THE CULTIVATOR. 
273 
merits would not suit us at the north, but here use and 
negro labor make the difference. I have seen in more 
than one instance, the wood pile more than 40 rods from 
the house, and “ the spring” twice that distance—two in¬ 
conveniences that a yankee could never put up with. He 
would sooner have “ the well,” as well as the wood pile, 
both in the road, right in front of the door of the house, 
that almost stands in the road too, to say nothing of all 
the carts, plows, and sleds, also in the road, “ between 
the house and barn,” it is so convenient. 
But we have much more yet to see of Mississippi life; 
and circumstances compel me to take a hasty leave of this 
fine family—this “ fine old Virginia gentleman,”—and 
now for a little season I again bid you a kind adieu. 
Solon Robinson. 
TRANSACTIONS of the N. Y. S. AG. SOCIETY. 
“ We will not be understood as condemning the volumes before 
us. On the contrary, we give great credit to the State Society for 
the work. At the same time we unhesitatingly say, that they con¬ 
tain much that had better been left out, for it has no connection 
with agriculture ; and some which had better never been written, 
for it is full of error, and as such renders the authors and the Society 
liable to censure, The latter appears under the sanction of science, 
whilst true science will reject it. 
“ We think the Society have erred in the choice of men to deliver 
the addresses at the annual Fair. Not but they are men amply suffi¬ 
cient to do justice to the high claims of agriculture; but it is a subject 
which needs not eulogium nor praise. These it receives from all men, 
and its highest honor is the prosperity and happiness it confers upon 
a nation. The farmer needs instruction, not praise; and we submit 
it as our humble opinion that an address filled with good practical 
information—examining briefly the principles and the practice of ag¬ 
riculture, and setting forth inducements to advancement in know¬ 
ledge of the art, would be vastly more useful to the thousands 
of hearers, than poetic rhapsodies. And in saying this we are con¬ 
scious ihat we do not speak unadvisedly. We know it to be the 
opinion of a large—we might perhaps say—the largest portion of the 
farming community who attend these Fairs. They are common 
sense men and want to hear common sense.” 
Mr. Editor —The above are extracts from a review 
in the last number of the “ American Quarterly Journal 
of Agriculture anti Science,” of the “ Transactions of 
the New-York State Agricultural Society, for 1844.” I 
would refer the reader to the entire article, which he will 
find in the number for July, August and September, page 
109, and at page 114 he will see the portions of the 
article alluded to. 
If I have the right to review a reviewer , as a disinterested 
person standing between the reviewer and the work he 
comments upon, I must say that I have not discovered, 
to the extent he has, the defects alluded to; but that 
as a whole, I have read the last volume of “ Transactions 
of the New-York State Agricultural Society,” with both 
pleasure and profit; and being a practical man, I have 
no fears but the farmers of New-York will receive it 
with an interest equal to mine. It is true that every arti¬ 
cle in it is not unexceptionable, and I would like the 
reviewer to point out a book as a whole, that is so; 
still, although I will not say that it could not have been 
made better, yet I do say that after having began the 
volume, I could not lay it down until I had read it care¬ 
fully through, and many of the articles I satisfactorily 
re-perused. The reviewer admits that as a whole, it 
may be well enough, although he does not use these 
words; but this is rather the conclusion to which he ar¬ 
rives; but if he bases his judgment upon the opinion he 
has formed, of which the above extracts are the expo¬ 
nents, then I have something to say in reply. In the first 
place he says —“ that they,” (meaning some of the arti¬ 
cles,) “ had better never been written, for they are full 
of error, and as such render the authors and the society 
liable to censure. The latter appears under the sanction 
of science, while true science will reject it.” Now I 
object, totally object, to these wholesale remarks, as con¬ 
demnatory of a single article in the book, and in my 
opinion, they are much more liable to “censure” than 
any thing in it. To which particular article or arti¬ 
cles, he alludes, you are left to conjecture. If there is 
any one which true science rejects, it was his duty, stand¬ 
ing in the position he does, to have pointed out, not only 
the article, but the error, and thus made us at least the 
wiser for his labor; but he assumes too much the atti¬ 
tude of the schoolmaster—to which, possibly, his situa¬ 
tion as an editor of a Quarterly Journal of Agriculture 
may entitle him—who, upon entering his school, thinks he 
had better begin with a flourish of the whip, and at the 
same time condemn and praise just sufficiently to put the 
boys in proper awe of their teacher. I have no objec¬ 
tion to assign this place to the Journal, if its editors wish 
to assume it; but I insist upon it, that they are bound as 
critics, as well as men of science, to point out defects in 
communications they comment upon, and thus give the 
authors of them an opportunity to sustain their opinions 
if tenable,—if not, to become at least wiser from the in¬ 
struction that ought thus to be imparted. Until, there¬ 
fore, the errors in these communications are pointed out 
and controverted beyond a doubt, I shall have to remain 
of the same opinion in regard to the Transactions as a 
whole, that I had formed previous to having seen the 
remarks of the reviewer. 
