THE CULTIVATOR. 
377 
« TRANSACTIONS OF THE STATE AG. SOCIETY.” 
The Editor of the Cultivator trusts that his readers will 
excuse him for the space he finds it necessary to occupy 
with matters which may, by some, be deemed of a per¬ 
sonal character. In the present instance, however, jus- 
tice to the State Ag. Society, as well as to himself, re¬ 
quires that he should brand with the infamy it deserves, 
an article in the last no. of the American Agriculturist. 
This article occupies a page and a half of that paper, 
and is filled with statements which, so far as they are 
derogatory to the State Society or to himself, are without 
the least shadow of foundation in fact; and while the 
editor denies the whole of these statements in gross, he 
will give a specific contradiction to such as he deems 
most pernicious in their tendency. 
1. After detailing a “ varied combination of men and 
circumstances, pointing all to the Cultivator,’-' this libel¬ 
ler proceeds to charge the basest corruption on the 
part of the editor of this paper, in the words following: 
“ I am aware that the Editor of the Cultivator received no salary 
of the State Society as Recording Secretary. If he has received 
no compensation indirectly , his labors have been highly disinterest¬ 
ed! He asserts that “ all his labors in behalf of the Society for three 
years were bestowed without fee or reward.” He himself here 
makes a new issue Let me ask if he did not receive $1,000, or a 
sum nearly equivalent to this, for merely reading the proof sheets of 
the Transactions of the Society for last year? If he did not, it is 
strange, for he himself is the authority for it. When urging that the 
Transactions should be sent to the Senate he remarked to a fellow- 
Executive-Committee-man, who desired the report to go to the 
House, that its being sent to the Senate would benefit him (the Edi¬ 
tor of the Cultivator) a thousand dollars. Was not that $1,000 re¬ 
ceived from Mr. Van Benthuysen for reading proofs ? If so, were 
not his official position and the patronage of the Society used to assist 
the Cultivator or its editor?” 
The charge here is, taken in connection with the pre¬ 
ceding part of the article, that the editor of this paper 
received from Mr. Van Benthuysen, the sum of one thou¬ 
sand dollars for his influence in causing the Transactions 
to be sent to the Senate printer. Now that he may not be 
accused of any evasion, the Editor of the Cultivator assures 
the public that he never received from Mr. Van Ben¬ 
thuysen, or any other person or persons, the sum of $1000, 
nor any other sum whatever, for reading proof sheets, 
or for any service or assistance whatever connected with 
the Transactions or any other business of the State Ag. 
Society. 
To add to the atrocity of this libel, it will be seen that 
the writer says that “ he himself [the editor of the Cul¬ 
tivator] is the authority for it,” and further that “he re¬ 
marked to a fellow-Executive-Committee-man, that its 
[the Report of the State Society] being sent to the Senate 
would benefit him (the editor of the Cultivator) a thou¬ 
sand dollars.” That any other person than the writer of 
this article, ever made these assertions, the editor of the 
Cultivator does not believe; but by whomsoever made, 
he pronounces both assertions entirely destitute of truth. 
He never said that he had received, or was to receive, or 
that it would be in any way one copper’s pecuniary bene¬ 
fit to him to have the Report sent to the Senate instead 
of the House. What he said, (and this he said not to a 
single committee-man, but to all the Committee while in 
session,) was, that it would be a personal convenience to 
him, as he had to read the proof-sheets and superintend 
the printing, to have it sent to the Senate inasmuch as the 
Senate printing was executed at the same office where his 
paper was printed. 
2. The writer in the Agriculturist next asserts as fol¬ 
lows : 
“ Again : his friends have asserted that the position of Recording 
Secretary alone brought 1500 subscribers to the Cultivator If his 
friends knew this, he was undoubtedly the source of their knowl¬ 
edge. Then his service is indeed disinterested! Better that there 
should be a “ fee and reward ,” for then there might not be a perver¬ 
sion of official patronage to pay for labor that apparently was done 
of mere good will. The evidence that his friends (in interest, if 
nothing else) have urged that he should be Secretary to benefit the 
Cultivator is not verbal , and is in possession, and can be produced at 
once if it be necessary.” 
