Ijjljefj) fjttsbanirrg. 
n. s, randall, lt.. d., editor, 
Of CoRTr.AND Vm,Aon, Couti.anp County, New \oek. 
To Corresimndcntu anil Friends. Our own 
illness and the illness In our family, have prevented 
us from keeping up with editorial and private cor¬ 
respondence, und from meeting some oilier duties 
and engagements. Wo Insert this notice to saveour- 
selves from the wearisome task of making written 
apologies in each case. 
-- 
MR. WELLS’ REPORT. 
The report of the Special Commissioner 
of the Revenue contains the following state¬ 
ments: 
" At the close of the war (which was followed hy n 
marked decline in the prices of wool.) a number o 
gentlemen claiming to represent the wool grower.! 
r,r the United States, hut who appear to have been 
more especially in to rested in (lie breeding of sheep 
than in the growing of wool, conceived the idea, that 
it ail foreign wool could no. shut out by legislation 
from comport linn with Hie domestic product, the 
war prices of domestic wool could ho maintained, 
mid great gain lie thereby made to accrue to all con¬ 
cerned. Mettsurea t ' accomplish this object were 
necoriiingly set oh tool; and as t,|ic scheme looked 
especially toward the promotion of the Interests ot 
the agriculturists of the country, it gave promise ot 
success from its vorr outset. Meantime, the manu¬ 
facturers of wool, clearly perceiving that a restrte- 
tion of supply and Increase in the price of wool 
would place them at it. disadvantage In respect to 
foreign compel ition, became alarmed, and proposed 
co-operation to tlo> Wool Orowors’ Association. 1 ho 
Offer war- accepted, flio parties entered into union, 
ami bv means of delegator entered upon their work. 
Wliat'war this work V .Not to increase the revenues 
of the national treasury ; not to uromoto the inlet- 
csl - of the great mass of tlic people, to wuotn woolen 
fabrics are almost as much a noL’Uusttv as rood and 
shelter; nor to increase the wages or comforts oi 
tiie laborers who grow the wool or tntuni bn-Mirc the 
cloth : hilt slroplv and erclnslvclr to influence legis¬ 
lation for The promotion ol their respective jaTvnto 
gains anil interests.” 
Those of our readers who arc not familiar 
with Commissioner Weals’ style of putting 
things—who are old-fashionctl enough to ex¬ 
pect some show of candor and impartiality 
in official communications—will learn with 
surprise that the tariff movement claimed 
above to have been originated by a set of 
sheep breeders in order to carry out a plan ' 
thev had" conceived” for their own exclusive 
benefit, actually did originate in the Eeoenw 
Commission itself! 
The increased cost of labor and the im¬ 
mense increase in taxation produced by the 
war, put it out of the power of our wool 
growers to compete with the foreign grower 
under the scale of duties imposed by the 
wool tariff of 1864. The insufficiency of 
that tariff began to be properly understood 
before the close of 1865, and tlio subject 
would doubtless have been brought before 
Congress by the growers in the succeeding 
session. But, bettor© they had taken or pro¬ 
posed a single step in that direction—before 
they had agreed on or even discussed any 
plan of a tariff—the Revenue Commission 
came forward and took the initiative in 
the movement. This was done by Hon. 
Stephen Colwell, then a member of that 
Commission, who addressed official inquiries 
to the National and State wool manufac¬ 
turers’ ami growers’ associations in regard to 
the condition of those industries—the object 
being to elicit information which would show 
what legislation. If any, was requisite to 
promote those interests. Mr. Colwell un¬ 
doubtedly anticipated the necessity of addi¬ 
tional protection, but that point is not im¬ 
portant, in this connection. Whatever liis 
views, he opened t he tariff question ; and ho 
also inaugurated the tariff movement, for his 
inquiries were addressed to organized bodies 
which must meet, confer, decide and take 
appropriate action on them and on the tacts 
elicited by them. 
The first practical move in the matter was 
made, by the National Association of Wool 
Manufacturers. At a meeting held Novem¬ 
ber 8 , 1865 , it passed a resolution inviting 
the State Wool Growers’Associations (the 
National Wool Growers’ Association was 
not then organized) to meet Us Executive 
Committee* at Syracuse, N. Y-, December 
13, 1805 , “ for the purpose of consulting in 
regard to the representations to lie given re¬ 
specting the wool producing and manufac¬ 
turing interests before the United Slates 
Tariff and Revenue Commission.” The 
source ancl origin of the movement were, thus 
distinctly set forth. Mr. Colwell (as we 
know by letters he addressed to us) highly 
approved of this action, and expressed the 
hope that the growers’ organizations would 
accept the invitation. 