As to the opinion he expresses, “ that the Society 
have erred in the choice of men to. deliver the Addresses 
at the annual Fair,” I must say that I think he, not the 
Society, have erred. I was surprised at the whole tenor 
of his remarks on this subject, and least of all did I ex¬ 
pect it from a man who has placed himself on an eleva¬ 
tion, and must admire talent wherever it is exhibited. 
The address of Mr. Bancroft, to which the reviewer 
seems to have particularly alluded, at the last Fair at 
Poughkeepsie, seems to him to have been highly excep¬ 
tionable, because it was not sufficiently practical to suit 
his taste. And upon this subject he is “ conscious he 
does not speak unadvisedly.” Now I assert, just as con¬ 
fidently, that the address was highly acceptable—was ex¬ 
actly suited to the occasion, and was received with much 
more than common gratification. Surely he could not 
have been present at its delivery, nor witnessed nor 
heard the enthusiasm with which it was received. I, 
fortunately, was present, and have often since reverted to 
the scene and the occasion, with unmingled pleasure—nay, 
more, I have read the address at least twice since its de¬ 
livery, and have come to the conclusion that no man 
who attempts an address at a coming state Fair will 
make it until he has carefully read over Mr. Bancroft’s. 
It was, in my opinion, just what it ought to be, both in 
matter and form of expression, and it is saying not too 
much of it, that as a piece of composition, it is a model 
of beauty, force and elegance. That address will be read 
wherever the English language is admired. 
But the reviewer thinks it was not sufficiently practical 
as to matter. Now, permit me to ask, if upon an occa¬ 
sion of a State Fair, any remarks but general ones would 
be acceptable to the thousands assembled? and what part 
of that address would he have omitted without marring 
the whole ? The subjects touched upon werp highly 
proper in their kind, and there was enough of illustra¬ 
tion to make it highly acceptable to the audience. If 
the reviewer objects to the whole matter and manner 
of the address, conceding it high merit simply as a per¬ 
formance, then I take issue with him, and say he is mis¬ 
taken, and upon his own grounds as a practical man. 
What is the object of these Fairs? In the first place, to 
draw an audience. Then the object is to obtain a man to 
deliver the address whom the people generally would 
like to hear, and whose name will aid in attracting an 
audience. With that view, Dr. Nott, an accomplished 
and well known rhetorician, was called upon to deliver 
the address at Syracuse. Gov. Seward that of the suc¬ 
ceeding year at Albany. Daniel Webster and John 
Quincy Adams were requested to speak the year after at 
Rochester, and acting under the same impulse, Mr. Ban¬ 
croft consented to deliver the address at Poughkeepsie. 
Now, although we were disappointed in not bearing 
either Webster or Adams in Rochester, still there is no 
doubt the reputation of all these gentlemen aided very 
much to give eclat to these fairs. And it must, not be ob¬ 
jected that because they were not practical farmers, that 
therefore they were not the proper persons to officiate 
on these occasions. Their reception by the multitudes 
assembled, and the results, show that they were the very 
men of all others that should have been selected, and as 
long as the Society consults its real interests at the State 
fairs, its officers will select the most prominent men they 
can find, whether they are farmers or not, to deliver the 