That the position of Rec. Sec’y to the Society brought 
1500, or any other number of subscribers to the Cultiva¬ 
tor, the editor of the Cultivator never believed. On the 
contrary, he always supposed that, by drawing so large a 
portion of his time and attention from his own business, 
it was an injury to the circulation of his paper; and he 
confidently believes that had he devoted the time and 
energy which he gave to the Society, to his paper, its 
circulation would have been much larger than it was. 
Of the sincerity of this conviction, sufficient proof may 
be found in the fact that feeling sensible that he could * 
not longer afford to hold the “ position of Rec. Sec’y,” 
he positively declined a re-election in 1844. He was 
however re-elected, and most strenuously urged to accept 
it; but, feeling that the Society did not need his services 
so much as his own business did, he felt himself compel¬ 
led, despite the urgent solicitation of gentlemen from every 
section of the State represented at the annual meeting, to 
decline the appointment. If, as the writer pretends, he 
has any evidence that the appointment of the editor of 
the Cultivator, has been urged u to benefit the Cultiva¬ 
tor,” he is invited to make it public. If such arguments 
have been used, it was unbeknown to him. So far as he 
knows, no such arguments have been urged or were 
needed, the appointment having been made with entire 
unanimity, and entirely unsolicited anti undesired by him. 
It is weil known that the editor of the Cultivator did 
not desire the appointment, which was again conferred 
on him at the last annual meeting of the Society. He 
consented to it, with much reluctance; and only on the 
consideration that he should, this year, receive such pay 
for his services as should be deemed reasonable, and his 
salary was accordingly fixed at $300. He felt that he 
could not afford, and that there was no occasion for his 
doing the labor, as heretofore, for nothing. He has al¬ 
ready stated to several of his friends that he could not 
accept the appointment another year on account of the 
addition it made to his labors, which are already suffi¬ 
ciently onerous; but circumstances may now render itac- 
ceptable to him, as he would not wish to retire from it, 
until the facts in relation to these charges, are fully made 
known. 
3. A third charge which this defamer brings against 
the Editor of the Cultivator, is in these words:— 
A curious part of this whole system of no ; fee or reward,’ was 
witnessed at Albany last winter. A bill was introduced into the 
House, diiecling- every County Superintendant of t'ommon Schools 
in the State, to subscribe for as many copies of the Cultivator as 
there were school districts in their counties. The subscription and 
postage to be paid by the State out of the school funds. And how 
was all this to be effected ? By these very relations ; by the exer¬ 
cise of that influence which springs from the possession of execu¬ 
tive patronage. The committee of the House, to which the bill 
was referred, reported it back and advocated its passage ; and every 
man who stood in a position to the Cultivator of either interest or 
indefinite friendly relations, was found urging it in the lobby or the 
House. However, the good sense of the House killed the bill. 
This,, if it had passed, would have given 12,000 additional subscri¬ 
bers to the Cultivator, with the pay certain, and subject to no com¬ 
mission. This was a '‘fee and reward ’ worth working for, and 
evinced a most decided disinterestedness /” 
In reply to this heinous offence, the editor has only to 
say, that the bill alluded to, for supplying each school 
district with a copy of the Cultivator, was introduced 
into the Legislature by Mr. Danforth, of Jefferson 
county, a gentleman with whom he had never spoken, 
or had any communication either directly or indirectly, 
and the first intimation he had of the bill was derived 
from the report of the legislative proceedings in the 
newspapers. He then called on Mr. Danforth, who ex¬ 
pressed a strong desire to have the bill passed, declaring 
hisbelief that its provisions would confer more benefit 
on the School Districts, than an equal sum appropriated 
in any other way. After thanking Mr. D. for the very 
flattering estimate he placed on the Cultivator, the edi¬ 
tor expressed to him his conviction that it would be im¬ 
politic to urge the passage of the bill, as it would at 
least look like favoritism to one of the three agricultural 
papers of the state, and might excite their hostility; 
and that, so far as he was concerned, he preferred the 
matter should be dropped. This opinion he expressed 
to every one with whom he spoke upon the subject; 
and if any one, either in the Legislature or out of 
it, urged its passage, it was done without his solicitation 
or knowledge. For the evidence afforded of the high 
estimation placed on the Cultivator, by the introduction 
of this bill, and its passage being advocated by a commit¬ 
tee of the legislature, if such was the fact, the editor i? 
truly grateful; but he knows no rule of ethics by whicl 
