THE CULTIVATOR. 
379 
1817 . 
benefactor to his country, is placed in direct opposition 
to incontrovertible evidence, bearing the test of the 
most rigid scrutiny, in a United States Court. 
It has often been the case with eminent inventors, 
that their improvements are first opposed and ridiculed, 
and when triumphant, they are denied the merit. It 
was so with Fulton—it was so with Whitney—and it has 
been so with Jethro Wood. One of the hardest things 
he had to overcome was the prejudice against “ pot- 
metal !” Nearly all his friends discouraged him—they 
were afraid of the shoe, and afraid of the projection 
connecting the mould board to the beam. He was 
even publicly insulted for intimating that pot-metal 
would stand when used as a plow-share. One of his 
friends and neighbors had so little confidence, that he 
tried for a long time to break one of the first cast edges 
or shoes, by running it against fast stones and the hard¬ 
est gravel banks. The discredit, as it was then sup¬ 
posed to be, was fully accorded to him—the merit, as 
it is now found to be, is denied him.* 
In the article before us, we are told that in 1796, 
Newbould made “ the cast-iron plow complete.” Yet 
we are told that Peacock made u a great improvement” I 
I in 1805, “ by substituting cast-iron for the wooden 
I mouldboard.” Again, u Robert Ransom took out a pa¬ 
tent for case hardening in 1803.” Edwin A. Stevens 
did the same in 1821. Yet we are told the latter is 
“ a most important improvement.” These striking in¬ 
consistencies appear to have originated in a wish to 
give credit to all; but why is the evidence, which to 
every properly informed person is as clear as light at 
noonday, that Jethro Wood contributed more than all 
to the effectual introduction of the cast plow, thrown 
entirely aside, and mere assertion substituted? 
These remarks are made, not for controversy, but 
solely for the purpose of correcting the erroneous his¬ 
tory of the plow, which, it is to be regretted has found 
its way into the Transactions of the State Agricultural 
Society, and for rescuing from most unjust censure the 
memory of a worthy man, who spent the prime of his 
life, in the face of great difficulty and prejudice, 
and with little pecuniary recompense, in introdu¬ 
cing one of the most valuable improvements of the age. 
Will the Far. Cabinet, and other papers who 
have copied the article from the Transactions, please 
I copy the substance of the preceding facts. J. J. T. 
THE FARMER’S NOTE BOOK. 
Topping Corn. —Near the road leading south from 
Auburn, I lately observed several fine fields of Indian 
Corn, apparently belonging to different farmers, which 
was topped ! I had long since supposed that the waste¬ 
fulness of this old practice was generally understood in 
western New-York; but it seems that a little more ad¬ 
monition may be useful. 
I remember that in years long gone by, it was a rule 
not to begin to top till the tassels or stamens were 
withered : for observation had taught us that if. that 
part was renioved too soon, there would be no corn ; 
but the loss sustained from stripping the leaves was not 
so evident, because there was alw T ays some grain, and 
four-fifths of a crop was sufficient to conceal the dam¬ 
age. At length, however, experiments were made, and 
these showed so great a loss that none but the ignorant 
or the obstinate continued the practice. 
Ch. Woodson, of Virginia, had the tops and blades 
taken from several rows of Indian Corn, leaving the 
'same number of rows untouched, and discovered when 
the grain was harvested, that the corn of the unmuti- 
lated part, weighed more than the' corn and fodder ^ put 
together, of the part that was topped and bladed. The 
proportionate loss is not given, but the language is 
emphatic, and he adds, 11 the whole labor of gathering 
and curing the fodder (no inconsiderable item,) was en¬ 
tirely lost.” 
John Lorain, of Pennsylvania, topped and stripped 
two rows of corn, leaving the row between them un¬ 
touched. This last row yielded more than nine bushels 
and a half, and the average of the other two vvas 
rather more than seven bushels and a half. At this rate, 
when he had thirty-eight bushels to the acre untopped, 
* On the last page (332) of the 4th volume of the Memoirs of the 
Philadelphia Society for promoting Agriculture, is Barnard’s adver¬ 
tisement, with a plate of Wood’s first patented plow annexed. He 
says:—“ The mould board, share , and landside, are cast iron. The 
cast shares are furnished at 60 cents each, and warranted not to 
break, even in the most stony soil.” Wrought shares were at $2. 
This volume bears date 1818, about one year before Wood’s last 
patent. 
This would indicate that the cast share was then new, and that 
Newbould’s and Peacock’s pretended cast shares were unknown 
within twenty miles of where the former lived; although his plow 
had been invented twenty-two years. 
he had thirty bushels to the acre 'when topped and 
bladed. 
William Clark, jr., of Massachusetts, has made a 
more direct statement; and says the loss was 11 twelve 
bushels and forty-six pounds per acre,” from which he 
deduced that “ about twenty per cent., or one-fifth part 
of the crop, is destroyed by cutting the stalks in the 
wpy they are usually cut.” D. T. Cayuga Co., 1 \)th 
month 25, 1847. . 
Messrs. Editors —In looking over the February 
number of the Cultivator for 1844, some time since, I 
found a description of a u contrivance for the preven¬ 
tion of accidents from unruly bulls,” in which descrip¬ 
tion you mention “ a strong iron or steel ring, which 
opens with a hinire and screw and passes through the 
bull’s nose.” This suggested to me a contrivance of 
which the above cut is a representation; and I had one 
made which answered the purpose so well, that I take 
the liberty of forwarding you a description with the 
cut, in order that you may give it an insertion in your 
valuable journal, if you think it might be of advantage 
to any of your subscribers. 
Take a piece of half-inch round iron, 15 inches long, 
and bend it as represented in the cut; have a nut cut 
at A, and the screw" B to fit the same, by which screw 