The invitation was accepted by live State 
Wool Growers’ Associations—all, according 
to our present recollection, then organized, 
or at least in active operation—and by the 
New England Association representing the 
New England States. The growers’ associ¬ 
ations met a day in advance and organized a 
National Association which thenceforth be¬ 
came l heir organ of communication with the 
National Manufacturers’ Association and 
with the Revenue Commissioner. It was 
immediately found, w hen the Syracuse Union 
Convention assembled, that there would not 
be time to agree on the “representations to 
be given” to the Revenue Commissioner, 
and therefore the collection of this informa¬ 
tion, and any resulting changes which it 
might be found necessary to recommend in 
the tariff laws, were referred to committees 
appointed by the Associations respectively. 
*U afterwards added largely to this representation 
by delegates from a number of different States. 
This action, too, received Mr. Colwell’s 
full approbation; and he thenceforth uni¬ 
formly recognized those committees as fully 
authorized representatives of their respective 
industries. The Committees met first at 
New York, and pursued their investigations 
for weeks before either side made out. its 
plan for a tariff -and months elapsed before 
they agreed on a plan. Commissioner Col¬ 
well has incidentally left on record state¬ 
ments which fully corroborate ours in regard 
to the inception and subsequent history of 
the wool and woolen tariff movement. In 
his Special Report No. 13, made to Congress, 
May, I860, he said : 
“As nothing can be more certain Ihntt that 
the Industrial interests of these two classes (wool 
growers and woolen manufacturers) in tho 
United States are substantially identical, it was 
a principal object to have the fullest possible in¬ 
terchange of opinion, between litem. I pon tin. 
first inttmatuinof the wishes o) lh& Commission, the 
necessary conferences commenced, and con¬ 
tinued more titan six months, without much 
pause, by conventions and separate and joint 
committees, in which the various interests of 
each class, and the united interests of Loth, were 
subjected to a scrutiny so patient, so intelligent, 
and Bodisorimfuatimr, that the utmost deference 
and weight is.duo and should be awarded to con- 
elusions so carefully prepared. Joint meetings 
were held in Syracuse, in the City of New York, 
in Philadelphia, and in Washington. As the 
carefully prepared opinions and statements ot 
those committees will form a portion of this re¬ 
port, it is not proper here to anticipate what is 
so welt stated by them." 
Was Mr. W ells ignorant of his colleague’s 
proceedings in the above matters—or of bis 
official avowals on the subject in a published 
report to Congress? lie had no right to bo 
ignorant, at least of tho latter, and there is 
no probability that lie was. Mr. Colwell 
impliedly asserts that, the first of those 
measures which were taken by the manu¬ 
facturers and growers which resulted in the 
enactment of the existing wool and woolen 
tariff, were taken in pursuance of an “ inti¬ 
mation of the wishes of the (Revenue) Com¬ 
mission;" and ire l'now this assertion to bo 
true from our cont< mparaneovs perusal of 
those intimations, per contra, Mr. Wells 
entirely suppresses these facts and in effect 
denies them by assorting, partly directly and 
partly by implication, that the tariff move¬ 
ment. was “set on foot” by a number of 
sheep breeders who acted purely ou their 
own motion, and who initiated the scheme 
exclusively for the purpose of carrying out 
a preconcerted plan for plundering all other 
interests for their own private benefit. 
In Mr, Wells’ excessive anxiety to 
blacken those who lie assorts were the origi¬ 
nators of the Tariff movement, he questions 
their representative character. He says they 
claimed “ to represent the wool growers of 
DOGS vs. SHEEP. 
But few persons have anything like an 
adequate idea of the amount of damage yearly 
inflicted upon the livestock of tho country by 
the depredations of dogs. A large proportion 
of Ibis loss falls upon the sheep owners, and 
has had, in many cases, a heavy influence in 
withdrawing capital from wool growing. 
In our own State of Illinois it. is estimated 
that there are no less than 300,000 dogs. To 
feed t hem requires more food than would pro¬ 
vision any two cities in tho Slate—leaving 
Chicago out of the count. Where arc we to 
look for anything like a compensating 
benefit? But this army of curs are not con¬ 
tent to “ live and let live." They every year, 
cruelty and wantonly, destroy as much more 
as they consume. 
