Newspaper of Burlington Free Press, June 15, 1838, Page 1

Newspaper of Burlington Free Press dated June 15, 1838 Page 1
Text content (automatically generated)

I MM IIMIU UULIMI LUIt. NOT THE G Ii O It Y O V C IE S A II II IJ T T II li W 13 L 1' A U H c) F n o m K . BY II. B. STACY. Mr. Stacv Herewith I send you Tor publication in your useful paper, a reply to Mr. J. Holcomb's right handed compli ment, addressed to mo and published in tho Vermont Telegraph of January 3d, togeth er with a reply to all the arguments which I have 6een advanced by the opponents of tho resolution that passed the legislature of Vermont at their last October session, declaring that the legislature did not pos sess the constitutional power to pass a law to interdict the making and vending of ar dent spirits. But hero it is proper to in form you of the reasons lor my making this request. On the 22d of November last was published in the Vermont Telegraph, un der the signature of J. Holcomb of Bran don, addressed to mc, what lie styled a left handed compliment, on the subject of the abovorcsolution. Tho language in his compliment, as he termed it, appeared to me to be scandalous and abusivo in the extreme. I therefore wrote such a reply to his compliment as I thought he justly deserved, and sent it to the editor of the Telegraph for publication. Mr. Murray, although he published my reply, instead ol acting the part of an impartial editor, made himself a partisan in the case assumed the right of j idging of tho merits of the respec- tivc parlies informed the readers of the 'Telegraph that Mr. Holcomb had, by his production placed himself on enviable ground. lie informed ine, also, in his ed itorial rjmarks, that I should find a poser in the remarks of Mr. Curtis, which, by a happy coincidence, he said, fell into tho v same papr, side by side with my remarks ; 'nd after .recommending to his readers a careful pfrusal of the remarks of Mr. Cur tis, he challenges discussion on the subject in the following words, " come on ye sixty' throo.givcr.s your strong reasons;" alluding to the s'uty throe that voted in the affirma tive of the resolution. I made no reply to the part'nl and ungenerous remarks of the editor; but when tho right handed com pliment ol J. Holcomb, appeared in the Telegraph of January 3d, in which my views of the subject were entirely misrep resented, I came to the conclusion to com mit my reasons to writing which had pro vailed on mc to bring forward and sustain the resolution in question in the legisla ture, and also to notice the manner in which that resolution had been treated by its opponents. The papers herewith trans mitted to you for publication contain my rcason3 on that subject, which I sent by mail to the editor of the Vermont Tele graph for publication, on the 7ih day of March ; but hearing nothing from said pa pers, about the twentieth of April I addres sed a letter to Mr. Murray and requested him, if he did not intend to publish my re marks that he would return tho papers to nic again by tho next mail, together with his reasons for not granting my request. 1 received the papers again by mail on the Golfi April. They were returned to mo in the same wrapper in which they wcro sent without any communication to me from Mr Murray, on the subject whatever, leaving me to conjecture his reasons for so singu lar a procedure; but probably after read ing my remarks, ho, like the Senator from South Carolina, bolieving that the victory would not accrue to himself and his party, lie thorcfore closes the columns of the Tel cgraph against mo, although lie had in formed me that its columns were wide opon to mc for the discussion of the subject, and gravely comMKs that silent contempt would be twt'Wst noble reply. Here, sir, w) have an example of the 'temper and disposition of a modern reform er, whose motto is, " I am set for tho de fence of tho Gospel " I had heretofore flattered myself that Vermont was a land of civil and religious liberty, where free and liboral discussion wore maintained in the greatest purity. It is twenty six years since I first became a member of the Ver- 1 moot Legislature, and never until the last 1 session, had I known frco discussion on nn important quostion defeated by bigotry and fanaticism. I hud often seen the disappro. Nation of tho House manifested towards members who had consumed much time in Incoking on unimportant subjects, by lounhing, stamping, and the like means, lut my fault wa3 not that of waisting the llmo of the legislature cithor in long or short speeches, hut my unpardonable fault consisted in bringing forward a resolution in the legislature that was in opposition to the viows of that bigotry and fanaticism which Is maddening around tho land undor the specious pretext of reforming mankind, I was deprived of that privilege of express ing my viows on the subject of that rcsolu lion in qucetiou at tho timo of ita passage. 