture 
where circumstances favor it; and that the dwarf, 
on the quince, has not generally succeeded, I shall 
be glad to know it by an exhibit of the fads. One 
thing I had like to have forgotten:—What would 
our pomologists say of a man who should at this 
day propose to work the pear on the thorn, as a 
successful plan of growing them? He would be 
called a fool, certain — perhaps something else.— 
But in my opinion, the thorn and quince are iden¬ 
tical in the principle of their coupling with the pear. 
Truly yours, Lewis F. Allen. 
June 7, 1858. 
(a) If by our being “ in the nursery interest” is meant 
that we feel an interest in every enterprise calculated to 
encourage and facilitate the growth of fine fruit, and the 
introduction and testing of new varieties and different 
modes of culture, then we must acknowledge the truth 
of the charge. If, however, a.pecuniary interest is meant, 
we can say that we have no such interest, not to the 
amount of a dime—not even an Allen Blackberry to puff 
or sell. The insinuation so often made by our correspon¬ 
dent that the interests of nurserymen and fruit growers 
are antagonistic, is decidedly foolish, and it is equally 
foolish to call in question the motives of every opponent. 
(b) That our article was no more than a fair criticism, 
we must still contend. Mr. Allen stated that he had 
planted 500 dwarf trees, ten years ago, and so many died 
that in replacing the dead ones the original number was 
doubled in five years, and finally in the winter of 1855-0 
the whole were destroyed by mice. From this he argued 
that pears could not be grown profitably for market, par¬ 
ticularly on the quince. This argument we met by stat¬ 
ing that many of those 500 trees were imported, and poor 
when they were obtained, and considered by good judges 
hardly worth planting. This, if true, (and we can bring 
the proof,) is a sufficient refutation of the argument.— 
This fact Mr. Allen does not deny. He equivocates by 
saying that “ a part nf them" was obtained from a Roch¬ 
ester Nursery, although even that “part” was not obtain¬ 
ed until about five years after the original planting. We 
also stated that it was pretty generally reported that he 
did not give any of his trees the best of culture. This 
statement we had heard from so many persons who had 
good opportunities to know, and on so many occasions 
that we thought it a truth generally admitted. We did 
not think for a moment that Mr. A. would claim to be a 
neat and careful cultivator, and did not want to injure his 
feelings or proclaim his faults by bringing decided proof 
on this point as we might have done very readily. The 
bad trees and the poor cultivation would, of course, ac¬ 
count for the want of success, and the argument Mr. A. 
adduced from it, consequently, falls to the ground. We 
submit to every candid person if this was not a fair and 
legitimate criticism, instead of a “tirade of personalities.” 
(c) We endeavored in our first article to state the 
“points ” as fairly as we could, and in the Rural of the 
5th inst., Mr. Allen stated them himself, commencing his 
remarks thus—“the drift of my article in the Horticul¬ 
turist is simply this”—then follows the drift, or points .— 
IFe tried and the author tried, and it seems both failed.— 
Perhaps there wasn’t much point to the thing. We have 
no desire to take Mr. Allen’s name in vain, but it is easier 
to say “ Mr. A-,” or “ our correspondent of Black Rock,” 
&c., than to say “ the man who couldn’t make dwarf pear 
trees grow,” or anything of that kind. 
(d) The statement that from the number of pear trees 
sold and planted, pears would have been cheap, had they 
succeeded, has been made by our correspondent on several 
occasions, and it seems to be relied upon as a strong argu¬ 
ment. Now, pear trees enough have not yet been plant¬ 
ed, (supposing all had done as well as the most sanguine 
could expect,) to furnish a pear a year for each person in 
the United States. Then it is well known that not half of 
all the trees taken from the nurseries and planted out, 
live to bear fruit, being destroyed by improper planting, 
bad treatment afterwards, or unsuitable soil. J. J. Thomas 
stated in his address before the Fruit Growers’ Society, 
last winter, that not more than two out of ten of the 
trees planted, lived to bear fruit. During the past ten 
years, fifty or a hundred apple trees have been set out 
for every pear tree, and, perhaps, ten peaches, and yet all 
these fruits sell at a higher price now than they did ten 
years ago. The fact is the demand for all kinds of fruit is 
increasing faster than the supply, and plant as fast as we 
may, will so continue for some years to come. Still there 
is a great improvement. Thousands of families now have 
a moderate supply of pears that had never tasted a good 
fruit ten years ago. Our markets, too, are much better 
supplied. Here, most of the popular sorts are exposed 
for sale every fall, while a bushel of good fruit could not 
be procured for love or money ten years since. It was 
only in March, 1852, that Mr. Allen wrote to the Itorli- 
culturist that the previous fall (1851) he created a great 
excitement in Buffalo by taking Bartlett Pears to a fruit 
dealer in that city, and exposing them for sale—“ there 
had never been a Bartlett Pear in market” before. Last 
fall we think the Buffalo market was tolerably well sup¬ 
plied with good pears. In the Chicago market, in the 
summer of 1856, we saw fine Bartletts, Buerre Diels, and 
many other good sorts. The good work is progressing. 
