1852, 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
273 
the hedge may be trimmed every spring for the purpose 
of keeping it in proper limits, and in fact it appears ab¬ 
solutely necessary to attend closely to this matter, where 
the farm is divided into fields of from ten to twenty acres 
each. The method of planting, trimming, cultivating, 
and heading down, may be varied to suit the taste and 
convenience of the owner of the hedge; and the one 
here adverted to, is adapted for those who may engage 
extensively in the business. Each cultivator has plans 
and views of his own • but the system here recommended 
will be found to answer all practical purposes, and will 
be considerably cheaper than the common plans in use. 
There can now be no question, but that the Maclura 
will answer an admirable purpose for hedging on the ex¬ 
tensive prairies of the west; and if it should so turn out 
that it would not bear the requisite primings, for a tim¬ 
bered country , yet on this account it should not be re¬ 
jected on extensive prairies. It would be no objection, 
but rather an advantage to the prairie farmer, if the 
hedge grew 30 feet in height. A hedge of this kind, if 
made to grow thick at the bottom, will not only prevent 
the possibility of every description of animals that would 
do damage to the crops, from passing through or over 
it, but it would have a salutary influence in protecting 
the crops of grain and grasses, and vegetables, from 
raking winds and storms, and in an especial manner would 
it relieve a prairie country from its frightfully monoto¬ 
nous appearance. When allowed to grow some 25 to 30 
feet in height, the timber would become very valuable 
for posts and other purposes, and if cut down close to 
the ground, so that the stumps may be covered with fine 
mould to protect them from the sun, a prodigiously thick 
growth would spring up, which would form a perfect 
hedge the second year. The plant being tap-rooted, to 
a remarkable degree, no danger need be apprehended of 
its spreading over the ground like the locust, cotton 
wood, and other varieties of forest trees, that are noted 
for their rapid growth and early maturity. In conse¬ 
quence of this habit, maybe attributed the extraordinary 
tenacity of life which peculiarly stamps the character of 
this tree. Indeed, in planting a hundred thousand young 
trees, there is no necessity of calculating one in a thou¬ 
sand, to fail in growing, and on this account a perfect 
uniformity in the appearance of the hedge may be kept 
up, and defective spots will rarely occur. 
The conviction that the Osage Orange plant, is all that 
has been recommended for fencing purposes, has taken 
a strong hold of the public mind in central and southern 
Illinois, Missouri, southern Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio, and 
it is to be hoped that the most sanguine expectations of 
its warmest advocates may be more than realised. It 
will flourish in any latitude or climate where the peach 
will grow successfully in open culture, and even if the 
top limbs should become damaged slightly by frost, it 
would only tend to make the hedge grow more thickly 
at its bottom. 
Professor Turner of Jacksonville, Illinois, has this 
year thirty five acres of plants, which through the 
active exertions of travelling agents, will be thrown into 
market the ensuing spring, from which the proprietor 
will reap a golden harvest. A vast number of others 
are engaged in the business, and having the best feelings 
for all interested in the speculation, we shall, for some 
time to come, watch with interest the final result. G. 
W. Edmundson. Keokuk, Iowa. 
History of the Short-horns. 
It seems necessary to make some repty to the article 
of Ambrose Stevens, in the Cultivator for July; but I 
will, in so doing, occupy as little space as practicable. 
1. The charge against me of misrepresentation. I said 
that Mr. Stevens had admitted, by implication, that Sir 
James Penniman’s and Sir Wm. St. Quintin’s stocks of 
cattle came from Normandy. The grounds of this state¬ 
ment are these: In Mr. Stevens’ article in the Transac¬ 
tions for 1849, he said the family of Aislabies came fiom 
Normandy, and that this family had these cattle. He 
did not say where they obtained the cattle; hence I re¬ 
marked that the most natural inference would be that 
they were Norman stock. This inference is rendered 
more natural, from the fact that Mr. Stevens admits the 
stock of Sir James Penniman to be the same as that of 
the Aislabies. In his article in the Transactions, he 
says “ the Pennimans of Ormsby, in Yorkshire, procured 
cows and used bulls from Aislabie.” He now says he 
“ did not mention St. Quintin or his cattle.” But I 
showed that what he said of the identity of the Aislabio 
and Penniman stocks was enough, and that by this we 
had a key to understand what this Aislabie stock really 
was. I then showed by extracts from the English Herd- 
Book and various other writings, that Sir James Penni¬ 
man obtained his celebrated cattle of Sir Wm. St. 