1 have since been called upon by the op ponents of lint resolution for masons to jus tify mysolf in bringing forward and voting for said resolution. I havo boon invited and oven challenged, by tho editor of the Ver mont Telegraph, to give my reasons to tho public through tho medium of his paper, fur my conduct in tho caso undor consideration ; and after I had complied with his request, and furnished him with my masons for pub. lication, ho now refuses to publish them. I am now, therefore, under tho necessity of asking that as a favor from you, which I considered myself entitled to as si right from tho editor of tho Telegraph. If you will publish my reply to .T. Holcomb and olhurs hero enclosed, in tho Frco Pros?, together with Ibis communication, and furnish mc with thirty extra papers, you will oblige a friend. ELIJAH DEE. Georgia, May 15, 1038. Mu. Orson S. MurwAY. Sir: Herein in cloed I fciiiI you for pntilic.ilion 11 reply to Mr. i IJoleomb's t ttit linml compliment, addressed to mo Hint published in llie Vermont Telegraph nf January the 3d, and also a reply l lira remarks of some oilier persons nn the same subject, together wilh a statement of my reasons far carrviw for ward nndfiipportins i" the I.egislaiuic of Vei mont that Resolution, which appear lo be eo objectiona hie lo .Mr. Holcomb anil others. Yon inform me, in the I'elesrapli of Decemhor the 27th, il I hcro aller wUh to ucetipy the column of the Telegraph in defence of the resoliilion Minded to, that I most confine mjself within the bmtmls of common decency and "ood manners. I am not ennscinm of any hiraeh of decorum in my teply to Mr. J Holcomli's lefi handed compliment, 1ml if I have in thai reply lr.iiisiessed liny rules of decency and Rood in in nets, "let the odium rct on mu and not on lite editor of lite Telegraph. 1 therefore hope llinl after ?uf foihi' my n imo to be drought fo unceremoniously before the public, 1I110113I1 the medium of the Tel-i-ianh, you will not now lefu-e 10 publish my do r.?,. iil'il.riir-b mv manners should not appear po ,nfi,.o,l nj mi-, llolcoiub and some others. Rut if you should cjncltnlo not to publish what I have written on the subject in question, I wish you to do me the faor to return the papers lo mo again wiili i-mir inasnna for so doing. lours Willi esteem. Georgia, March 5, 1S3S ELIJAH DEE. Mn. J. Holcomb, Sin: T havo received the Telegraph of December tho 3d, in which was published your right hand com pliment addressed to mc, to which I have endeavored to give all that consideration that its importance demands, and have come to the conclusion that after a few remaks on vour right hand address justice to myself will compel me to state explicitly through the medium ot the reicgrapu, tne reasons that induced mo to bring lorward and sustain that resolution that appears to be so offensive to you and some others ortlnr that the readers of the Telegraph may havo a correct view of tho subject, which otherwise they could not have, from the incorrect statements which you have made relative lo my views on that subject ; I do not accuse vou of wilfully misrepre senting my view's on that subject, but I do sav. had vou possessed that prudence and temperance which you so strongly recom mend to others, you never would have undertaken to refute any man's reasons for anv opinion which he might have formed, until you had known what his reasons wore, and contend as yon havo dono in the present case, on aumed and false premises, as I shall hereafter make it appear. I now proceed to make a few remarks on your right hand compliment. In that you say it han old, and you believe generally, a true adago 'Hhat wounded birdi Jluller ;" that you"haveseen the truth of it verified among the different species of the feathered race, but never did "in all your bom days" see any one tako on so bitterly as I did when proclaiming to the worm mat 1110 ion, nanu compliment had hit mc. 1 shall not stop hero to enquire how many "uorn nays or birth days R required to oring into exist ence a gonitis of your size and dimensions, neither slnll I contend with you whether I Adjured much or litllo under tho influ- enco pjsyour " nanu compiiineiu, ucuncr shoiriMitlcir, provolhat which appears to be self-Rvi' , namely, that all which you have widen both in your left and right hand compliments appears to be hut little else than lltitterings ; but shall leave that for others to read and judge lor themselves. You say that I virtually nccuse you of beginning with mo abruptly. Hut 1 have accusrd you of no such thing; hut, I do accuse yon of making the most ungenerous mid uncharitablo suggestions respecting Ilia characters of those who voted in the affirmative of the resolution hereloforc alluded to, in tho ab?ccnco of all truth to justify you in such suggestions. You say, also, that I seem to Until; that you intended lo scandalize the sixty ihree that vi. ted in the nfilrtnativo of the resolution in question, but you say vqu did not design to uso scandalous language towards any of them, uor did you wmh to injure any of them; but what will the candid readers of tho Tele, graph think of you after offering to mako a bet that thoso who voted for tho rcsolu tiou ot the time of its passago, were under tho influence of rum sellers or rum drink ers, and vet you say, you did not meun to use scandalous language towards any of them j will they not think that your moral senso was nt a very low ebb when von penned vour loft hand compliment or that your declaration, that you did not mean to scaiidahza any of them is not true .' Hut that I shall leave to vour readers to judge of for themselves Yon say that you wcro informed that the language that 1 used in support of tho resolution was contained in iho first