(e) That some have failed, we cannot doubt. There is 
no business, no department of trade, or commerce, or ag¬ 
riculture, in which all succeed. Still, we have traveled 
some and we have never seen or heard of more than two 
or three failures with dwarf pears, and they were easily 
accounted for, while on the other hand, we have seen 
them flourishing in hundreds of gardens, and perhaps as 
many orchards. Who the persons are that have failed 
from Buffalo to Albany we are very curious to know.— 
Pears succeed here everywhere, and on almost every soil, 
except a swamp and a sand. 
(f) So we have the strong point at last. There is not so 
much difference in the wood as Mr. A. supposes, indeed 
very little. The quince, it is true, is of slower growth 
and smaller stature, and this is just what causes the pear 
to become dwarf in its habits when worked upon the 
quince root. About this fact there is no dispute, but Mr. 
A. goes further, and makes the statement that in conse¬ 
quence of these characteristics the pear and quince wood 
will not unite perfectly, and when the pear growth above 
overtakes the quince, sufficient nourishment is not fur¬ 
nished by the quince roots to sustain it, and it either lives 
in a torpid, cankered state, or dies. The folly of this ar¬ 
gument is easily shown. Two quince stocks may be select¬ 
ed precisely alike, one budded with Vicar of Winkfield 
and the other with Flemish Beauty. In four or five years 
the Vicar will make a fine tree, six or seven feet high, 
and bear a bushel of fruit, but the Flemish Beauty will 
never make a bearing tree. The stocks were alike, equal¬ 
ly compact, of the same slow growth and small stature, 
yet one succeeds and the other fails. Now, Mr. Allen 
cannot give any philosophical reason for the success of 
the one or the failure of the other ; all we know is the 
simple fact, taught by experience. There is something 
here too deep for our correspondent’s philosophy. If, 
then, he cannot tell this, how ridiculous to attempt to 
give a physiological reason why those trees that do well 
for five, ten, or twenty years, cannot flourish for a century. 
Again, it is well known to all practical men, that as a gen¬ 
eral rule, the strong, free growing varieties of pear—those 
of the most “thrifty wood, of large growth and stature” 
—succeed the best on the quince, while according te Mr. 
Allen’s philosophy, these should be the first to fail, as 
they would “overtake the quince stock” the most fpeedily, 
and make the greatest demand upon the quince roots. 
But does not Mr. Allen know that the tree has as much in¬ 
fluence upon the stock as the stock upon the tree? Has he 
not yet learned that if a slow growing variety of pear is 
worked upon a quince stock, that it makes but a slow 
growth corresponding with the growth of the tree, while 
if a free, rapid growing pear is budded on the quince root, 
the quince stock makes a correspondingly rapid growth, 
so that if both were of the same size when worked, and 
worked at the same time, and standing within a foot of 
each other, in one or two years, the quince stock of the 
free growing sort will be twice the size of the other.— 
Away, then, with such nonsense—such crude theorizing. 
But, theory aside, what are the facts? We have seen 
dwarf trees brought to this country more than twenty 
years ago, now apparently in youth, health and vigor.— 
Marshall P. Wilder says twenty years’ experience and 
observation has convinced him that many varieties are as 
durable on the quince as on the pear root. L. E. Berck- 
mans stated at the last meeting of the American Pomo¬ 
logical Society, he had seen dwarf pear trees in 
Europe over sixty years of age, and vigorous. In the 
London Horticultural Society’s Garden, at Chiswick, are 
thrifty trees, thirty-five years old, which several of our 
readers have seen. With such facts, what does one failure 
amount to, or who will regard the wild theories of the un¬ 
fortunate owner ? 
(g) Mr. Hall never accused you of saying so, but the 
deduction was fair from your premises. If the pear can¬ 
not be grown for market profitably, why should the farmer 
encumber his ground with them? It would be better to 
dig them up and put in a paying crop. 