Quintin, and that they were deemed of Norman extract 
—or had more or less Norman blood. Thus proving that 
the Aislabie and Penniman stocks, (admitting Mr. Ste¬ 
vens’ statement that these two were the same in blood,) 
were the same as the St. Quintin. Mr. Stevens’ own 
language in regard to the Aislabie family and their cat- 
tie, coupled with the tact that stock which he admits to 
have been the same, was deemed as more or less Nor¬ 
man in blood, furnished the ground on which I used the 
expression of which he complains. The public will judge 
whether there is any misrepresentation. 
2. Mr. Stevens says the English Short-horns have had 
no connection with the Short-horns of the Continent 
since 1000. In what he calls “ corrections of Mr. Ber¬ 
ry, and further Historical Notices of the Short-horns,” 
he alleges, to prove this position, that a statute of Par¬ 
liament prohibiting the introduction of cattle, was passed 
in 1666, and continued till 1841, and “ was always en¬ 
forced, except from 1801 to 1814.” 
I noticed this statement on a former occasion, in re¬ 
viewing his “ corrections,” &c., and remarked that al¬ 
though I had then no information in regard to the exis¬ 
tence of such a law, it was evident from the testimony 
of many of the most reputable authors, that there was 
no such barrier to the introduction of cattle into England, 
as claimed by Mr. Stevens. I cited Youatt, Berry, Mar¬ 
tin, Gulley, Bailey, and Low,-—all of whom admit, and 
most of whom assert, positively, that cattle were import¬ 
ed from the Continent during the time when Mr. Stevens 
says no importation could have taken place. 
It might be thought sufficient to simply array Mr. 
Stevens’ assertion against these acknowledged authorities. 
But I am happy to have it in my power to give more di¬ 
rect and important evidence on the subject, for which I 
am indebted to B. P. Johnson, Esq., Secretary of the 
New-York State Agricultural Society, who did me the 
favor to make the necessary examinations, during his 
visit to England last year as Agent from the State of 
New-York to the great Exhibition. He says— 
“ In 1666, (Charles the 2d,) a law was passed, pro¬ 
hibiting the importation of cattle from Ireland and 
foreign countries, (except the Isle of Man,) from the 
second day of February, 1666, for the term of seven 
years, and until the end of the first session of the next 
Parliament. 
“ This act expired, and in 1680, (32d of Charles 2d 
reign,) was revised and made perpetual, with this ex¬ 
press provision—That any cattle that are or shall be in 
England before the second of February, 1680, shall not 
be liable to forfeiture.’ 
“ The preamble and title of both the above laws show, 
that the importation of cattle from abroad, was consider¬ 
ed a great detriment to the farmers of the kingdom of 
Great Britain, and these restretive measures were re¬ 
sorted to, in order that encouragement should be afforded 
to the rearing of cattle among themselves. 
“ In 1670, (19 and 20 Charles 2d,) a law was passed 
that after June 24t.h, 1671, it might be lawful for foreign¬ 
ers as well as Freemen, to buy and sell any ‘ cattle in 
Smithfield market—any custom or usage to the contra¬ 
ry notwithstanding.’ 
“ In 1685, the foregoing act was continued in force for 
seven years. 
“ George 3d, 10th, an act was passed to 'prevent im- 
pollution of cattle from abroad, on account of the ‘ con- 
tagious disease’ in Europe —the law to continue in force 
to 1771, (two years, I think,) and in 1772, it was ex. 
tended to 1774, as the disease still continued. 