article of tho bill of Rights, but how, or from whom did you obtain this information ? Tho resolution was not dis cussed in tho Legislature, and although tho frionds of the resolution sought discussion nn tho subiccl. vet tho enemies of tho roso lutiou prevented all discussion uy a uitiu 01 ahuflling policy, FRIDAY, 1 will now nrocccd to state the reasons that induced tne to carry forward and sus tain tho resolution in question. Hut hero it becomes necessary to state, that iinmcui atclv after tho commencement of the ses sion of tho Legislature last October, many petitions wore presented to 1 lie Legislature from various pnrls of thu state, praying fur tho passage of a law to interdict the making and vending of ardent (mints in this-state, and as I bn'ioved then wilh a majority of the members, and am still ot the same opinion, that such a law would be both unconstitutional and injurious to the public welfare. I therefore in accord ance with that opinion, carried lorward tho resolution, declaring that tho Legislature of Vermont did not possess tho constitu tional right to pas a law to interdict the makintr and vending of ardent spirits. Tho rnnsm whv I believe that such a law would bo unconstitutional, is because I believe it would be injurious lo tho public welfare. Ynor nrrrunionts are all directed to prove that thcTLoinslaiuro has the constitutional right to pas all laws which are necessary for tho nublic welfare. In this opinion I heartily concur with you, and instead of weakening your belief on that point I will endeavor lo strengthen it by referring you to a section in the constitution that is more explicit on the subject than any which you have quoted, but deny that sucii a law as you and others contend for would bo for the public welfare. Tho section to which l would refer you is tho bin section m mc plan of government. That section, after specifying numerous powers granted to the Legislature, concludes by saying "ami uiey shall have all other poieer.i necessary for Ike Uouic of Representatives- of a free and sovereign slate, Out lacy shall liava nn power Id add, lo alter, abolish, or infringe any pari of the Constitution." The .Constitu tion docs not say mat tne ijogisiaiuro suan have power to pass 11 law to interdict the miking and vending of anient spirits, nei ther does it say that it shall not have that power ; but it says the Legislature shall have all the power that is qeccssary for a free and sovereign state, therefore if stich a law is necessary it would be constitutional, it is not necessary it follows of course, that it would not be constitutional. This is precisely tho same principle laid down by Daniel Webster when arguing the consti tutional right of Congress to establish a Bank of the United States. You have therefore, in my opinion, only to prove that a law to interdict tho making and vending of ardent spirits is necessary for the public welfare to prove tiiat such a law would bo constitutional; but such a law in my view would bo injurious to the public welfare, for this plain reason, that tho making of ardent spirits is both nsclul and necessary, and as every individual cannot mako for himself it becomes necessary that there bhould be sale made of it under such re strictions as will best nccord with tho pub lie welfare. No criminality exists in the making or in tho temperate uso of anient spirits, but it wholly consists in the abuse if t Thn T-ofrialnturn Ims nhvnva pvnr. cntcd the right, and as I believe justly, to restrain drunkenness and the improper use of ardent spirits by penal laws. But there is some individuals to be found, however zealous they may be for the temperance reform, who do not mako use of ardont spirits in pickary, camphor, and in various ways, and none to my knowledge but what consider it actually necessary in sickness, and yet they petition the Legislature to pas3 a law to interdict both the making and vending of ardent spirits. Surely, they havo not become so infatuated as to believe that they can have anient spirits without its being made. Would such a law bo con stitutional? would it bo adaplcd to tho feelings and wants of tho people, and pro mote the public welfare ? Let reason and common sense decide the question. Hut 1 hero is another class that petition the Legislature to interdict thu sale of ardent spirits as a drink ; hut how is such a law to be carried into effect? Would they cstab- lish an inquisition in every town or neigh borhood with power to grant licenses 10 purchase liquors in case ot sickness, and to punish by fine all who should presume to judge for themselves when its uso is nocessary : I Know ot no otuer way 10 curry such a law into effect. 