(h) Mr. Allen seems rather hard to please. In his 
first article he said, “ there have been millions of dwarf 
and standard pears planted within the last ten years, and 
now where is the very first orchard of one hundred or 
five hundred trees standing and in successful bearing? * 
* * Show me the trees or tell me where they can be 
found in any one single orchard, with a statement of its 
profits, or rather the present value of the trees. That is 
the question. I should like it answered.” So we related 
our experience with one hundred and twenty-five trees' 
gave the yield last year, our opinion of their present 
value, and offered to exhibit the trees. We gave all that 
was asked for and what we knew to be true from personal 
knowledge. Now, he complains because we did not give 
the experience of others. We could give a score of ex¬ 
amples, if necessary, but we rather think our success will 
balance his failure, and he has only talked of others 
without giving any facts or names. The fact that farmers 
have not engaged to any extent in the culture of pears 
for market is a poor argument, and would not be used by 
one who could produce a better. We are not in the se¬ 
crets, (if they have any.) or under the tutelage of the 
venders or propagators of trees nor fancy bulls. Indeed, 
we have to acknowledge an error, a lack of knowledge, 
on this point, in giving the number of trees obtained by 
Mr. A., in Rochester, at fifty instead of one hundred and 
fifty, as we have since ascertained to be the fact. So we 
are beginning to pry into the secrets. 
(t) Mr. Allen seems to entertain a great horror of all 
nurserymen, and particularly Rochester nurserymen. In¬ 
deed, he seems to consider them all dishonest and deserv¬ 
ing to be sent to State’s Prison— or, perhaps hanging would 
not be too good. Now, with this feeling, we cannot sym¬ 
pathize, as we believe the nurserymen, as a general 
thing, honest, careful and intelligent. We are satis¬ 
fied that they are doing a greater benefit to our country, 
in introducing new fruits, testing their value, &c., as well 
as in the dissemination of old and tried varieties, than 
the same number of men engaged in any other business, 
even in a pecuniary point of view. The cause of this 
feeliDg we could not divine, but now it seems to be reveal¬ 
ed. They sent him trees he did not order, telling him, 
too, that they were “better varieties” than those ordered. 
At this, he felt indignant. Then he has ascertained that 
this practice is common amoDg some nurserymen. This 
is a matter that we would not, of our own accord, intro¬ 
duce into a public journal, unless it should seemnecessary 
as a warning to planters for their protection. Believing, 
however, that Mr. Allen is apt to make statements from 
memory, and not always in exact accordance with the 
facts; and not willing to think, without proof, that any re¬ 
spectable nurseryman would treat a customer in the way 
stated, we concluded to ascertain the facts, in justice to 
all concerned. After applying to three of our largest 
nurseries, we learned where the trees were obtained, and 
have now before us the correspondence on the subject— 
On the 8th of April, 1852, Mr. Allen wrote to a nursery 
firm here to obtain 150 dwarf pear trees, of six different 
sorts named, if they could be had, “ to fill up with." — 
On the 12th of the same month, the nurserymen replied 
that they could not supply four of the sorts wanted, but 
“can supply as many White Doyennes as you may want, 
and five or ten Vicars.” Not a word was said about 
“better varieties.” On the 15th, Mr. Allen wrote:— 
“Send me the ten Vicar of Winkfield Pears, and the 
balance in White Doyennes.” On the 20th he acknowl¬ 
edged the receipt of the trees, and said:—“I am much 
pleased with the trees. They are not only the best I ever 
had, but the best I ever saw, for their age. The quince 
stocks and roots appear to me to be of a different and 
more thrifty kind than I have before seen. 1 shall lose no 
opportunity to recommend your trees to those who want 
them.” This is a strange way to show indignation, truly. 
Our readers can see how much there is in that bug-bear 
of a story, and how unfounded is the insinuations against 
the character of the nurserymen. The story about crack¬ 
ing and shrivelling of the fruit from these trees, perhaps, 
rests on a like foundation. 
(j) In regard to the statements made by R. R. Scott, 
about the soil of Grand Island, &c., we shall, at present, 
say nothing, as Mr. S. is able to speak for himself. We 
regret, however, that Mr. Allen should show such an 
overbearing temper, and use language towards an oppo¬ 
nent unbecoming a gentleman, or anybody else. Mr. S. 
went to Grand Island to ascertain, if possible, the cause 
of the failure of the pear trees, (as we suppose he had a 
perfect right to do,) on his own motion, and unsolicited 
by any one, as he was about to leave Rochester for Phila¬ 
delphia, and would not be likely to have another opportu¬ 
nity. Mr. S. is a gardener and works for wages, but that 
is no reason why he should be called a “ hireling,” in the 
offensive sense of that term, and in the offensive man¬ 
ner in which it is used. Like the quince, he is of “ small 
stature,” yet spruce and courageous as our favorite Ban¬ 
tams, while Mr. Allen is of the Asiatic kind, and great on 
a crow; but this is no reason why our friend Scott should 
be called a “whiffet." A. should remember the sentiment 
of a small man and a great poet— 
“ Were I so tall to reach the pole. 
