THE CULTIVATOR 
of Governor Seward, Rev. Mr. Colman, General Leland, 
Alderman Joy, General Viele and others, at the tempe¬ 
rance supper, partaken by the members of the society; 
but my paper is already too long to notice now their 
sayings; I may advert to them hereafter, for they were 
profitable to the farmer. 
The annual meeting of the New-York State Agricultu¬ 
ral Society of 1842, will long be remembered by many 
others besides myself. There was harmony, enthusiasm, 
and a determined, all soul energy, constituting a sure 
pledge that it will continue to be, as it already is, the 
pride and glory Of the “ go-ahead” farmers of the Em¬ 
pire state. 
Lansing, Tompkins co., N. Y. L. A. Morrell. 
COMMENTS ON THE DEC. NUMBER OF THE 
CULTIVATOR FOR 1841. 
Your December number commences with a statement 
of some accurate experiments made by your intelligent 
English correspondent—Mr. John Hannam—to prove 
that it is best to cut wheat some time before it is perfect¬ 
ly ripe. This fact, I believe, is now very generally 
known to the wheat growers of our own country; at 
least, so far as relates to wheat which is to be ground. 
But it is the opinion of the best farmers I have ever 
known—confirmed (as many of them have told me,) by 
actual experiment—that wheat designed for seed should 
be thoroughly ripe before it is cut. Indeed, many assert 
that it is still better if it be kept a year before it is sown; 
as it will then yield more grain in proportion to the 
straw, and be less liable to smut or blight. 
In your notice of the Edinburgh Quarterly Journal of 
Agriculture, you have given us some amusing speci¬ 
mens of the truly absurd and ridiculous superstitions of 
the olden time. But I think we can nearly match them, 
even in this year of our Lord, 1842. For instance, what 
think you of farmers who believe firmly in lucky and 
unlucky days?—in almanacs, as infallible weather pro¬ 
phets?—in the power of the moon to shrink the meat of 
animals killed during the decrease? and in the blood of 
a coal black cat's tail, as a sovereign remedy for the dis¬ 
ease called “the shingles?” Yet such things certainly 
are—even in this our day of so much vaunted enlighten¬ 
ment. Would it not then be well if you yourselves, and 
some of your numerous sharp shooters, would occasion¬ 
ally take a shot at them? Such things, I know, are hard 
to kill; but there are marksmen among- you, I think, 
who would effect it in good time, if they would only un¬ 
dertake it in earnest. Before, however, I quit this topic, 
I must do the present generation the justice to say, that 
the last mentioned superstition is in a great measure de¬ 
funct. But I well remember seeing, when a boy, a poor 
black cat nearly as tailless as a modern dandy's pony; 
and Upon inquiring the cause of this most extraordinary 
mutilation, I was seriously told that “it was to get blood 
to cure the shingles.” — 
Your article in favor of agricultural schools is one 
after my own heart. Indeed, there is nothing I should 
like better, (if I were well qualified,) than to superin¬ 
tend one, if it were connected, as such establishments al¬ 
ways should be, with an experimental farm. Most 
heartily, therefore, do I approve of every word that you 
have quoted on the subject from your Alabama corres¬ 
pondent. But he, as well as all other true friends of the 
cause, may rely upon it, that v:e never shall obtain them 
until the people generally will elect genuine, patriotic 
farmers and planters, instead of mere party politicians to 
represent them. — 
Under the head of “ Profits of Farming,” you have 
said so much to the purpose, and so perfectly demonstra¬ 
tive of the facts which you aim to prove, that I will not 
add a word of my own, lest I might weaken its force, 
farther than to make one most earnest appeal to the scep¬ 
tics upon this subject, should any be left after reading 
what you have urged. It is to entreat them—should 
they still have any doubts—to try—if it be only for me 
year—to keep an accurate account with their farms, so 
as to credit them not only with the money which is left 
after all expenses are paid, but with the account of the 
expenses themselves, provided they have been paid for 
out of the proceeds of the farm, together with the value 
