78 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
dDrigiitai flapers from Contributor©. 
COMMENTS ON THE JAN. AND FEB. NUMBERS 
OF THE CULTIVATOR FOR 1842. 
The Jan. No. of your paper has so large a portion of 
it devoted to the description of the meetings of various 
agricultural societies, and these have been so numerous 
beyond all former example—so well conducted, and with 
such increasing spirit, as to afford great encouragement 
to all similar associations in their patriotic labors. What 
they have done and are doing, affords the best possible an¬ 
swer to all the carpings and cavilings of their enemies; 
and will perfectly satisfy the minds of all such rational 
men, (if there be any such,) as might have doubted, be¬ 
fore they witnessed any of their operations, whether 
they would work beneficially or not. I must, however, 
say that most, if not all of their constitutions which I 
have examined with any care, appear to me to be defec¬ 
tive in some respects. Although I have long had this 
opinion of agricultural societies in general, it has lately 
made a stronger impression on my mind than heretofore, 
in consequence of my reading recently the Dec. num¬ 
ber of that valuable periodical—the Farmer’s Register, 
by Edmund Ruffin of Petersburg, Va. It contains what 
the author calls—“ Plan and Constitution of a Working 
Agricultural Society;” which Plan, or something on simi¬ 
lar principles, would, in my humble opinion, soon make 
every agricultural society that adopted it what all such as¬ 
sociations ought to be; that is—collectors and distribu¬ 
tors of all facts which can contribute to the improve¬ 
ment of American husbandry. 
The particular feature of this Plan, which renders it so 
highly worthy of general adoption is, that the Constitu¬ 
tion requires each member who is a cultivator of land, 
annually to make as accurately as he can, and minutely 
to report the results thereof in writing, as simply and 
concisely as may be, to his own society,—at least three 
experiments, with a view to determine the same number 
of disputed questions in husbandry. The choice of these 
questions he may make himself; or he may choose three 
of such as the executive committee are required to pre¬ 
pare and recommend for trial. A fine of one dollar is 
imposed for each experiment that he fails to make; but 
one-half of the whole funds of the society is appropriated 
to premiums, to be awarded to such of those experiments 
as shall be deemed best and most carefully conducted. 
Another excellent constitutional regulation is, that the 
society shall co-operate with each and every other socie¬ 
ty having similar objects and general action, for the pur¬ 
pose of better forwarding their common design of induc¬ 
ing accurate investigation, eliciting useful facts, and ex¬ 
changing and diffusing the knowledge thus acquired. 
This, indeed, would well deserve the title of “ A Work¬ 
ing Agricultural Society;” and could it once be tried, I 
hazard little in saying that such an excellent example 
would soon be universally followed. 
Permit me now to offer a few words on your article, 
headed “ Pearl” and “Commentator.” I assure your 
worthy correspondent that my observations on his for¬ 
mer communication would have been entirely different 
in character had I supposed, even for a moment, that 
they would hurt his feelings in the slightest degree. I 
protest that I had no intention of the kind; but expected 
merely to draw towards a dry subject—as most agricultu- 
ral matters are generally considered—somewhat more 
attention than it would otherwise receive. If in so do¬ 
ing I have excited any disagreeable feelings in him, I 
sincerely regret it; and, by way of atonement, would 
willingly and silently submit to any retaliation he might 
choose to make through your paper. But it seems that 
his charity and good humor have prepared for me a very 
different kind of “drubbing,” which I will most joyfully 
receive, should I ever be so fortunate as to meet with 
him in his own state. 
One word about “ Moisture Rising.” If “Pearl” will 
take the trouble to invert a glass tumbler on the hardest 
path, in the hottest and driest weather, and draw some 
loose earth around the bottom, so as to exclude the air 
entirely, he will soon see moisture collected on the in¬ 
side of the glass. This will convince him that it does 
rise. — 
Although I shall probably be “ running against a 
snag,” (as they vulgarly say,) to utter a word which 
even squints at finding fault with the “ Dictionary of 
Terms used in Agriculture and its kindred Sciences,” I 
must risk an objection to at least one of the author’s defi¬ 
nitions, or rather explanations, in this number of your 
paper. But I will first state a general rule, to the truth 
and propriety of which I presume the learned and intelli¬ 
gent author himself will agree. In explaining any word 
or term, no words or terms should be used that are less 
intelligible than that which is to be explained. Provin¬ 
cialisms, therefore, should always be excluded from ex¬ 
planations; for they themselves are the terms which 
most require to be rendered intelligible to the generality 
of readers. Yet the author of the Dictionary of Terms 
has used two in his explanation of the word “Hoove,” 
or “Hoven,” the meaning of which is as utterly un¬ 
known to a vast majority of the planters and farmers of 
the United States as if they were Hebrew or Sanscrit. 
Those words are— “rowen or fog.” * I myself had to 
make a long search for them, but without success, until 
I happened to think of Marshall’s Rural Economy of 
certain counties in England; and there I luckily found 
* Commentator could have found both these words in Web¬ 
ster’s Dictionary.— Eds. 
them. He stales the first as one of the provincialisms of 
Norfolk, and the second of Yorkshire; but both mean¬ 
ing—“ after-grass.” 
