134 
THE CULTIVATOR, 
April. 
Indians, at Buffalo and other places in the west, where 
he was frequently called as Commissioner, to negotiate 
treaties and adjust difficulties. These rude sons of the 
forest are not slow in discriminating the traits of charac¬ 
ter of those with whom they come in contact ; and if 
tradition is to be credited, his influence with them was 
almost without limit. He had studied human nature in 
the original—and knew full well how to fit the words to 
the occasion. 
In whatever company he might be, he would not long 
pass unnoticed. Although there was a sternness in his 
aspect and manner, still he was entirely free from as¬ 
sumption of superiority—especially when in company 
with the young, or those who had merit enough in them¬ 
selves rightly to appreciate his character. But we shall 
never forget the contemptuous frown with which he 
looked upon conceited coxcombs, and superficial up¬ 
starts. Shuffling and meanness of any kind, were never 
favored by him. His own honor would not allow him to 
wink at anything dishonorable. The Rev. Mr. Uplam 
said of him, in a discourse, the Sabbath after his de¬ 
cease —“ The feelings of pride, jealousy and suspicion, 
seem never to have entered his heart. He looked not 
on the most humble as his inferiors; and never abased 
himself by flattering the most exalted.” 
One of the last occasions on which Col. Pickering ap¬ 
peared before the public, was the 4th of July, 1823, at 
the celebration in Salem; when he took occasion to pre¬ 
face the reading of the Declaration of Independance, 
with a statement of facts, within his own knowledge, re¬ 
lating to this document, of much interest. We can only 
say, that he aimed to do full justice to those co-patriots, 
in the times that “ tried men’s souls”— Adams and Jef¬ 
ferson —with whom he had been supposed to be in some 
measure at variance—politically speaking at least,—and 
with the former, not without cause—thereby showing to 
the world that he was incapable of cherishing feelings 
of enmity. 
Some have charged him with being under the influence 
of strong prejudices-, but those who knew him best, 
know that he was neither obstinate nor prejudiced. He 
was a man who thought for himself, and adhered with 
firmness to opinions deliberately formed. But still he 
was open to conviction, and ever ready to yield as soon 
as convinced. But so logical were his thoughts, and so 
deliberate his conclusions, that he seldom had occasion 
to yield. Therefore superficial observers called him ob¬ 
stinate. 
In April, 1775, when the sons of liberty were first 
called to arms, at Salem, Col Pickering was found 
ready to go ahead as their file-leader. It is not a little 
remarkable that in April, 1828, forty-three years after¬ 
wards, when the friends of freedom were again sum¬ 
moned, with their contributions in behalf of the oppress¬ 
ed Greeks, he should be found to occupy the same con¬ 
spicuous position. The address, then prepared by him, 
after a most graphic description of the truly pitiable 
condition of their sufferings; and of the noble exertions 
of those genuine philanthrophists, who had periled their 
lives and fortunes for their relief, closes with these re¬ 
markable words, worthy of their own Demosthenes: 
“ But the misery of the Grecian women and children, 
and of men enfeebled by age remains. Their relief is 
the object of this statement. Eloquence is not neces¬ 
sary to persuade. The facts speak to the hearty and it 
is confidently believed that they will not speak in vain.’ 7 
Imagine the venerable old man, with his intense look, 
and energetic movement, uttering these words, and 
even the walls of the temple would echo, Amen. 
It must be particularly gratifying to every friend of 
improvement in agriculture to know, as it is in my power 
to assure them, that the last public act of Col. P., and 
the last use to which his pen was employed, was the 
preparation of a memorial to the Legislature of Massa¬ 
chusetts, for the renewal of the bounty of the State for 
the encouragement of Agriculture. Thus he lived and 
thus he died, having passed more than sixty years in the 
exercise of the highest philanthrophy. 
His memory should be held in honor by all who de. 
pend upon the fruits of the earth for their sustenance 
and support. He who had served his country with fi¬ 
delity and ability, in the field and in the cabinet, retired 
to his farm, as did his Roman prototype, in the midst 
of life, before his eye was dim or his strength impaired, 
and devoted his matured energies to the cultivation of 
the soil. When such minds can thus find full employ¬ 
ment, who will dare say that agriculture is an humiliating 
pursuit? John W. Proctor. 
Trngrrajj nf Slgriraltro. 
Theories cf AgricuItore=>-»No. 4. 
Considerable advance has of late been made in the 
philosophy of agriculture. Until within a few years, the 
practice of husbandry may be said to have rested en¬ 
tirely on empirical rules. The subject has now been 
greatly illustrated by scientific investigation. In vege¬ 
table physiology, we have been much aided by chemis¬ 
try, by which the functions of plants and many of the 
phenomena connected with their growth and decay have 
been explained. Analysis has shown the composition 
of plants and soils—it has shown that each species of 
plant has its specific food—that the elements winch sup¬ 
port plants are not uniform in the soil, but that each 
variety of soil varies in this respect. Thus we discover 
the principles from which are deduced the necessity of 
the application of manures, and the expediency of a 
rotation of crops. 
But it is not alone by explaining acknowledged facts, 
that chemistry has thrown light upon agriculture; it has 
solved questions, by which practice has been, in some 
instances, corrected. We are aware that too much has 
been claimed for chemistry—that some of its enthusias¬ 
tic advocates have assumed much which would not 
stand the test of experience, and which is equally at 
variance with correct science; but this is a result natu¬ 
rally incident to all investigations in their first stages, 
or until their fundamental priniciples are thoroughly es¬ 
tablished. 
On the other hand, an unreasonable extreme has been 
run into by the opponents of the application of chemistry 
to agriculture. For example, an editor of a paper whose 
leading subject is agriculture, declares that “ for a farm¬ 
er to consult a chemist to aid him in his field, is more 
absurd than for a smith to look to the wind to know 