of the bread stuffs, vegetables, and meats consumed by 
the family, which surely ought to be credited, although 
It is rarely ever done. No man who would do this, I 
think, could ever doubt again. None could hesitate to 
believe that the farmer’s life, even as a source of profit, 
is greatly to be preferred to all others, especially when 
we take into consideration all its other concomitant ad¬ 
vantages. — 
In regard to the “state of the laboring classes in Eu¬ 
rope,” (which is your next article,) I believe it to be quite 
as wretched as you represent it to be. Indeed, it is far 
worse, if we may credit recent accounts, particularly in 
England, Scotland and Ireland. Difficult as it may be to 
assign all the causes of so deplorable a condition of soci¬ 
ety, the grand one of all, the source from which the 
whole of the pitiable sufferings of those classes appear 
to me to have originated, has been too much interference 
on the part of their governments between the various 
professions and callings into which every civilized soci¬ 
ety naturally divides itself. This has proved the Pando¬ 
ra's box, out of which have issued all the evils incident 
to such interference; and let our government beware in 
time, not to follow their disastrous example. But for 
this, England probably would never have had any corn 
laws to encourage the extravagance and licentiousness 
of the rich; never any excess of investments in manu¬ 
factures to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer; 
and never any such a degree of pauperism as annually to 
sweep off her thousands by the horrible death of starva¬ 
tion. — 
The remedy to prevent weevil in wheat, which is re¬ 
commended by “ The Tennessee Agriculturist,” will not 
suffice, at least, in latitude 37 or 38; for the heat which 
it undergoes in the stook is not enough to detroy the 
embryo of the fly contained in the grain. But if that be 
threshed out as soon as practicable, well cleaned, and 
thrown into bulk, it will there soon become so hot that 
no weevil will ever hatch, unless upon the surface of the 
heap. Care, however, must be taken, if the grain be 
wanted for seed, not to heap it until is is thoroughly dry, 
lest its vegetative quality be destroyed. 
Your remarks on “ The Agricultural Fairs of 1841”— 
on “The New-England Agricultural Societies”—and on 
the “ Fair of the American Institute,” are, in the high¬ 
est degree, interesting to all the true friends of Ameri¬ 
can husbandry; and I sincerely hope they will excite 
our brethren of the middle and southern states to far 
greater exertions than they have ever yet made to get 
up shows and fairs equally worthy of our admiration. I 
must, however, respectfully offer one objection to the 
principle upon which most of them offer premiums. It 
is, that they aim to procure extraordinary products from 
the land, and marvellous farming stock, without suffi¬ 
cient attention to the cost of production. Whereas, it 
seems to me that premiums should always be so ordered 
as to encourage the greatest results which can be pro¬ 
duced at the least expense. This would cause our breth¬ 
ren to bestow their attention more equally on all their 
farming operations, and to study the most economical 
methods of managing the whole, rather than to give an 
undue proportion of their care, their labor and means of 
improvement, to the particular articles for which premi¬ 
ums are offered. In most of these cases, they appear to 
me—but with all due deference be it spoken—to “ pay too 
dear for their whistles ” — 
I have read with pleasure all the communications of 
your intelligent correspondent Mr. L. A. Morrell, but 
must beg leave to make one exception to his universal 
anathema against sheep’s tails. I would save from am¬ 
putation, if I could, those parts of the broad tail—Tunis 
and Cape—sheep, as I can assure him that they are 
great delicacies for the table; and in regard to the nar¬ 
row tail kinds, I would barely inquire whether it is at 
all probable, if these appendages are altogether useless? 
nay, worse; that Nature would ever have made sheep 
with any tails at all? Why they were made, it is not 
for me to say; although I really think, in consideration 
thereof, that since we find them stuck on, we might 
safely spare to the possessors some 4 or 5 inches. 