Or grasp the ocean in my spaD, 
I’d still be measured by my soul, 
The mind’s the standard of the man.’ 
If we had failed in an attempt to grow dwarf trees, we 
would thank any one to show that our soil or climate was 
at fault, to save us from the disgrace of failing through 
ignorance or negligence. 
HORTICULTURAL MEETINGS AND SHOWS. 
Toe season for the exhibition of fruits and 
flowers is just opening, and we hope all our readers 
will avail themselves of the opportunities thus 
afforded for improvement in horticultural Knowl¬ 
edge. The Genesee Valley Horticultural Society 
holds its summer exhibition at Corinthian Hall, in 
this city, on the 24th of the present month, and we 
think we can promise all who attend it, a display 
of Nature’s beauties not to be excelled in many re¬ 
spects by anything in the country—one that will 
well repay for a tolerably long journey. On the 
last day of June the Fruit Grower's Association of 
Western New York will have a session in the Court 
House, in Rochester, to ho continued two days. 
An exhibition of summer fruits will be made, but 
we presume the principal part of the time will be 
devoted to the discussion of subjects connected 
with fruit culture. We have heard it said that 
cherries were to be talked about—the best varieties, 
culture, soil, diseases, &c. As the pear question is 
just now exciting considerable attention, it will, 
no doubt, be brought prominently before the meet¬ 
ing, and we expect to see a hundred pear growers, 
and hear their experience. Let all who are com¬ 
petent to teach, and all who desire to learn, come 
up to this gathering of fruit growers. Editors in 
Western New York will do their readers and the 
cause good service, by noticing this meeting— 
and if any of them can spare a day from the types, 
and the proof, and the copy, they will he gladly 
welcomed. 
In many of our cities Horticultural Exhibitions 
are held, and in the country a show of fruits and 
flowers is made at many, if not all, the County 
Agricultural Fairs. All should attend these shows 
fir the purpose of gaining information, and every 
one who can do so, should contribute to the collec¬ 
tion. In this way a good exhibition can be made 
in almost every county. Another means of im¬ 
provement is to visit the grounds, and observe the 
practice of ihose who cultivate good things in a 
proper manner. By spending a few days in this 
way, a great amount of information may be gained. 
Plaster and Apple Trees. —Please inform me 
through your valuable paper whether plaster is in¬ 
jurious to apple trees?—J. M. M., Mexico, N. Y., 
June, 1858. 
Remarks. —Think not Never heard that it was, 
and should not be disposed to believe so without 
the best of proof. 
CAKES, PUDDINGS, AND PIES. 
Messrs. Eds,:—B eiDg a reader of tho Rural, 
and having noticed many excellent recipes, I con¬ 
cluded to add my mite, thinking, perhaps for their 
cheapness, they might be a benefit in these hard 
times to many, especially young housekeepers. 
Silver Cake. —The whites of 3 eggs, beaten to 
a froth; 1 cup of white sugar; J cup of butter; .J 
cup of sweet milk; 2 cups of flour; 1 teaspoon 
of cream tartar; J teaspoon soda, dissolved in the 
milk; 1 teaspoon of lemon extract 
Gold Cake.—T he yolks of 3 eggs; 1 cup of 
brown sugar; | cup of butter; J cup of milk; 1 
teaspoon cream tartar; £ teaspoon soda; 2 cups 
flour—season with nutmeg. 
Dried Apple Pie& —As it is the season for such 
pies, perhaps a few hints will not come amiss to¬ 
wards making them. Stew your apples until very 
tender, and then sweeten them with sugar to suit 
the taste, adding about a half cup of butter, to 
material enough for five or six pies—season to suit 
the taste. Cinnamon I think is preferable. Slice 
in lemon, if you have it. Stir the ingredients well 
together, being careful not to break the apples i to 
pieces too much, having it juicy enough as to 
easily dip a spoonful up after it is put into the 
dishes ready for baking, and then cover with a rich 
upper crust—bake them well. 