In Ohio, the only State, we believe, preserv¬ 
ing statistics of ibis character, wo find that 
in 1867, there were killed and injured by dogs, 
53,557 sheep—representing an assessed valua¬ 
tion of .$123,827.54. Applying the same ratio 
to the whole country, and estimating the 
number of sheep at 30,000,000, we have an 
annual loss from the ravages of dogs of 210,- 
000 sheep. These figures are more likely to 
be below than above the facts. 
It, is greatly to be regretted that legislators 
have hitherto given so little attention to lilts 
subject. At least two-thirds of the dogs 
should be legislated out of existence. This 
would leave more than the country has any 
use for. Owners of dogs should be made to 
pay for the luxury of keeping them, and all 
animals upon which the tax or license re¬ 
mains unpaid after a certain day, should be 
deemed outlaws, and I heir destruction made 
obligatory upon some officer, with a heavy 
penalty for a failure to perform his duty in 
the premises. The fund thus collected 
should remain to be applied toward the pay¬ 
ment of all damages inflicted by dogs—the 
surplus, If any, remaining at the end of the 
year to be carried to the school or road fmul. 
A committee appointed by the audience 
attending the agricultural lectures at Cham¬ 
paign, last winter, drafted a bill, embodying 
some of the above features, and submitted it 
to the last Legislature; but that body found 
no time for its consideration. 
Until such time as a remedy is afforded, 
the only course open to sheep raisers is to 
“look out for No. 1”—defend their property 
as best they can. Enforce the “death 
penalty” upon every dog intruding upon 
their premises, unless in the company of its 
owner or some re q sensible person.— A. M. 
Garland, in Western Rural. 
be ready for inspection or sale. A piggery 
of this size will hold from ten to thirty, 
according to size and age. It should be 
built facing the South, if convenient, so as 
to allow as much sunshine as possible to 
enter the doors, and which they relish as 
much as anything else. 
I whitewash the inner apartments for 
health; also tho outside, which gives the 
structure, a not unpleasant appearance. The 
ornamental verge board is sawed out of one- 
inch plank a foot wide, and a one-inch auger j 
hole put through the center of the figure as 
floor, and the others eighteen inches apart, 
ami rising gradually to the top, six feet troni 
the floor. These roosts will accommodate 
forty ordinary sized fowls. F, F, is a board 
floor, on an angle of about forty-live degrees, 
to catch and carry down the droppings of 
tho fowls. This arrangement renders it 
much more convenient in cleaning out. tho 
manure, which should be frequently done. 
The space beneath this floor is appropriated 
to nests, twelve in number, fifteen inches 
wide, eighteen inches deep, and eighteen 
inches high. In order to give an appearance 
shown in the cut. The ratters project a foot of secretiveness which it * wcl know n the 
over the front, which proves a solid basis 
upon which to nail the verge board. I put 
a little Venetian red in some lime, and color 
this verge board, the corners and doors. The 
doors arc made of open slat-work, and arc 
furnished with small chains for fastening, 
and strap hinges are fused. This piggery 
could be built almost anywhere ttor thirty- 
live dollars, and it will return its cost in a 
single winter where a dozen pigs arc kept. 
Woodman. 
—-—-- 
CONVENIENT POULTRY HOUSE. 
A few weeks since a correspondent asked, 
through awl' columns, lor a convenient poul¬ 
try bouse —one that would accommodate 
from twenty to thirty fowls. As it has met 
with no response from our numerous readers, 
we cau do no better than to give the accom¬ 
panying plan of ail 
hen is so partial to, the front is latticed with 
strips of lath. By this arrangement a free 
circulation of air is admitted, which adds 
much to the comfort of the hens while 
sitting." 
1 n the foregoing bill of lumber for building 
purposes, spruce is given, but any other lum¬ 
ber convenient. and at band will of eout'Bedo 
full as well for the structure. It' the lumber 
used be enplaned, paint the building inside 
and out with either hot lime made to the 
consistency of whitewash, or common paint 
of the color which most suits the fancy. The 
paint or whitewash not only beautifies the 
building, but preserves it— l. 
pnrrau. 
