THE CULTIVATOR. 
u The Working Farmer.” 
The editor of this paper—a self-styled “consulting 
Agricultural Chemist’ 5 —devotes four and a half pages 
of his December number to a review, professedly, of 
the articles which have appeared in this paper on the 
subject of the analysis of his super-phosphate of lime, 
by our correspondent, Mr. S. W. Johnson, and shows, 
we regret to have to say, that his capacity for stating 
a case truthfully is no higher than that of his ability 
to impart instruction in chemistry. His whole course 
in relation to this matter, can be accounted for only on 
the ground that he desires to excite the sympathy of 
the public by representing himself as a greatly abused 
ancl persecuted man; for there is not the least founda¬ 
tion for the insinuation that Mr. Johnson’s analysis 
was either made or published with a view to injure 
him, nor did it have any such effect. Mr. Johnson 
made the analyses of Mapes’ and De Burg’s super¬ 
phosphates of lime with no other view than the public 
good; and we venture the assertion that not one of our 
readers ever for a moment considered Mr. Johnson’s 
article as an “attack” upon Mapes; but from some 
peculiar idiosincrasy of mind, Mr. Mapes chose to 
represent it as an attempt to injure him; and has 
continued for months totally to misrepresent the course 
of Mr. Johnson and ourselves in this matter. 
We have no wish to prolong this controversy with a 
man who endeavors to sustain himself in a false posi¬ 
tion before the public, farther than is necessary to 
place the matter at issue in its true light. In the arti¬ 
cle alluded to, Mr. Mapes says—“That our position 
may be fairly understood, we beg to recount the histo¬ 
ry of this dispute.” In this history, we are charged, 
1. With having republished Mr. Johnson’s analysis, “ with 
deductions not warranted by the analysis itself, and calling 
its author Professor in Yale College.” 
2. With “ parading the sulphate of lime represented in his 
analysis, accompanied by inuendoes that it arose from the 
addition of Plaster of Paris, added to the material with the 
view of wronging the purchaser.” 
3. With “ publishing the analysis with such misrepresen¬ 
tations and such comments as were calculated to deceive 
our readers as to the quality of the improved super-phos¬ 
phate.” 
4. With having published an analysis by Dr. Antisell, with 
which Mr. Mapes was satisfied, “ and afterwards quoting an 
earlier and erroneous one, and coupling with it the name of 
Professor Johnson.” 
5. Wiih having charged Mr. Mapes “ with sending speci¬ 
mens made up for analysis.” 
6. With continuing to offer the “first analysis of Dr. An¬ 
tisell and the analysis of Mr. Johnson to disprove the analy¬ 
ses of Dr. Enderlin and others.” 
Now we hardly know with what words, without 
overstepping the bounds of courtesy, to brand all these 
statements. There is not , in either of them ) one word 
of truth. They aro not misrepresentations merely.— 
There is no foundation, either in fact, or by implica¬ 
tion from anything we have said, for any one of these 
charges. We have never “ republished” Mr. Johnson’s 
analysis—never made any “deductions” from it— 
never called Mr. Johnson “Professor in Yale College” 
—never “ paraded the sulphate of lime ”—never inti¬ 
mated that Mr. Mapes added “Plaster of Paris for 
the purpose of wronging the purchaser” - never pub¬ 
lished the analysis accompanied by “ such misrepre¬ 
sentations or comments as were calculated to deceive,” 
nor with any comments at all—never published any 
analysis by Dr. Antisell—never referred at all to oither 
his correct or his erroneous analysis, and of course 
never connected the name of. “ Professor Johnson ” 
with it; nor did we ever charge Mr. Mapes with send¬ 
ing “ specimens, made up for the purpose, for analysis.” 
Thus from a single column of Mr. Mapes’ article, 
wo have shown him guilty of making about a dozen 
misstatements. What motive could have induced him 
to pursue such a course, it is no part of our business to 
inquire; but if his assertions about a simple matter- 
of-fact about which there can bo no question, are thus 
inexcusably incorrect, we leave it for our readers to 
judge as to what credit should be given to his scientific 
deductions and his marvelous statements with regard 
to crops raised, and the benefit derived from his pre¬ 
scriptions as a “ consulting agricultural chemist.” 
We do not deem it necessary to enter into a defence 
of Prof. Porter against such an assailant. If ho 
deems any notice of the remarks of either Mr. Mapes 
or Dr. Enderlin, necessary, he is abundantly able to 
defend himself; hut for ourselves we wish to say that 
in the discharge of our editorial duties, we consider 
the exposition of error as well" as the elucidation of 
truth, incumbent upon ns; and that, while we have 
found it necessary occasionally to expose the fallacious 
teachings and remarkable statements of Mr. Mapes, 
we have been guided by no unkind feelings towards 
himself or his paper. 
Grass for Reclaimed Swamps. 
I am very much pleased with the plan of asking 
questions, and receiving answers, through your valua¬ 
ble monthly ; and being in want- of information, I take 
that means to obtain it. 
I have a piece of reclaimed swamp which I wish to 
seed with grass the coming spring, and am desirous of 
knowing whether I had better use Red top, Timothy or 
Fowlmeadow grass seed, and where I may obtain Fowl- 
meadow seed, and at what price per bushel. I would 
like to inqnire also if Kentucky blue grass would be 
preferable to herdsgrass on lands that aro permitted 
to remain five or six years at a time in pasture, and 
then plowed two years, and then laid down again to 
pasture. If any of your readers will answer these in¬ 
quiries they will greatly oblige A Subscriber. 
For well drained bogs, we have found nothing equal 
to timothy, sowed thickly so as not to make too rank 
a growth. Red-top is decidedly inferior to it. Both 
mixed would yield heavier than either alone. We can 
give no certain information relative to fowlmeadow 
and Kentucky blue grass for such soils,and request such 
of our correspondents as possess information on this sub¬ 
ject to communicate it. 
A Snug Wheat Field. —A. S. Uph'am, of Lc Roy, 
N. Y.,.is reported to have raised from a field of one 
hundred acres, the snug little quantity of 3,600 bushels 
of wheat the present season, being about 36 bushels 
per acre. 
