THE CULTIVATOR. 
Queer Logic fcr an Editor. 
Our readers will recollect the article of S. W. John¬ 
son on the analysis of soils, which appeared a few 
weeks since in this journal, and which furnished over¬ 
whelming testimony that the analysis of soils for or¬ 
dinary practical farming , was at best “ a chance 
game ;” and that more injury is done to the cause of 
true science by the wild and extravagant claims of a 
few pretenders in its favor, than by the open advocates 
of ignorance. 
Dr. Lee, of the Genesee Farmer who has been a 
strong advocate of soil-analysis, and who still clings 
to it as a reliable auxiliary to practical farming with a 
sort of indefinite hope, has fallen upon this article, and 
either attempts or affects to criticise it. We say at¬ 
tempts ■, or affects , because we are not certain whether 
he wholly mistakes its intent in the part he quotes, or 
whether he perverts it merely for the sake of finding 
fault. We should not allow ourselves do suspect the 
latter, were not the meaning of the article so very 
plain as to be quite easily understood by intellects far 
below what we suppose Dr. Lee to possess. The arti¬ 
cle of S. W. Johnson very distinctly points out the 
failures, the disagreements, and the contradictions of 
several eminent chemists, for the purpose of showing 
how unreliable their analyses and their reasoning up¬ 
on it may prove, even where in some cases they may 
give “ closely agreeing results ;”—and this very con¬ 
tradiction, so strong against Dr. Lee’s favorite theory, 
he attempts to fasten upon S. W. Johnson himself 
to show that he contradicts himself, and that “he is an 
inexperienced writer thus to present to his readers over¬ 
whelming evidence to convict him of gross carelessness, 
or gross ignorance. 
Verily, this mode of attack is 
only equalled in ingenuity by the man who when pnr- 
sued by the sheriff and his posse, escaped by boldly 
joining in the hue and cry against himself. 
Dr. Lee expresses his fear that such articles tend to 
discourage the 'establishment of Schools for scientific 
agriculture, and especially those dependant on State 
patronage. We cannot conceive how a search after 
truth is going to injure Science at all. Does scientific 
agriculture depend on the retention and propagation 
of old errors 1 Are farmers likely to fall in love with 
chemistry by being led in its most uncertain and un¬ 
reliable paths 3 Would it not be much better to urge 
upon them, and upon our legislators of whom we would 
ask a school, the importance of teaching such parts of 
improved agriculture as science has thrown a certain 
and reliable light upon, and more especially such parts 
as an enlightened practice has established as the 
best, among which we may briefly name subsoiling, 
underdraining, irrigation, rotation of crops, composting, 
horse-cultivation, horse-harvesting, improved-breed¬ 
ing, systematic management, &c., none of which ori¬ 
ginated directly in science, although science has im¬ 
proved and enforced them. 
No greater injury is done the cause of science than 
extravagant and unfounded claims. It must invariably 
end in disappointment and disgust. A young farmer 
lately informed us that he had lost seven hundred 
dollars by false expectations thus held out to him 
-through the teachings of the Genesee Farmer under 
the auspices of Dr. Lee. A chemical pretender in the 
vicinity of New-York, claims to have prescribed from 
analysis on “ hundreds of farms,” without a single 
failure ; yet the public have never been furnished with 
a distinct statement of one of these experiments, detail¬ 
ing kind and quantity, before and after trial, accompa¬ 
nied by such ‘evidence as our agricultural societies re¬ 
quire. We sometimes hear of instances, as remote as 
isles in an ocean, where soil analysis ha3 directly prov¬ 
ed advantageous; but if its advocates wish to make 
any impression on a closely discerning public, they 
must furnish a series of experiments, where its pre¬ 
scriptions have proved uniformly or generally suc¬ 
cessful, and where the same result could not have been 
attained by any practically skilful farmer, who should 
have the privilege of other chemical knowledge, but 
without any knowledge of soil analysis. 
We much regret that any one should setup false 
pretensions of the character we have mentioned,because 
in exposing their fallacy it gives captious persons an 
apparent opportunity to misrepresent our position ; 
which has indeed been repeatedly done by a few prints 
of late years, while at the very moment those prints 
are acting most efficiently the part of real enemies 
to science, by misrepresenting its offices. 
Underdraining. 
There are many portions of high ground in the 
neighborhood of Pittsburg, (Pa.,) and along the Mo- 
nongahela river,remarkable for its productive,qualities. 
For many years past, it has been observed that these 
high hills, with ordinary cultivation, produce better 
crops of every kind, and grow superior fruit, to the 
bottom land in the same region. , Many of the farmers 
would smile if told that the rich qualities of their land 
might be attributed to underdraining. The idea of 
draining hills from one hundred to three hundred feet 
elevation, they would consider ridiculous, from the fact 
that no swampy or moist land can there exist and in¬ 
stead of attempting to drain it, some invention should 
be had to retain the moisture. 1 This very invention 
they have, in the most superior kind of underdraining. 
These hills comprise a portion of the coal region of 
Pennsylvania, and cover most generally two strata of 
bituminous coal. The first, about from thirty to sixty 
feet from the upper surface, from four to five feet in 
thickness ; and the second, at the distance of about 
sixty feet beneath the first, of from five to seven feet 
in thickness. The first strata, upon account of its depth 
as well as its quality, is but little worked at the present 
time, where the second is accessible; and in the im¬ 
mediate neighborhood of Pittsburg where the first 
crops out,’ the second alone is worked. From the 
quality of this coal, and the great demand for it in all 
parts of the country, an immense number of tons are 
annually extracted—completely undermining many 
acres of surface, forming mammoth underdrains; and 
