366 
THE CULTIVATOR, Dec. 
were every where visible. It was proposed to the ge¬ 
neral meeting, to take under consideration the establish¬ 
ment of proper agricultural schools for the less wealthy. 
After the close of the examination, a discussion was 
held on the question, “ Are institutions necessary in 
which a young man can acquire all practical know¬ 
ledge V’ 
This question was ably debated by the professors of 
agriculture. It was thought that the separation of the 
theory from practice was injurious—both must be com¬ 
bined. Professor Schweitzer of Tkarand in Saxony, 
thought that both can be acquired separately; he re¬ 
commended that practice should be first learned, and 
theory afterwards—that the young man should have ob¬ 
tained a good common school education before he under¬ 
takes the practical study, and should afterwards finish 
his scientific education at an agricultural school. Thaer 
(the son of father Thaer,) demanded also a thorough 
elementary education, and then the learning of all the 
practical manipulations. These practical institutions, 
he thought, should riot be too extensive, so that the own¬ 
er may a'tend to the whole himself. 
THE HICirSiT ©F PROPEBTT-In What 4oe§ it C’oaasis 1 1 
In different, sections and by different individuals this 
question will probably call forth different answers, as the 
tastes, habits and interests of those concerned shall 
dictate. Thus the merchant will say, my property is 
vested in stock, goods, cash on hand, and debts due. 
These I invest in such a manner as shall promise the 
quickest and best return. I am careful in small things 
in the management of my concerns. A yard of tape 
or an ounce of nutmeg, I usually turn to a profit of from 
100 to 200 per cent. If a, villainous scamp takes one 
or the other of these articles from me, he wrongfully 
takes away my property, is guilty of larceny, and pun¬ 
ishable by the law of the land. I must enforce this 
punishment, not only for my own safety, but for the 
good of community, whose interests are always in jeop¬ 
ardy by having a thief at large among them. It is not 
so much the value of the thing I contend for, but the 
principle. I bought the article ; it was mine, and if 
small things are not safe, large ones will soon be mis¬ 
sing, I know not to what amount. Very good, Mr. 
Merchant, you are right, and we w r ill gladly help you 
catch the thief. 
Take the physician or the lawyer; say to one, you 
are unwell to-day. He will advise you to a simple pre¬ 
scription, or perhaps give you a trifling amount of me¬ 
dicine, or inquire of the other respecting some trifling 
point in law. You have in both cases taken counsel, 
and probably in both eases a fee will be required for a 
detention of three minutes, which might otherwise have 
been spent in fruitlessly discussing politics or perchance 
in asking you some question of no importance to any 
one. Why is this ? You have taken professional coun¬ 
sel ; their professions are their property, they must live 
by them, after having spent money for instruction and 
years in studying their mysteries. This, too, is right, 
beyond question or dispute. 
The mechanic has a similar plea. He spent an ap¬ 
prenticeship of time in getting his trade, and his stock 
is property acquired by purchase. In this he must see 
his money refunded, and for his present time, and that 
which was spent in learning how to do the things you 
wish to have done, he must have compensation, for he 
too must live, and setting a patch on your shoe, or sew¬ 
ing a buckle to your harness, things inconsiderable to 
look at, he must be rewarded. Very right that he should 
be, for the reward is his honest due. 
But how is it with the farmer? He, too, if he would 
succeed in his profession, must study, for ignorance 
shows her folly in cultivating the earth, if she does any 
where; he must have his cash capital invested whether 
he purchases, hires or takes on shares, as much as the 
merchant or mechanic; his time and his education are 
as much his living, as are those of the physician or the 
lawyer. He probably owns his farm, as most of our 
American cultivators do, and has a clear deed of the 
soil, “ with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto 
appertaining/’ to be held by himself, his heirs and as¬ 
signs forever, free and clear of all encumbrances what¬ 
soever. Now the question is, is this land so purchased 
and so deeded his property ? Does he hold it by the 
same right that the merchant, the mechanic or the law¬ 
yer does his? In one respect he does, for the law calls 
it property when she demands her tax for its protection, 
and as he improves his cultivated grounds and makes 
them more productive, and as the size of the timber in 
his woodlands increases so that they will yield a heavier 
burthen, law taxes them higher because their value as 
property is increased; and he who holds the deed of 
these premises is considered their true, lawful, and only 
owner. The tax is set to him. He must pay it or his 
lands are taken from him, and sold to make good his de¬ 
linquencies. 
Then if the lands are his, he must have a right to ap¬ 
propriate them to such productive purposes as his con¬ 
venience or interest may dictate, and the productions 
must be his, and not the property of another. If he 
clears a patch of wood-land (as every farmer will find 
it his. interest to do) to get his supply of fuel for the 
year, and that patch .comes up to brambles, and these 
brambles furnish a supply of healthful food for his family, 
to whom do they belong ? Public opinion says they are 
public property, and the public are on a strife to see 
who will get the most. May be the lawyer, the phy¬ 
sician, the merchant and the mechanic are there, with 
a host of little ones who.“do love the berries most 
dearly,” and there too so often and so many that the 
poor farmers cannot get a tithe of the produce. “ But 
they grow wild, are the spontaneous production of the 
soil, the gift of nature, and not the result of cultivation; 
this makes them free.” Did not the far.tper pay as well 
the value of his land as the merchant did that of his 
tape, and does not his yearly tax run as high in propor¬ 
tion to the value of his land as that of the merchant ? 
Does not the very fact of ownership give as good a right 
to occupancy and use in one case as the other ? If his 
soil will produce berries, while the successive growth 
of wood is shooting up, is it not his good fortune, and an 
assurance from nature that her productive powers are 
never withheld in giving those who seek to see her boun¬ 
ties increased? We can see no reason why those ber¬ 
ries are not the property of the farmer and his alone, as 
much as the tape, the nutmeg or the broadcloth of the 
merchant are his. This however, is but a small con¬ 
sideration. We will suppose that nature has provided 
chestnut or walnut or other fruitbearing trees, and'the 
soil on which these trees stand has become his by pur¬ 
chase, by their value in money actually being paid for 
them, and oftentimes his labor is expended in such ways 
as will tend to increase their value as nut bearing trees, 
by removing underwood and such trees as have a ten¬ 
dency to hinder the expansion of the branches and mak¬ 
ing the ground feasible for gathering the falling fruit. 
Are these trees, after all this care, his property, and like 
the stock of the merchant and the tradesman, his alone, 
until he transfer his right to another, or are .they the 
common stock of all who wish to avail themselves of his 
