by hand I used about two and one-half bushels 
to the acre. . 
I always watch the oat field when the'crop 
begins to ripen, and I try to cut it just as scon 
as the kernel is hard or out of the inilk, as 
then the grain is the plumpest and sweetest, 
and the straw is worth something for fodder, 
and very little grain is lost in cutting. 
Albany Co., N. Y. a. m. lagra.nge. 
form Qrcouoimj. 
BUCEPHALUS BROWN’S NOTIONS AND 
IDEAS. 
On Tariff Politics.— Questions of an 
economical nature, the principles of which are 
capable of formulation, will only come into 
dispute when personal or class interests inter¬ 
vene. The principle of free trade is accepted 
without thought or question by the inhabit¬ 
ants of the forty-odd nations which consti¬ 
tute the great American Republic. New Eng¬ 
land agriculture submits without a whimper 
to bare itself to the fierce blasts of Western 
competition: while the great West utters 
hardly a protest against an industrial su¬ 
premacy possessed by the East, as a conse¬ 
quence of the capitalistic accumulations of a 
longer existence. Very few people recognize 
the fact that the United States of America 
are, and have long been, setting a grand ana 
successful example of the benefits of perfect 
free trade to the other countries. 
The Conditions of Free Trade. —But to 
realize the actual benefits of free trade, the 
equality and reciprocity must be perfect. It 
is useless to say (because it is untrue) that 
New England agriculture does not suffer 
greatly from Western competition. It is 
equally vain to argue that the progress of the 
West in manufacturing development is not 
retarded by free trade with the Eastern 
States. We justify our free inter-State com¬ 
merce, not upon the ground that it does not 
hurt any body, but on the ground that it 
helps all more than it hurts any. 
Reciprocity with Canada.- -Here is a 
case directly in point. If free trade between 
the States is, on the whole, a great advantage 
to all the people, why should we not admit 
Canada to its benefits? The answer plainly is, 
because the equality and reciprocity will not 
be perfect; and it therefore becomes a proper 
subject for consideration whether such recip¬ 
rocity as Canada offers is sufficient;—in short, 
whether it will ‘‘pay,” as we believe recipro¬ 
city between the States pays. No doubt it 
will pay individuals, on both sides; but will it 
be an advantage to the States as a whole? It 
is evident that Canada offers to take no share 
in our national responsibilities. No one 
doubts that, in case of a war with England, 
Canada would become a stronghold of our 
enemies. I do not see how we can afford to 
give Canada the advantages of even a quali¬ 
fied free trade so long as she is left free to ad¬ 
mit our possible enemies into the very heart 
of the continent, in case of a quarrel in which 
she could have scarcely auy other than a sen¬ 
timental interest. 
As to European'.Countries.— We are un¬ 
der neither obligation nor necessity to trade 
with any nation of the Old World. A country 
of contracted area and resources, like all the 
countries c f Western Europe, would be lacking 
in many of the comforts and some of the ne¬ 
cessities of life, without foreign trade. Not 
so a continental nation like ours. We could 
live in comfort and luxury even if we should 
close every port, and allow not a car to pass 
our boundaries. In the present state of our 
marine, it would cause but little even of tem¬ 
porary hardship, except to some of our seaport 
cities. 
An Imperial Position.— Our Republic oc¬ 
cupies an entirely independent, and practi¬ 
cally an imperial position as regards inter¬ 
course with foreign nations. We can dictate 
the terms, if any, upon which we will hold 
intercourse with any or all of them. The 
question what those terms shall be must be de¬ 
termined by the feelings and interests of a 
majority of the voters of this Republic, as 
expressed in the choice of our Representa¬ 
tives and Senators “in Congress assembled.” 
Whatever we may individually think, we are 
all bound loyally to submit to the will of the 
majority, legally expressed. 
Free Discussion. —The Rural New- 
Yorer is not a political journal, but its con¬ 
ductor may make it, or allow it to be made, 
a forum of free discussion regarding any of 
the interests which it assumes to represent. It 
is a shame to the American people that several 
agricultural papers have felt compelled to 
close their columns against the discussion of a 
change in the tariff by act of Congress. Where 
free discussion is denied, tyranny is not far 
off. Nevertheless, in a non-political paper, 
the discussion of any question in a partisan 
spirit should be forbidden. 
