1850. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
341 
can till 3 acres as easily and well as the same labor 
on one acre in New-York. Average crop of wheat 
is 25 bushels, though 40 is not uncommon'—corn 50, 
oats 40, rye 30, See. A most profitable business 
would be dairying-—this having received least atten¬ 
tion, and butter being worth Is. to Is. 3d. per lb., 
and cheese 8 to 10 cts. Any amount of good hay, 
(red top and blue joint) can be had for the cutting. 
Sheep also are most profitable. It would be impos¬ 
sible to find finer ranges for sheep than on the Wis¬ 
consin prairies. Sheep brought from Vermont are 
found to increase one-third in carcass, while the 
wool increases equally in weight and quality. Wool 
can be delivered in Boston for 2 cts. per lb. There 
being no under-brush or dirt, the” wool is remarka¬ 
bly clean and straight. Sheep can be kept the year 
for 20 ets. a head. Fruit, also, would be very pro¬ 
fitable, having as yet received scarce any attention. 
All the best portions of the country are now in 
second hands, although many thousand acres are still 
subject to entry at government prices—$1.25 per 
acre. 
I have given you a rapid sketch of the country, 
and will feel well repaid if it meets the wishes of 
your inquirers. I will be hapy to give any further 
information if addressed, post paid,- and will say, in 
this connection, that I have the sale of 400 acres of 
land in this town, 20 miles from Fond-du-lac, where 
is daily steam communication with Green Bay—200 
acres is prairie, balance timber, oak openings and 
meadow land, with fine stream of pure water running 
through it—100 tons of the best grass can be cut. 
There is two good houses, barn, stables and out¬ 
houses, and 200 acres under fence and cultivation. 
This land was selected seven years ago—price $10 
per acre, will be sold whole or in part. Respect¬ 
fully, &e., C. H. Green. Waupun, Fond-du-lac 
co., Wis., August 23, 1850. 
Treatment of Birds. 
In looking over a bundle of old letters, &c., the 
other day, I found the following sketch, written 
about ten years ago, to a correspondent. Of course, 
it was not intended for publication. At this time, 
however, when some very ultra notions on the sub¬ 
ject of birds are taking the rounds of the newspapers, 
perhaps your readers would be willing to hear some¬ 
thing on the other side. D. T. 7 mo. 30. 
I am fond of ornithology, but not of all its sub¬ 
jects. There are great villains that fly as well as 
walk. For practical purposes, birds should be di¬ 
vided into three classes: and we ought to regulate 
our enmity or favor accordingly. 
1. Such as live on the products of our labor, and 
render no benefits in return. 
2. Such as prey on those products in part, and in 
part on destructive insects, &c. 
3. Such as assist us without committing any tres¬ 
pass. 
Of the first class, perhaps there are very few, but 
the cedar bird certainly ranks among them ,* and 
I should name in the same indictment the larger 
hawks, and the larger owls. 
The second is a very large class, and contains the 
smaller hawks and the smaller owls, both useful to 
some extent in catching mice, besides the crow 
which eats grubs. In selecting from this class, such 
as should be fostered or repelled, however, much dis¬ 
crimination is necessary. Many birds that are use¬ 
ful, claim high wages; and we must judge whether 
we can afford to employ them, or not. Of this kind 
are the robbin, the cat-bird, and the woodpecker, 
who work some and plunder some. 
My rule is, if but few come, I bear with them; if 
many, I thin them—I have no notion of giving the 
whole crop to pay for destroying a few insects; and 
it is but few insects that we care much about, that 
they do destroy. The worst kinds they generally 
leave untouched. 
I know some people say, “you should not kill the 
birds.” “Doctor,” said a lady in my presence, to 
an M. D., “I have never thought so well of you 
since I heard of your throwing stones at the birds 
that came to eat your cherries.” Yet I am confi¬ 
dent that lady herself would throw a stone at a hawk 
that came to eat her chickens, or broomstick a rat 
from her meal-tub or pantry. 
“O, that is a different affair!” 
Is it? Now let us be consistent, and carry out 
our principles fairly. Rats are useful—they eat 
worms, and even one another, when they are very 
hungry ■ and why should they be punished when birds 
equally predatory are allowed to escape? 
“Rats are nasty things.” 
Then they are killed for being nasty! and birds 
are saved for being pretty! It appears, then, that 
partiality or prejudice, and not principle, rules. 
Do as you like, but ascribe the action to its proper 
motive, and try to be charitable towards others who 
differ from you. 
The third, class is worthy of all our care and pro¬ 
tection. This includes sell our sparrows, all our 
swallows, all our fly-catchers, (for the king-bird 
only eats the drones) and many others. In regard 
to such, I should say most emphatically, “Fowler, 
spare that bird!” 
“Ail work and. no play makes Jack a dull boy.” 
Eds. Cultivator —Perhaps there is more truth in 
the above line than is generally imagined. I, for 
one, believe that there is more truth expressed in 
this simple phrase, than in many a gilded volume, 
whose decorations poorly compensate the reader for 
the nonsense found within. 
Farmers, in New England especially, labor too 
hard. The sole object, with too many of them, is to 
get money—to increase their possessions. They 
seem to think that a man’s happiness depends upon 
the number of dollars he has—that enjoyment rises 
or falls in proportion as wealth increases or dimin¬ 
ishes. Now this is a very common error, and one 
which -we are all liable to fall into. We naturally 
suppose that wealth and happiness go hand in hand, 
but we often find ourselves mistaken. The man who 
labors constantly— 
“ From early dawn to gloamin’ grey,” 
infringes one of the most important laws of hisbeing. 
He cannot cultivate his mental powers if he would, 
for the simple reason that excessive labor so weakens 
the brain that he feels no disposition to study, and 
would find it impossible were he inclined to do it. We 
all know that by overloading the stomach with food 
we are rendered weaker, both physically and men¬ 
tally. The stomach is then compelled to rob both 
the muscles and the brain, in order to throw off this 
excess of food. It is just so with the muscles ; when 
they are over taxed, the brain and the other organs 
must suffer in consequence. And upon the same 
principle the brain, when too severely taxed—which 
there is little danger of among us at present—it will 
require more than its share of nervous energy in or¬ 
der to supply the demand made upon it. 
In order to follow the laws of Nature—which no 
one can transgress with impunity—we should never 
cultivate one set of organs while another lies dor¬ 
mant. The mind of itself does not form a man, 
neither does the body, but both combined, when pro 