COMB GUIDE DECISION. 
the United Stales, but” they “appear to 
have been more especially interested in the 
breeding of sheep than in the growing of 
wool.” Now, in the first place, we know of 
no difference between the interests of the 
wool grower and she.:p breeder in the prem¬ 
ises. The tariff legislation which would 
either benefit or injure one would have the 
same effect, on the other. Secondly, the 
growers and those who carry on both occu¬ 
pations were well represented at Syracuse 
by persons of their own number; and these 
went, with their breeding colleagues on all 
questions. Thirdly, every delegation came 
accredited by tlic President of the Associa¬ 
tion it. represented, (all those presidents were 
present as delegates,) and the associations 
were the best and only judges of the quali¬ 
fications of their delegates. Fourthly, il 
the growers were not satisfactorily repre¬ 
sented they, constituting a preponderance in 
every State Association, should not have ap¬ 
proved and sustained the action of their 
delegates, as every represented State Associa¬ 
tion subsequently did, and we believe in 
every instance by a unanimous vote. And 
all the Stale Associations, we may add, also 
endorsed the action of the tariff committee 
appointed at Syracuse and the tariff bill 
that committee assisted in framing. 
Having disposed of Mr. Wells’ asserted 
facts, wc do not propose to enter upon any 
vindication of the wool growing interest or 
its representatives, from his inferences in 
respect to their motives. The misfortune 
with this gentleman Is that there is nothing 
judicial in the lone of hjs mind. It is a 
necessity of his temperament that ho act. the 
part of tho sharp, eager, and entirely one¬ 
sided partisan on all questions. His official 
reports have all the flavor of stump speeches. 
They are. as harshly vituperative in their 
tone, as ready to impute bad motives to their 
opponents in opinion, as coarse and insolent 
in their style of denunciation. But, as in all 
such cases, this one-sidedness and bitterness 
carry along their own antidote. Nobody ex¬ 
pects impartiality in the judge or candor in 
the witness who does not even attempt to 
conceal his violent prejudices in the case. 
When it can be shown by any facts that the 
wool growers evinced any peculiar selfish 
ness and disregard of other interests in press¬ 
ing the enactment of the tariff of 1867, the 
public will condemn them ; blit il will never 
condemn them on the unsupported, and, as 
we have shown, uncandid, imputation of 
Commissioner Wells. 
n o L) 
iUtra l Architecture. 
A WINTER PIGGERY. 
I give herewith the front and end eleva¬ 
tion of a piggery just built on my place, as 
winter quarters for a number of extra fine 
young “gilts” and boars of the Berkshire 
and Chester White breeds. The object 
sought in its erection was to secure a neat, 
clean, cheap, and comfortable shelter for my 
pigs, where T could gentle them for sale. 
The struct nr© is thirty feet long, six feet 
wide; five and a half feet high in front and 
four t'cet high at the rear of eavc. Tho roof 
slopes only one way, and projects fifteen 
inches, to throw water away from the pens. 
I first made tho spot on which it is built a 
foot higher than the natural surface, with 
good stiff clay soil. Gravel was put on this 
several inches deep. 1 set round white oak 
posts a few inches in the ground at every 
corner of each pen or division ; nailed on, 
with double-ten nails, scantling two-by-four 
inches, boarded up with vertical boarding 
one-by-twelve inches, stripped the cracks 
with three-inch slats, and made slatted 
divisions. 
OCTAGON POULTRY ltOUSK, 
from the American Poulterer’s Companion, 
which we deem the best, in many respects. 
It is more ornamental than tho oblopg house 
and economizes room when that essential is 
required. The object of placing it. on piles 
is to prevent the encroachments of rats and 
other animals that prove so destructive to 
eggs and fowls when not properly protected, 
which is another important desideratum, fu 
(act, it is just such a hennery as our corres¬ 
pondent needs, ami in which from twenty to 
thirty-five fowls can be kept without over¬ 
crowding. The structure is not. a costly one; 
any person used to handling tools can con¬ 
struct it, at a more nt;initial expense, adding 
ornamentat ion to the structure, as he desires, 
GROUND PLAN. 
This building is ten feet in diameter and 
six and a half feet high. The sills arc four- 
by-four and the plates threc-by-four joists, 
halved and nailed at the joints. It, is sided 
with inch-and-a-quarter spruce plank, 
tongued and grooved. No upright timbers 
PLAN OP A WINTER PIGGERY. 
The sketch shows the troughs, into which 
slops and water are poured from the outside. 
These have a one-inch hole at one end, with 
peg to let off surplus water iu cleaning. 1 
covered the floor a foot deep with clean,dry 
forest leaves, of which I keep a sheltered 
pen full all the time, and from which 1 re¬ 
new the bedding as it becomes filthy. These 
I put into my compost heap, and it, more 
than pays for the trouble and expense of 
getting them. In this way I shall keep my 
pigs in fine health and condition, and so 
gent le as to he permitted to wash and clean 
them as readily (or more so) as a child. 
They like a suds bath now and then, which 
renders their hair and skin soft and healthy. 