Your intelligent correspondent, “ Richmond,” has 
stated a single fact in his interesting communication, 
upon which I will venture to offer a few brief remarks. 
He says—“ Of late years, the cultivators of the soil in 
the neighborhood of New-York city use the unleached 
ashes, applying about a gill to a hill of corn before the 
first hoeing.” Now that this practice is wrong, has 
been demonstrated, I think, to the entire satisfaction of 
any man who will take the trouble to read and reflect on 
the numerous comparative experiments which have 
been made and published between this partial applica¬ 
tion of ashes, or any other kind of manure, and using it 
broadcast. What has led to the error is, that it certainly 
hastens the early growth of any plant to which it is thus 
partially applied; but it is because the young roots have 
not yet shot forth beyond its reach. As soon as they do, 
and fail to receive this additional supply of nutriment, 
they suffer more for the want of it than they otherwise 
would do. It is like putting a man on half allowance 
after having fed him, for some time, fully and luxuri¬ 
antly. The similitude holds good, particularly in re¬ 
gard to Indian corn, whose roots, as every corn-grower 
knows, soon extend several feet horizontally from the 
stalk, and in every direction around it. Now it is also 
generally known that all the nutriment which plants de¬ 
rive from the earth is first absorbed by little vessels, 
called “ spongioles,” at the very extremities of their 
roots, and thence conveyed to them through the main 
stems of the roots themselves. No manure, therefore, 
applied immediately around their stems or stalks, can be 
imparted to them where there are very few or no spon¬ 
gioles to absorb it. This is true of Indian corn, and all 
other plants that extend their roots to such considerable 
distances. — 
Commentator begs leave to return his very sincere 
thanks to your worthy and talented correspondent L. A. 
Morrell, Esq., for the high estimate he has been pleased 
to make of Commentator’s communications; and regrets 
much that he cannot give his real name consistently with 
his objects in taking upon himself the office of a Re¬ 
viewer. Mr. Morrell will probably agree with him, if 
he will duly reflect on the following suggestion. Criti¬ 
cism, to be useful, should always come from some un¬ 
known author; since then only can it be tried on its own 
merits. Once let his name be made public, and his 
readers forthwith begin to try him, instead of trying the 
subject upon which he writes; and their merits or de¬ 
merits become quite secondary objects, if indeed they 
are not entirely overlooked. This is the sole reason 
why Commentator has assumed, and intends to continue 
his present signature. 
Your humorous and very entertaining, as well as in¬ 
structive correspondent, “A. of the North,” has given 
us quite an amusing thing in his « Agricultural Thermo¬ 
meter;” but in the hands of one whose good nature and 
kindliness of disposition incline him so much more to 
praise than to blame, I fear he will not make it so gene¬ 
rally useful to his brother farmers as if he would occa¬ 
sionally pour into the tube of his implement a few drops 
of tincture of quassia, and extract of capsicum. 
In the description of Mr. Stone’s stables by Mr. L. 
Durand, there is one thing which I have always heard 
objected to by those best acquainted with the manage¬ 
ment of horses; it is to such a descent to the stable 
floors. Two or three inches are deemed too much, as 
the horses stand thereon in an unnatural position, as it 
were up hill; and such descent is greater than necessary 
to drain off the manure. 
Under the head of “Plowing at Syracuse,” there 
are some very sensible remarks by some person who 
signs himself a “Friend to Agriculture.” It would 
seem by what he says of the plowing match on that oc¬ 
casion, as if speed had been more regarded than any of 
the other matters which were there required to consti¬ 
tute good plowing, although it surely ought to be ranked 
last. This misjudging in regard to the essentials of 
good plowing is a too common fault, and ought to be 
corrected, or the chief advantage of such competitions 
will be lost. — 
I omitted to notice in its proper place Col. Wade 
Hampton’s recommendation to the South Carolina State 
Society of what he calls “ Musquite Grass,” which he 
says is a native of Texas, although the seed that pro¬ 
duced his was sent to him by a Mr. Carter of Alabama, 
who speaks very highly of it. Col. Hampton also 
gives it a high character. I will therefore take the 
liberty of suggesting to both these gentlemen, (should 
they ever see this article,) that many of their brother 
farmers, farther north, would probably thank them if 
they would send a bushel or two of the seed to that very 
zealous friend of agriculture, H. L. Ellsworth, commis¬ 
sioner of patents, for distribution. This would be the 
most effectual way of having the grass extensively tried. 