Mr. F. Burt, I perceive, has made another attack 
upon the National Agricultural Society and its friends, 
which, to say the least of it, betrays a marvellous igno¬ 
rance of what these friends have actually said in its fa¬ 
vor; considering that (as he asserts) “ he has carefully 
perused all the communications of Messrs. Garnett, Rob¬ 
inson and Gordon, as well as your own.” Now I also 
have read all those communications, and have probably 
“ conjured my brain” about them quite as much as he 
tells us he has conjured his. But I cannot find a single 
line, or even a word, to justify Mr. Burt’s insinuations 
about “log-rolling” or “lobbying” with membei’s of 
congress, although this, I believe, is the second time he 
has thrown them out against the friends of a National 
Society of Agriculture. In close connection with these 
disparaging innuendoes, Mr. Burt introduces one of his 
discoveries which is at once so novel, profound and im¬ 
portant, that the jurists and political economists of our 
country ought to be forever grateful to him; although I 
must confess that I cannot discover the least relevancy 
that it has to the object of his piece. He thus an¬ 
nounces it: “ My opinion is, that government is constituted 
for the protection of all; for the favoring of none. There¬ 
fore, I cannot see (nor indeed can I,) what right govern¬ 
ment has to tax me to pay my neighbor a premium, because 
he- has reared a bigger calf than I have.” This would 
truly be a home thrust, a complete demolisher of all the 
friends of a National Society of Agriculture, had they 
ever asked government thus to interfere in any such 
calfish competition. But it so happens that not a soli¬ 
tary man of them has ever, so far as I know and believe, 
uttered the slightest wish of the kind. No motive there¬ 
fore can easily be assigned for the introduction of the 
above opinion, unless indeed it was to prove that Mr. 
Burt's knowledge of government was quite equal to his 
knowledge of all other subjects upon which he under¬ 
takes to write. Let me give you another quotation to 
illustrate his comprehensiveness of acquirement. He 
says—“ If I understand the Smithsonian legacy right, it was 
left to the government to establish a national university.” 
Now the will itself bequeathes the money to erect with¬ 
in the District of Columbia an institution which was to 
be called “ The Smithsonian Institute,” which, accord¬ 
ing to the express words of the will, was to be— “an 
establishment for the increase and diffusion of knoiclcdge 
among men.” Whether these words mean a “national 
university” or not, I shall leave it to others to determine. 
To others also I will leave to decide, whether an agri¬ 
cultural school, wherein all the numerous sciences con¬ 
nected with agriculture would be taught, and an experi¬ 
mental farm on which the pupils would be instructed in 
all the most approved practices in husbandry, would not 
well fulfil the intentions of Mr. Smithson, as far as they 
can be understood from the language of his bequest. 
63 
Mr. Burt’s comparison of the National Society “to me 
of the double geered thunder shower saw-mills that go to 
hill,” may be very witty and appropriate, for ought I 
know to the contrary, having never yet seen one that 
went “ to kill ” anything. I must therefore plead igno¬ 
rance of its applicability. I am equally ignorant of 
what he can mean when he talks of government furnish¬ 
ing funds to keep up the society; unless, indeed, he con¬ 
founds, with his usual alacrity at such work, the Smith¬ 
sonian legacy with these funds; although it no more con¬ 
stitutes any part of them than his own private property. 
But even if the legacy really belonged to the govern¬ 
ment, not a cent of it will be asked to support the Na¬ 
tional Society of Agriculture. It is solely to support an 
agricultural school and farm that the friends of the soci¬ 
ety will seek to obtain it. Mr. Burt, it seems, could not 
conclude his attack upon this society without verifying 
the old proverb—“in for a penny, in for a pound.” 
Witness his contemptuous remarks on all other societies 
of the kind throughout our country. But pity it is, for 
his own sake, that he had not kept to himself the anec¬ 
dote of Dr. Franklin’s, telling Thomas Paine that— “he 
who spits in his oicnface, spits against the wind.” 
Commentator. 
