142 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
hocks cut off as above, in a barrel, and to be otherwise merchanta¬ 
ble. And these names are respectively branded upon casks con¬ 
taining the respective qualities, by the inspector. 
Into every barrel of beef inspected and repacked, there is put not 
less than 20 quarts of salt, 4oz. of saltpetre, and a new strong pickle. 
All bloody and neck pieces offered for inspection, before put up are 
properly cleansed. 
On the head of each cask of merchantable beef or pork, are 
branded the weight of its contents, with the initial of the Christian 
name and the surname at full length of the inspector, or both at full 
length, with tire words “New-York City,” if inspected therein; 
and the name of the county and the words “State of New-York,” 
if inspected in any other county. 
The inspector is entitled to 15 cents for each barrel, 10 cents for 
each half, repacked and inspected, 10 cents for flagging, pegging, 
nailing, salting and pickling ; 3 cents for each hoop put on ; paya¬ 
ble before the inspected cask is takdn from his storage. 
No inspector may be concerned in the purchase of cattle or hogs, 
with intention to pack them for sale, or in any manner partake of 
the profit or loss of any beef or pork, when intended for packing, 
under penalty of 500 dollars for each offence, nor may he inspect 
or brand any cask out of his proper district; nor in any case lend or 
hire his brands, under penalty of 25 dollars for each barrel so in¬ 
spected or branded. 
The storage of the inspector of the city of New-York must be 
on the marigin of the East or North river; and he may not inspect 
or repack at any other place, under penalty of $15 for every barrel. 
Any person other than an inspector, branding such cask, forfeits a 
like sum. 
No dealer in beef or pork, may suffer it, after inspection, to be 
exposed to the heat of the sun, or inclement weather, longer than 
12 hours, under penalty of five dollars for each offence. 
Any person intermixing, taking out, or shifting beef or pork of 
casks inspected, or putting into such casks other beef or pork, for 
sale or exportation, or altering or changing the brand or mark of 
the inspector, forfeits $25 for each cask. 
Every person slaughtering cattle or hogs to be barrelled for in¬ 
spection, contrary to law r , forfeits $25 for every head. 
Any person selling or disposing of empty barrels, or the heads of 
barrels, that have contained beef or pork, without having first ob¬ 
literated the inspector’s brands or marks, forfeits five dollars for 
each barrel or head, to the use of the person suing therefor. 
REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE PACKAGE OF BUTTER, LARD AND HAT. 
The firkin in which butter or lard is packed, for sale, has the true 
weight thereof stamped or marked in a legible and durable manner, 
on one of the staves or heads, with the initials of the packer, which 
is, on every sale, deemed the tare. The offering for sale of any fir¬ 
kin of butter or lard not so marked, is punishable by a fine of three 
dollars ; and the putting any false mark on such firkin, or selling, or 
offering to sell any butter or lard in any firkin known to be falsely 
marked, by a fine of five dollars. Such fines to be applied to the 
use of the city, town, or village, in which the offence is committed, 
and recoverable in the name of any officer appointed thereby to sue 
therefor. 
Every person putting up and pressing any bundle of hay for mar¬ 
ket, marks or brands in a legible manner the initials of his Chris¬ 
tian, and his full surname, and the name of the town in which he 
resides, on some board or wood attached to the bundle; and may 
not put or conceal in any such bundle, any wet or damaged hay, or 
other materials or hay of inferior quality to that which plainly ap¬ 
pears on the outside, under penalty of prosecution by the person 
aggrieved; and if the court, before whom the suit is brought, be 
satisfied that any of the preceding provisions has been violated, 
it renders judgment of one dollar for the plaintiff, wdth such damages 
as he has suffered thereby, and costs : but if the court be satisfied 
that no such violation has been committed, the costs are awarded 
against the plaintiff. 
Such hay may be sold with or without inspection or deduction for 
tare, and by the weights, as marked, or any other standard weight, 
as agreed between buyer and seller. 
No person may receive any fees or compensation for inspecting 
pressed or other hay where he is the purchaser, for himself, or as 
agent for any other person. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
CHESS OR CHEAT. 