The first article which engaged my attention in your 
February number was the interesting account of the an¬ 
nual meeting of your State Agricultural Society. The 
members are pursuing the true course to render this in¬ 
stitution universally popular; and that is to procure the 
attendance of as many as practicable of the public func¬ 
tionaries of the state, and of gentlemen otherwise distin¬ 
guished. When such men appear to take an active inte¬ 
rest in these exhibitions, their example will always 
have a powerful influence on the general mass of our 
population. Indeed, if our public men generally, and 
the more wealthy and better educated portion of our ci¬ 
tizens, could only be made aware of the great good they 
could accomplish merely by their attendance on such 
occasions, but especially by zealous co-operation, we 
should surely find many more of them than we do, among 
the leaders of every voluntary association, however 
humble, the object of which was to promote the general 
welfare; and such, in a pre-eminent degree, are all ag¬ 
ricultural societies. May the amplest success attend 
them all. — 
The letter from London, of your correspondent T. C. 
Peters, is, upon the whole, so flattering) to our national 
vanity, that I am sorry to differ from him in any respect. 
But there are two or three of his opinions which seem 
to me erroneous; although some perhaps may deem me 
presumptuous in thus expressing myself. For instance, 
he says—“As an agricultural people, we are not 30 
years behind the people here.” Now, although this 
may possibly be true of some small portions of the 
northern and eastern states, it will require a most extra¬ 
vagant degree of credulity to believe that 30, or even 90 
years could bring the agriculture of a large majority of 
the United States to a par with that of England, which 
Mr. Peters himself says is “ but an enlarged system of 
gardening.” Two things must happen before such equa¬ 
lity could be—even possible. The population of these 
states, (very large portions of which are yet wilderness¬ 
es,) must be as dense as that of England, and labor as 
cheap. 
Again, he says—“At some time, I make no doubt, 
hedges mil become necessary with us,” &c. This may 
happen around our large towns and cities, after the adja¬ 
cent farms have been reduced to their smallest dimen¬ 
sions, so that their enclosures may be permanent. But 
the law of descents in all our states, and the practice 
now almost universal, of continually dividing and subdi¬ 
viding landed estates among the children of our families, 
which produces frequent corresponding changes of the 
enclosures, must forever render hedges unsuitable as a 
general system of fencing, unless indeed, these laws and 
practices should be changed; of which there seems to be 
not the most distant probability. But even if these two 
causes were removed, there are other obstacles in the 
way that appear to be very hard to overcome. In the 
first place, no hedge plant yet tried among us has suc¬ 
ceeded perfectly anywhere; at least, I have neither seen 
nor heard of it. On the contrary, I have witnessed 
many trials, in about the latitude 38, of all the varieties 
of thorn—both imported and native—of the cedar, the 
non descript rose of South Carolina, and the honey-lo¬ 
cust, or gleditschia triacanthos. All have failed wfith us, 
either from incurable diseases that kill the plants, which 
is the case here with the thorns and the cedar, or from 
unsuitability to the climate, which is the objection to 
the non descript rose, or from being altogether unfit for 
hedging, as the honey locust has been found to be. 
This latter plant was tried many years ago, as far north 
as Long-Island, by that distinguished gentleman, Rufus 
King, who told me that he had failed to make a good 
hedge of it. As to the thorns, they have been tried, I 
believe, more extensively in Delaware than in any other 
state. Yet, even there, a very intelligent and highly 
respectable farmer lately informed me that many of the 
farmers are cutting them down, and substituting movea¬ 
ble wood fences. The cedar is the least suitable of all; 
for it is subject to more diseases. In the second and last 
place, hedges are a much more expensive kind of fence 
than any fence of wood, where suitable timber can be 
procured at any price yet generally given for it. Of 
this fact, any reasonable man may satisfy himself who 
will take the trouble to make the calculation fairly and 
accurately. For instance, let him estimate the expense 
of the following indispensable prerequisites in making a 
hedge. First, the preparation of the ground; the pur¬ 
chase and setting of the plants; the making and keeping 
up of a protective wood fence for five or six years, since 
it takes that time to make a hedge effective against 
stock, even when the plants live; the annual culture of 
the ground for at least three or four of the first years; 
and the yearly pruning of the hedge forever thereafter. 
Then let him calculate the entire cost of a moveable 
wood fence, which I know from my own experience 
will last without repair for at least 17 or 18 years, if 
made of suitable kinds of timber; and if he does not 
deem the latter preferable on every account, I will agree 
that I know nothing about the matter. 
The discontinuance of the agricultural survey of Mas¬ 
sachusetts has surprised me more than any legislative act, 
—strange—most strange, as several of them have been 
in other states,—which has been passed in these topsy- 
turvey times. It surely could not have proceeded from 
any objection to the reports of the Rev. Mr. Colman; 
for they have been highly approved in other portions of 
our country. What then can it be? Has Brother Jona¬ 
than—the man heretofore famed, not only at home but 
abroad, for his public spirit—his “ go-ahead,” undaunta- 
ble perseverance in all works of public utility—evapo¬ 
rated? Has he, too,—like the rest of us—become “ wea¬ 
ry in well doing?” Alas! for our country, when such 
backslidings are taking place—even in yankee land! 
Under the head of “Agricultural Journals, &c.” you 
have enumerated so many as to excite a strong desire to 
know how many we now have in the United States. 
Such a catalogue would form an interesting item in our 