CORN—SOUTH AND NORTH—JUDGE BIT EL. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —I have had the plea¬ 
sure of reading occasionally a valuable sheet published 
at Columbia in South Carolina, called fhe “ South Caro¬ 
lina Temperance Advocate and Register of Agriculture;” 
and in that paper of the 6th of January, I notice a com¬ 
munication signed D. on the subject of corn. From this, 
with your leave, I propose to make a few extracts, and 
append a few remarks. The text on which the writer 
hangs his communication, is an estimate by Judge Buel 
in the Cultivator, volume 1, page 38 and 9, (and also in 
his Farmers’ Library,) of the quantity of corn that will 
grow on one acre, when planted in rows or drills, at dif¬ 
ferent distances, of which distances and modes of plant¬ 
ing he gives examples. After copying Judge Buel’s 
table (in which the third method, as printed in the S. C. 
T. A., is incorrect, as it should be 3 feet by 24, instead 
of 2 feet by 2|,) and describing the manner In which 
the results as to quantity were gained, “ D.” adds, that 
his object is to persuade a former correspondent of the 
Carolina papex-, “not to suffer the arithmetical chimex-as, 
and useless theories of Judge Buel (or any other man 
who is so ignorant of corn planting as to suppose that an 
acre of ground could be made to produce 170 bushels— 
plant it as he may,) to bother his brain, so to make him 
lose another crop. As for the calculations of Judge 
Buel,” he says, “I regard them as of no sort of practi¬ 
cal utility to farmers. For the Judge never saw nor heard 
of even 75 bushels of corn being obtained from one acre; 
much less, 170.” * * * “ The second method quoted 
will give 75 bushels 2 pecks and 4 quarts, which no lands 
that Judge Buel ever owned, ever did or ever will produce.” 
* * * “I would ask Judge Buel, when before did it 
enter into the imagination of men to plant corn as thick 
as his last, or ev en his third method (3 by 2±feet ) proposes 
to plant it? Who, that ever cultivated an acre of land in 
corn, does not know that corn planted according to his 
6th, 5th, or ever 4th methods, would not only have no 
corn at all, but the stalks themselves would literally burn 
and shrivel up, during the best seasons we have, in any 
kind of land, however rich?” * * * “For Jud^e 
Buel’s benefit, therefore, as well as that of my friend 
C. C., I will give the result of my experience in the 
method of planting, hoping it may do no harm if it does 
no good. Corn planted in rows 3 feet wide and drilled 
2 feet, is thick enough for any land; and if it is a dry 
season it is too thick; but if seasonable, and plowed four 
or five times, (only one way) and hoed once or twice, 
good land will produce a gill, or perhaps a gill and a 
half to the hill. If one gill, there being 7260 hills in 
one acre, it will yield 29 bushels, 3 pecks and 5 quarts, 
which is enough for any man to make from one acre. If, 
however, the land is not so strong, I would always pre¬ 
fer planting 4 by 3, which will make 3588 hills, and 
have one sfalk in a hill, which, in an ordinary season, 
will yield fully 2 gills to a hill, and a better grain than 
if the stalks were thicker, which would give 28 bushels; 
quite enough for common land, w r ell manured.” 
My object, Messrs. Editors, is not to defend the cha¬ 
racter of Judge Buel, as an agriculturist, from the flip¬ 
pant attacks of men so profoundly ignorant of the state 
of agriculture in the country as “D.” evidently is; he 
cannot need such defence; but I wish to invite attention 
to the difference between what is considered a good 
crop at the North and in the South. We at the north do 
not consider 29 bushels as much as a man ought to make 
from an acre; and the man whose corn crop does not 
very greatly exceed that quantity, is thought, and deserv¬ 
edly, a miserable farmer; and I trust the time is very 
distant when the northern farmer will think 28 bushels 
“'quite enough for common land well manured.” 
Further; “D.” says Judge Buel “never saw or heard 
of 75 bushels of corn from an acre; much less, 170.” I 
make the following extract from the Cultivator, volume 
1, page 39. “The 5th method, [one of those which D. 
so positively affirms would produce no corn at all,] I 
have tried. The ground was highly manured, and the 
crop twice cleaned. The entire acre was gathered and 
weighed accurately the same day. The product in ears 
was 103 baskets, each 84 lbs. nett, and 65 lbs. over. The 
last basket was shelled and measured, which showed a 
product on the acre of 118 bushels, 10 quarts.” In the 
same place reference is made to the premium crop of 