A Tariff for Revenue. —All our people, 
with the exception of a few theorists too in¬ 
significant in number to be considered, are in 
favor of raising the greater part of the na¬ 
tional revenue by a tax upon imports. Such 
a tariff must be “incidentally” a protective 
one'so far and so much as it is laid upon a for¬ 
eign product which competes with a home 
product, either raw or manufactured. Even 
the strictest constructionist of our laws does 
not dispute the admissibility of so much pro¬ 
tection. The dispute begins where the tax is 
increased for the express purpose of weaken¬ 
ing or, in the case of a prohibitive tax, de¬ 
stroying all foreign competition with the 
home produced commodity. 
The ..“Nub” of Dispute.— There is prob¬ 
ably not a producer who would personally 
object with much violence to a completely 
prohibitory tax on a competing foreign pro¬ 
duct. But if you give that to one, the equal¬ 
izing principle of our laws would seem to re¬ 
quire that it be given to all. This would 
mean a refusal to admit any foreign product 
resembling or useable in the place of any 
domestic product. The application of this 
principle would throw all the tariff tax upon 
the few imported articles with which no cit¬ 
izen does or can compete. This would utterly 
defeat the chief object of the tax, since it is 
impossible to raise the necessary revenue upon 
so limited a list of products, the price of 
which would be so greatly enhanced. 
Every Tariff a Compromise.— In the 
very nature af the case this must be true, and 
if we cannot get all the protection to our in¬ 
dustries that we would like, we must take 
what we can get. Here comes up one of the 
greatest points of contention. Nearly every 
producer of domestic products is also a con¬ 
sumer of more or less foreign products. Thus, 
the woolen manufacturer uses, often, a great 
deal of foreign wool : and although he may 
and does want protection on his product, he 
would not be at all mad if the foreign wool he 
wants were admitted free. It may be that he 
uses so much foreign wool that he would take 
a light duty on his goods as a sufficient pro¬ 
tection, on the condition of a light duty, or 
none, on his imported wool. The same state- 
of the case extends through many other in¬ 
dustries. One of the very few industries sus¬ 
tained by a prohibitory law,—tbat of the 
ship-builder—is unhappy because many of the 
materials used in ship-building are heavily 
taxed under our present law. So, sad as the 
fact is, the division line in opinion, on tariff 
legislation, runs not only between trades and 
individuals, but also often cuts directly 
through the same single individual,—one-half, 
or two-thirds of him being a high protectionist, 
and the remainder for a low tariff, or free 
trade. 
Sense and Patriotism —What do these 
two essential qualities of a freeman require, 
in connection with the subject under consider¬ 
ation? Do they not demand of us all that we 
should be willing to live and let live? When 
it comes to such a state of things that not on¬ 
ly States and trades, but even individuals, are 
divided against themselves on this matter, is 
there any other path open to a good citizen 
than that of concession and compromise? 
We cannot entirely set aside selfishness, but 
we can seek our own good without entirely 
disregarding the good of our neighbor. 
Neither should we give too free rein to party 
spirit. Fortunately, the two great parties are 
neither of them a unit on this matter. Not 
only between parties,but between the members 
of each party, there are strong differences. 
This fact should and must favor moderation, 
both in discussion and in legislation, and I 
fervently hope that the readers of the Rural 
will generally accept this view of so great a 
question. 
fotD. 
“Every Man is presumed to know the Law; 
Nine-tenths of all Litigation arises from Ig¬ 
norance of Law.' 1 ' 1 
DESCENT OF REAL ESTATE. 
S. T. Paris, Ky.—l. A died some years ago, 
leaving a wife, one child and a farm. Since 
then the child died under age, and the wife 
claims the land by inheritance from the child. 
Some contend she has only a dower interest in 
it, the husband having brothers and sisters. 
What do the laws of Kentucky say on this 
matter? 2. The above is precisely the case 
with another party who died leaving a wife, 
child and a tract of land in Missouri. What 
is the law regarding the inheritance in Mis¬ 
souri? 