All the slops from the house are given 
them, with salt, sulphur and ashes in a small 
box always in the pens. They will always 
are used. The floor ancl roofing are of the 
same kind of plank. To guard against leak¬ 
age by shrinkage, the joints may be battened 
with lath or other strips of thin hoards. An 
eight-square frame supports the top of the 
rafters, leaving an opening of ten inches in 
diameter, on which is placed an octagon 
chimney for a ventilator, which makes a very 
pretty finish. The piers should be either 
cedar, chestnut, or locust, two feel, high and 
set oil flat stones. 
“ The letter D, designates 1 he door; W, W, 
windows; L, latticed window to admit, air, 
with a shutter to exclude it when necessary; 
E, entrance for the fowls to alight on when 
going in; R, R, ure roosts placed spirally, 
one end attached to a post near t he center 
of the room, and tlic other end to the wall; 
the first or lowermost one two feet from the 
At a recent session of the U. 8. District 
Court at Madison, Wis., we learn from the 
Western Farmer, a suit was ostensibly tried 
ancl a verdict rendered of much importance 
to bee keepers. The question at, issue was 
whether a patent granted to Geo. H. Clark 
in 1850 giving him the right to control the 
putting of triangular - shaped sticks (or a 
bevel edge) iu bee Lives, to serve ns comb 
guides for the bees is a valid patent. The 
parties interested in proving the invalidity 
of the patent, are Messrs. Langbtroth & 
Sons, in whose hive this comb guide is used 
and of which many thousands have been sold. 
Mr. Langst'rotii claims that lie invented 
the device in February, 1852; and in 1854, 
before it, had been in use two years, heap- 
plied for a patent on it. He also claims that 
subsequently Mr. Clark made application 
for a patent on the same device, and an in¬ 
terference between the claims was declared. 
While this was pending, a gentleman from 
Illinois made application for a patent on the 
same invention, and an interference between 
the three claims was declared, and the Com¬ 
missioner finally declared none ot the appli¬ 
cations would Uc allowed, as an English 
work hacl described, substantially, the. same 
device. Mr. Clark claimed a prior inven¬ 
tion kept secret,, renewed bis application, 
and, in 1850, alter several rejections, secured 
a patent. 
This is, in brief, the claim of Langstrotii 
& 8on, except that they additionally claim 
that Clark, having originally applied lbra 
patent! on this sharp edge in connection with 
Imrs, the USC of it in connection with mova¬ 
ble frames, as in the Eangstuotu hive, is 
not covered by the claim. 
The suit was brought, by K. P. Kidder as 
assignee of Clark against M. Trask, of 
Wisconsin, and from tlic manner of bringing 
the suit, and want of defense by Trask, it 
lias the appearance of a put up job, both 
parties being in the same interest. The case 
was never calendered, but the papers were 
filed on January 3, and called for trial Jan¬ 
uary 5th. The counsel for the defense slated 
to the court that it was an agreed case, in 
which he had only just been retained, and 
had not hacl time to examine it. Several 
witnesses were examined for the plaintiff, 
the hive was shown, and tho case bore evi¬ 
dence of having been well prepared on that 
side. No witnesses were examined for the 
defense, the only evidence offered being a 
copy of Eangstroth’s original patent, in 
which there is no reference, as wc under¬ 
stand, to this device. 
No one appears to suppose that the de¬ 
fendant, expected or wished to gain the 
case, and il is stated that he has used the 
“ Kidder Hive” for years, and has defended 
his claim to such use, and that he averred at 
the close that he expected to lose his case, 
and thought he ought to. The jury ren¬ 
dered verdict for the plaintiff, though we 
are at a loss to understand what he gains 
thereby, as no one acquainted with the facts 
will for a moment suppose that Mr. Lang- 
8TK0TU will abide by this decision under the 
circumstances. 
--— +-*-+■ - 
Mulling Pannage* Through th« C omb. Mr. T. 
S. Hoys, (hoc ItURAL Of Jam let)«»' making win- 
tor passages through tho combs, says hero a hole 
through the hive, then run a stick through tho 
combs, honeybees and all. taking earn not to 
kill the boos; and l atipposo ho moans to be care¬ 
ful not to besmear the bees with lioucy. 1 ouu 
tell him a bettor way. I uiku a block one Inch 
square, four Inches long; bore a three-fourth* 
Inch hole near one end, and nail to tho top piece 
of each frame, lima making a passage through 
the hive four inches from tho top, without kill¬ 
ing the bees or besmearing them.—A. J. Rogers, 
Lebanon Springs, N. Y. 