Bird-Nest Pudding. — Pare, quarter, and core 
apples the same as for stewing—put them into a 
tin dish that you can cover close—a two quart 
basin would be large enough for a small family— 
filling it two-thirds full, having the dish well but¬ 
tered to prevent the apples from sticking, and then 
make a crust the same as for biscuit—either soda 
or cream. Roll it the size you want to cover your 
apples, having it about as thick as for biscuit, place 
it over the apples, putting water enough in to 
cook them, cover close and cook from half to three- 
quarters of an hour. When done, turn it upon a 
plate, serve it up with rich sauce or sweetened 
cream. This makes a very good desert for dinner. 
Flour Pudding. —To one quart of sweet milk, 
add three eggs; a little salt; one teaspoon cream 
tartar; one-half teaspoon of soda, and then stir in 
flour slowly until as thick a3 for batter. Season 
with nutmeg. Pour it into a two quart pail or 
pudding dish that you can cover tight, having it 
well buttered beforehand so you can turn it out 
easily when done. If you have dried berries, or 
cherries, stir some into it before putting it into 
your dish to cook. Place it in a kettle having hot 
water enough in it to cook it, he careful and not 
let the water boil over the top of your dish, 
cover your kettle so as to confine the steam as 
much as possible, let it boil one and a half or two 
hours,—eat it with any sauce preferred. 
Clarendon, N. Y., 1858. M. Clark. 
- • ♦ -- 
Plum-Puddino. —Will some of your “A, No. 1 ” 
housekeeping correspondents publish a recipe for 
making Plum-Pudding—also the sauce accompani¬ 
ment? I remember eating one on a western river 
st 6 a ill bunt where the stiuce w a.a composed of a 
spiced liquor. I am a temperance man, but tho 
memory of that dish haunts many a just before- 
dinner hour.—E. G. S., St. Johnsville, N. Y., 1858. 
Cur Cake.—T ake 1 cup of sugar; 1 of flour; J 
cup of butter; the same of sour milk; 2 eggs; a 
teaspoonful of saleratus. Nice, try it—A. M. Shep¬ 
ard, Henrietta, Lorain Co., Ohio, 1858. 
ABOUT COFFEE. 
Boiled coffee, it is well known, is superior to 
coffee made after the French fashion, by straining; 
but when boiled in an ordinary coffee pot, the fine 
aroma goes off with the vapor, leaving the infusion 
flat or bitter, hence a resort by many housekeeepers 
to the French biggin. Recently there has been 
patented a new coffee pot, which entirely removes 
the common objection of waste of strength and 
flavor by evaporation in boiling. It is called the 
“Old Dominion Coffee Pot,” and is made with a 
condenser at the top, in which two syphons are ar¬ 
ranged. After the coffee and water are placed in 
the coffee pot, the condenser, containing a small 
portion of cold water, is put on, and the spout 
closed with a movable cap, so that not a particle of 
vapor can escape. As soon as the coffee begins to 
boil, the vapor, instead of being given off into the 
room, passes up one of the syphons, and is con¬ 
densed by the cold water, into which as much of 
the aroma as wa3 carried off with the vapor is dis¬ 
charged. As the coffee continues to boil, the 
vapor, loaded with the aroma, continues to pass 
through the syphon into the water held in the con¬ 
denser, until the water is raised above the level of 
the other syphon, when the whole passes back, by 
suction, into the coffee below. Thus the coffee is 
boiled, and does not lose a particle of its fine aroma 
or strength. 
Several attempts have been made to construct a 
coffee pot that would accomplish this desirable ob¬ 
ject, but, until the “Old Dominion Coffee Pot” ap¬ 
peared, none was found entirely adapted to the pur¬ 
pose. It seems to be as near perfection as can at 
present be attained. It is simple in construction, 
easily used, and will give good coffee always at 
one-fourth less cost than by the old modes of 
boiling. 
There are in coffee both an aromatic and a hitter 
principle. In boiling, the aromatic (which is very 
volatile) escapes if the boiler is open, and the bit¬ 
ter remains. The excellence of coffee depends 
on the amount of aroma retained in boiling; but 
all know that this delicious fragrance of the berry 
is allowed to pervade the whole house for half an 
hour or so before breakfast, during the boiling pro¬ 
cess, and that, in too many eases, the flavor of the 
coffee is so impaired, that little or no enjoyment is 
found in the drinking. Coffee thus deprived of its 
aroma, is neither so pleasant to the taste, nor so 
healthy as a beverage. 
We would recommend to housekeepers a trial of 
the “ Old Dominion Coffee Pot,” which some fami¬ 
lies have had in use for over a year, and say they 
would on no consideration be without it; as it re¬ 
tains the whole of the strength, as well as the aroma 
of the berry. One fourth less coffee is required; 
and this is a consideration these times.— Lady's 
Home Magazine. 