Ans. —1. On A.’s death the land descended 
to the child subject to the widow’s dower. On 
the child’s death, under age, the child’s inter¬ 
est in the property descended to its father’s 
kindred as follows: To its paternal grand¬ 
parents equally if both were living. If the 
grandmother was dead, the whole of‘said in¬ 
terest went to the grandfather; if the grand¬ 
father was dead, then said interest went one- 
half to the grandmother and one-half to the 
father’s brothers and sisters and their descend¬ 
ants. If neither of the grandparents was liv¬ 
ing, then the whole of said interest descended 
to the father’s brothers and sisters and their 
descendants. The widow is endowed for her 
life of one-third of the estate, and is entitled to 
one-third of the rents and profits thereof from 
the time of her husband’s death until her 
dower is assigned to her. In any case the 
widow’s only interest in the property is her 
right of dower. 2. The rule of descent is dif¬ 
ferent in Missouri. In the Missouri case, on 
the death of the husband, his real estate, sub¬ 
jected to his widow’s dower, descended to his 
heir,” and if said widow was the mother of 
said heir, then upon the death of such heir, 
intestate, unmarried, and without children or 
descendants, whatever interest the child at 
the time of death bad in said real estate de¬ 
scended to said widow as mother. The widow 
has a right of dower, anyhow, in one-third of 
the land for life. 
AN INVALID LEASE. 
L. J. M., Rochester, N. Y— Some time 
ago I leased some property, and now find that 
the person from whom I leased it had no right 
to make the lease or contract with me. What 
should I do? I know nobody in the business 
except the person of whom I obtained the 
lease, and to whom I have been paying rent. 
Does my lease stand good? The party of 
whom I obtained the lease, with his name at¬ 
tached to it, and who gave me the keys of the 
house, represented himself as the agent of the 
owner; I am now told that he is not a respons¬ 
ible person. What can I do with regard to 
him? Should I hold the next rent-money, sub¬ 
ject to the order of the Court? 
Ans. —The owner may avoid the lease and 
hold you in an action for trespass for accrued 
rent, unless by some act of his he has given 
you reasonable cause to suppose that the per¬ 
son to whom you were paying rent was in 
fact his agent. If the collector of the rent has 
turned it over to the owner of the place, and 
the latter has accepted it, that amounts to a 
rat ification of the lease. If the collector has 
not turned over the rent, he is, of course, crim¬ 
inally liable for obtaining money under false 
pretenses, and although irresponsible, he will 
most likely make an effort to pay you, if he 
finds he is in danger of the criminal court. 
Your best course is to pay no more rent to the 
lessor, get back what you have paid him, if 
possible, and make the best arrangements you 
can with the real owner. 
FIXTURES ON LAND. 
H. M. S., Reading , Pa .—A buys land from 
B, has the deeds and titles examined by a 
lawyer and properly recorded, and then erects 
a house and other improvements on it. Sub¬ 
sequently A finds that although there was no 
fraud on the part of B, the land belongs to C. 
Has A, being innocent, any ownership in the 
house and improvements ? Can he move the 
house and other improvements to another lot 
of land ? If fraud can be proved on the part 
of B, will it alter the relations between A 
and C ? 
Ans. —Whether there was fraud on the part 
of B or not, the house belongs to the owner of 
the land and cannot be removed without his 
consent. The other improvements come un¬ 
der the same rule if they are fixtures, other¬ 
wise not. In general, fixtures include what¬ 
ever the owner has fastened to the ground or 
to a building or uses constantly with it as an 
appurtenance to it. But whatever the occu¬ 
pier of the land buys or makes to use on the 
farm, and fastens to the ground or building in 
such a way that he can remove it and leave 
the land or building in as good order and con¬ 
dition as it was before, he may remove and 
take away. But in all cases, the removal 
must be made before the occupier surrenders 
possession. If he leaves without removing 
the goods, they revert to the landlord imme¬ 
diately on his coming into possession of the 
property. 
ALIEN NATURALIZATION AND SUFFRAGE. 
R. S ., Elton, Ind .—In what States can an 
alien become a citizen quickest, and how long 
does it take before he can vote? 
Ans. —Our correspondent evidently con¬ 
founds two different things. The United 
States alone can make an alien a citizen; but 
any of the States can give him a right to vote. 
Before an alien can be naturalized he must 
have lived in this country for five years, and 
if he came after he was 18 years old, he must 
declare his intention two years before he can 
take out his final papers. This declaration 
may be made before any State Court of Re¬ 
cord or a U. S. Circuit or District Court, or 
the Clerk of any of these courts. If an alien 
die after making his declaration of intention, 
his widow and children are citizens, and the 
children of naturalized citizens living in this 
country become citizens. Some States allow 
an alien to vote before he has become a citi¬ 
zen; and upon his declaration of intention and 
a short residence, varying from four months 
to a year, he may vote precisely as if he had 
been naturalized. The States that give this 
right are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michi¬ 
gan, Missouri, Nebraska,’ Oregon, Texas and 
Wisconsin. 
