228 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
July 
and have been intimately acquainted with our great im¬ 
provers of cattle, sheep, and horses.”* 
It may be well to note that Mr. Stevens says he deriv¬ 
ed the account of the Galloway cross on which he bases 
many of his conclusions, from Mr. Thomas Bates, and 
much of his information in regard to Hubback, appears 
to have been received from the same individual. But 
even Mr. Bates does not seem to have been 'practically 
hostile to crossing. It is well known that he made many 
experiments in crossing the Short-horns with the West- 
Highlanders or Kyloes. [Youatt on Cattle, pp. 247-8.] 
The agent of the largest stock-importing company- 
ever formed in the U. S., stated to the writer of this arti¬ 
cle that Mr. Bates strongly advised him to bring a bull of 
this cross to America; and even Mr. Stevens has more 
than once stated that.one of the most noted bulls ever sent 
tothiscountry by Mr. Bates, possesses a strain of Highland 
blood. It is true, undoubtedly, that Mr. Bates, as well 
as Mr. Colling and others, had a definite object in view 
in making their experiments in crossing, and the result 
appears to have been, to a certain extent, in accordance 
with their designs. 
This is a brief notice of Mr. Stevens’ principal objec¬ 
tions to Mr. Berry’s history. It will doubtless strike 
many readers as singular that he should have been made 
the medium through which so much new light on this 
subject should be given to the w 7 orld. The question very 
forcibly presents itself—why were not these “ corrections” 
made at an earlier day? In a case of so much conse¬ 
quence, involving not only important historical facts, 
but also the veracity and moral honesty of individuals, 
why was the issue deferred till those individuals and all 
the important witnesses, were beyond the reach of a 
summons to any earthly tribunal? Does such a course 
accord with the principles of acknowledged justice? If, 
as is charged, Mr. Berry was actuated by base motives 
in writing the history of the Short-horns—if he per¬ 
verted facts and stated falsehoods—why was he not call¬ 
ed to account at the time?! All the parties most deeply 
interested were then living, and able to speak for them¬ 
selves, and in every view of the case were much more 
capable of arriving at truth, than an individual belong¬ 
ing to another country could be, after the lapse of many 
years, when the chief actors have passed awa) 7 . Under 
these circumstances, the dictatorial manner which Mr. 
Stevens has assumed, and the contemptuousness with 
which he has treated previous history, evinces a egree 
of arrogance seldom met with, and the inquiry presents 
itself—By what right does he presume to speak in such 
oracular terms on this subject? 
The manner in which Mr. Stevens supports his own 
views by quotations, is deserving special notice. He 
makes frequent reference to. authors, without telling us 
where the language which he attributes to them can be 
found. For instance, on page 114, he says —“ The late 
Mr. Thomas Bates, of Kirkleavington, Eng., was in¬ 
formed by Mr. Christopher Hill, collector of the port 
of Sunderland,” that examinations had been made in 
reference to the importation of cattle from Holland. 
* These letters are published in the Memoirs of the Pennsylvania 
Agricultural Society for the year 1824. 
f Mr. Stevens says—“It is said that in this second history, his 
[Mr. Berry’s] object was to serve himself, as in the first he had served 
Mr. Whittaker,” and adds that “no one would have a right to com¬ 
plain, had truth been observed ,” &c. 
Again on page 119, he refers to a letter of Mr. Bates 
“ relating to his Duchess tribe of cattle,” and again on 
page 120, he refers to a letter from Col. Trotter to Mr. 
Bates, and on page 124, he refers to a letter of Mr. 
Alexander Hall to Mr. Bates, and on page 125. to a 
“ certificate” given by Mr. Hall to Mr. Bates. On page 
128, he says the “ account of the Galloway cross was 
derived from Mr. Bates.” 
It should be remembered that Mr. Bates died before 
Mr. Stevens’ book was published, and it is desirable to 
know where the important information communicated to 
Mr. S. was first recorded; or if it was not recorded, 
whether it was all received orally from Mr. Bates. 
On page 118, a description of the Short-horns of 
Messrs. C. and R. Colling is given, purporting to come 
from Mr. John Hutchinson; and on page 119 another 
reference is made to Mr. H., and on page 123 a quota¬ 
tion is given, said to be from a letter from Mr. Foss to 
Mr. Hutchinson, and on page 125 a quotation purport¬ 
ing to be from Mr. Hutchinson is given, in reference to 
“ a dissension” which it is said had “ arisen amongst the 
Ketton and Barmpton breeders.” But in neither case 
has Mr. Stevens given the least hint as to where the 
language given was originally made public. The same 
may be said in reference to quotations attributed to Mr. 
Waistell, on pages 120, 123, 124. 
There are other parts , of Mr. Stevens’ 11 corrections 
and further history” which it might be well to notice, 
did the space to be allowed in a single article permit; 
but we shall be obliged to conclude by a notice of only 
one or two more points. 
Some readers will recollect that Mr. Stevens gave 
what he called a “ history” of the Short-horns in the 
Transactions of the N. Y. Stare Ag. Society for 1849. 
The majn point of this history” appeared to be to 
show that the most esteemed families of that tribe of 
cattle were taken to England from Normandy by follow¬ 
ers of William the Conquerer. He commences by saying: 
“ The ancient family of the Aislabies which came in¬ 
to England with William the Conqueror, established 
themselves prior to 1300, at Aislabe, on the river Tees, 
in the county of Durham, and the manor, their estate, 
Avas called after the family. As early as 1600 the family 
was known to possessa most extraordinary tribe of cattle.” 
The inference from this, if anything is to be inferred, 
is that the best Short-horns are descended from Norman 
progenitors. Nothing of the above, however, appears 
in his “ Corrections and History” in the book under con¬ 
sideration. Why omit so important a matter when the 
whole history of the case is to be set right? 
Mr. Stevens closes his ‘‘ corrections and history” by 
a notice of Mr. Stephenson’s stock, the only specimens 
of which in America, are in the hands of two individuals. 
He tells us that Mr. Bates, “through Mr. Stephenson’s 
bull Belvedere, greatly improved his Short-horns. This 
is quite different from what Mr. Stevens has elsewhere 
told us. In the American Agriculturist, vol. 5, p. 51, 
he said—“ When Belvedere was brought into the herd, 
[Mr. Bates’ herd,] the only change he made in a marked 
manner to the eye,.was that some of his get were roan. 
In essentials tjie herd remained the same .” 
How is it possible that the herd could have been 
“ greatly improved ” while* “ in essentials it remained 
the same?” 