Our correspondents, to-day, have fully verified our remark, that the question 
as to the transmutation of wheat into chess is well settled, in the opinions 
of the advocates upon both sides—both pertinaciously claiming to be right. 
Since we wrote our article upon the subject, we have made the subject of 
some enquiry, and have heard various statements pro and con, sufficient to 
make a strong case on either side. These it is not worth while to detail ; 
and we content ourselves with remarking, that the only practical benefit 
likely to grow out of the controversy, is a general admission, that as chess 
will produce chess, the less of it that is sown, the less it is likely to abound 
in the crop—and that consequently good farmers will be admonished to sow 
none but perfectly clean seed. We fear that a further continuance of the 
controversy, will be neither otherwise profitable, nor pleasant, to the mass 
of our readers, and therefore would respectfully ask leave of our correspon¬ 
dents to bid adieu to it. 
Judge Buel —In the Cultivator for the present month, I have 
read an editorial on the subject of chess, which leans to the doctrine 
of the mutability of wheat. As all controversy is deprecated, per¬ 
mit me to submit one or two facts in opposition to those adduced in 
the article in question. Some eight or ten years ago, my farm be¬ 
came very much infested with this weed—which proceeded proba¬ 
bly from negligence—insomuch that I was even unable to save grass 
seeds that were clear of it. I determined, if possible, to extirpate 
it; bought my grass seed in order to have that which was pure ; and 
caused my seed wheat to be thoroughly cleansed of all foreign matter. 
I did not depend upon those in my employment to judge for me, as to 
when it was sufficiently cleansed. I therefore went to work know, 
ingly —and I had the pleasure of seeing the quantity of cheat di¬ 
minish at every succeeding harvest. The consequence is, that for 
some years past, out of the annual product of about fifty acres, 1 
have not perhaps reaped a peck of cheat. My facts however, have 
reference to the last and present years, about which I will be more 
particular in my statement. It is well known, that the two past win¬ 
ters have been very disastrous to the wheat crop. That of ’34-’35 
caused the destruction of probably three fourths of the young plants, 
many of which however did not finally perish until the spring._ 
Some of the plants therefore must necessarily have been “ diseas¬ 
ed ;” but notwithstanding this and all other causes, proximate or 
remote, I was unable to find a single grain of cheat when my crop 
was threshed out. Most of my neighbors crops on the contrary, 
abounded in it; and it was, as usual, regarded as degenerate wheat. 
In regard to the present year, the wheat had not only to contend 
against the effects of the winter; but it had to withstand the ra¬ 
vages of the hessian fly, which was more numerous in the spring 
than I have ever before known. When it was time for the ears to 
be developed, every person was surprised to see such a quantity of 
cheat; and some were amazed to behold their fields exhibit scarce¬ 
ly any thing else. Under these circumstances, and when a laro-e 
number of the stools did not have strength enough to shoot, (being 
consequently grievously “diseased”) I was not able to find a single 
■plant of cheat during a search over a considerable portion of my 
field. Now I venture to ask, why my own field, which was no better 
cultivated than those of my neighbors, and which also contained 
“ springy places,” should have been more exempt than theirs from 
this pest 1 
After my own experience, I cannot but believe that those who 
detail facts to prove the transmutation of wheat, state them with 
much looseness. Do they know that the seed was pure, and that 
there was no filth in the ground when it was prepared 1 Unless 
their premises are cautiously laid, their deductions are entitled to 
no consideration, even from themselves. From what I know of 
those whom I am acquainted with, and judging of others by them, I 
am certain they are not cognizant of all the circumstances on which 
this result should be made to depend. Every fact detailed in the 
Cultivator is of this character, with one or two exceptions_the 
most important of which is that G. W. Featherstonhaugh was in 
possession of a plant of cheat “with the skin of a kernel of wheat 
so attached to the roots, as to satisfy him and others, and amongst 
others, the late President Madison, who examined it, that in this 
particular instance a kernel of wheat had produced a plant bearing 
heads of cheat.” Now is it not matter of astonishment that there 
should have been only a single instance of the kind ever brought to 