ALTERING WIDTH OF ROADS IN OHIO. 
E. E. F., Brighton. Ohio. —1. The law re¬ 
quires a State road to be not more than 60 
and not less than 40 feet wide. Has 
a land owner a right to fence the road 
down to 40 feet when it has been laid 
out at 60? 2. Can people be prevented from 
driving on the grass between the; ditches and 
the fence when the road is muddy? 
Ans. —No. The law of Ohio provides that 
once a road is established, its width can be al¬ 
tered only on the petition of at least 12 free¬ 
holders of the county to the county commis¬ 
sioners and the publication of notice as pro¬ 
vided in Section 4622. On compliance with 
these provisions the commissioners may re¬ 
duce the width of 'any State road or part 
thereof to any vcidth not less than 40 feet, or 
increase the same to any width not more thau 
60 feet; but before^so doing they must appoint 
three disinterested citizens of the county to 
view and report to them under oath, as to the 
utility of the’change[and the width necessary. 
2. Yes. Whenever the highway becomes im¬ 
passable fromjany cause a_ traveler may law¬ 
fully pass over adjoining land. 
COLLATERAL.INHERITANCE TAX LAW. 
S'. T. 221, Schenectady, N. Y .—In the Ru¬ 
ral of February 18, under “Law,” “the in¬ 
heritance tax in New York” is spoken of ;'what 
is this tax and how long ^has it been in force ? 
Ans —The “ Collateral] Inheritance Law,” 
passed in 1885, provides for a tax of 85 on 
every §100, or five percent., on property that 
shall pass by will or under,_the intestate 
laws, or by deed, grant or gift to take effect 
after the death of the grantor or giver, ex¬ 
cept such as passes to father, mother,husband, 
wife, brother and sister, and lineal descend¬ 
ants bora in lawful wedlock, and the wife or 
widow of a son and the husband of a daugh¬ 
ter. 
F., H. Brooklyn, N. Y .—What is the legal 
rate of interest in New York and Connecti¬ 
cut? 
Ans. —In New York the legal rate is six 
per cent. The excess over that rate may be 
recovered. Usury is punishable by a fine of 
81,000 or six months’ imprisonment or both ; 
but no corporation can plead the defence of 
usury. There are a multitude of ways of 
evading the law, however, and even in this 
city there are a great many who regularly 
advertise “money to lend” in the daily papers, 
and charge at the rate of from 20 to 150 per 
cent per annum on all loans. This is usually 
done by charging a bonus “for procuring the 
loan,” or “for making inquiries”—mere pre¬ 
texts for extortion. In Connecticut the legal 
rate of interest is six per cent.; but there is 
no penalty for usury. 
The “ People’s ’ Homestead Company,” 
which offers to sell lots in Marion Co., 
Florida, for what it terms the cost of making 
out the deed and doing business, is not con¬ 
sidered a trustworthy affair by several 
papers. We would certainly advise our 
friends not to invest a cent, much less $2.50, 
in its “warranty deed option bond,” unless 
they can investigate the nature of the land 
and the prospects of the place on the spot, 
either in person or through a trustworthy 
friend. In the Rural of November 28, 1885, 
page 819, the Eye-Opener, from personal 
knowledge of the country, made a lengthy ex¬ 
posure of the following Florida land frauds: 
Marion City, Grant Park, Parkersburg, 
De Witt and Silver Springs Park, all in 
Marion County. Extracts from Florida 
papers were also liberally given in support of 
Eye-Opener’s statements. Shortly afterwards 
the New York Herald sent a “Special Com¬ 
missioner” to investigate the frauds, and all 
mentioned by the Eye-Opener were unspar¬ 
ingly denounced. In the issue of November 
28, and a few following issues, the Eye- 
Opener also denounced the following Florida 
land frauds, exposures of which appeared also 
in several other papers, chiefly the New York 
Herald, Tribune and Sun: Belmore City, 
Clay Co., Bertram, Levy County; Sarasota 
Bay, Manatee County, and St. Andrew’s Bay, 
Washington County. The exposures of the 
bogus character of these settlements and col¬ 
onies made here at that time were widely 
copied throughout the country, and the 
fraudulent schemes ceased to be advertised. 
Indeed, the Post-office authorities prosecuted 