1 will now nstt all ot mose who arc friendly to tho temperance reform, if in all cases, both in sickness and health, when ever you shall believe that spirituous liquors of any kind will be useful to your self or families, if you arc willing lo he compelled by luw, lirst, to go and obtain a license amidst tho multiplied cares which sickness or other casualties may produce, before you can pnrchaso spirituous liquors for tho uso of your families, without sub- entiiiL' yourselves to a lino tor so doing. Would not sucii a law 00 nn aunugemoin 01 vour rights mid a violation of tho consti tntiou ? I verily believed it would, at tho time of the pass-ago of the resolution in nnnstioo. nud have soon no reason for changing my mind on that subject sinco. The linTt nrtielo on tho Bill 'of Rights, declares that all men nro born equaly free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable righte ; among which nro the enjoying life aid liberty, acquiring, possessing nnd protecting prop orly, and preserving happiness nnd safety. Those inalienable rights spoken of must mean something or nothing. It is admitted on all hands that a person who joins a gov. eminent compact, must give up some 01 ins natural rights tor tno joint nuuum. m iuu whole, but the framors of the Constitution undoubtedly meant by those natural, mho ront and unalienable- rights spoken of, In comprehend all the individual, rights which do not conflict with tho gonoral welfare. That every individual has an inalienable right to follow nny occupation, trade or callitis that would bo most iiiirocublo, or that would in Ills opinion ba most conducive 'to Ins happiness; that oycry person Ims a JUJVJE 1.5, 1838. uwLturrauexvaiM right to jndgo for himself what he shall cat and what lie shall drink, and wherewithal he shall be clothed ; that every fanner has an inalienable right to plnnt an Orchard, to raise apples, and to make his apples into cidnr. nnd alio to distil his cider into brandy if ho believes it will be more con ducive lo his happiness, and to drink it with his faintly, or with his neighbor, os his private or social feelings may direct ; all this an individual has an inalienable right to do, provided ho is temperate in all his proceeding.!. But if nn individual be comes intctr iterate and a drunkard, wastes his property anil abuses his family, and becomes a nuisance to society, such tin individual forleits Ins right to government, and government has wisely provided by law that such a person shall havo a master over him nntj shall bo deprived of the privilege of buying and selling; but it does not follow of course, that ninety-nine per sons out of a hundred, who have always mule a temperate use of ardent spirits. shall be deprived of tho use of it because one out of a hundred persons has made n bad use of it nnd become a drunkard Such a law could never be a law to pro mote the gonoral welfare. It is a sound maxim in the theory of civil Government that the highest perfection of civil nnd religious liberty is, when tho civil Govern ment imposes no more personal restraint than tho good of society actually rcnuircs: but it has been the case in all ages of the world that bigotry and fanaticism have been in the practice of passing arbitrary and unreasonable laws, thereby depriving many members ol the community of thWt natural and dearest rights. Witness the bluo laws of Connecticut, enacted in the hrst settlement of that colony. One of their Iaw3 deprived any man from enjoying the privileges of a ,'reernan unless he was a church member, nnd in full communion in some church allowed of in that dominion. Another prohibits a man's runnitm- on Sun- day, or walking in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting. Another law they enacted against any man's courting a maid in person until he nan tirst obtained the consent of her pa rents; together with many other laws of tne same nature. Jiut with all their big otry and superstition they were much more rational than our modern temperance re. formers when legislating on tho subject or intemporance, lor uiey, instead or .de priving every temperate person of the use ot spirituous liquors to prevent drunken nes; declared by (ho law that a drunkard should have a master put over him, and that he should be deprived nf the privi lodge of buying or selling. The same in substance as the present statute law of Vermont on that subject, and that law has siood tno test ot experience from its first passage by the Puritans, down to tho present tunc, and yet it appears to bo none mo worse lor wear, jsut l am informed by the editor of the Telegraph, that I shall find a poser in the remarks of Mr. Curtis, which ho says, by a happy coincidence falls into the same paner side by side with my reply to your left hand compliment. You will excuse mc there fore, while I make a few remarks on that production. And first, I will gay to Mr Curtis, that I shall say nothing to him on the subject for the purpose of irritating wounding his feelings, yet I shall treat the subject with that firmness which the case so obviously demands. In cast tug my eyes over that production, I be lieve the temperance society of Brandon assembled at the Meeting House in that. place, on the ItHh day of December last headed by a political clergyman, virtually organizing themselves iutu a high court of error, for the purpose of reversing 1 decision made by tho Legislature of Ver mont nt their lai-t October session, nnd Mr- Curtis acting as gentleman usher, as he informs us, lo usher in a resolution 11 tho following words: Resolved, That the Legislature of Ver. moot has the constitutional right to inter met by law, the trallic in anient spirits, and that the public good, in our opinion requires the exercise of that power at the next session ot that body. This was intended to be held up to pub lie view by Mr. Curtis as tho rcvorse of that resolution in question that passed the Legislature at tho last October session, as appears by his remarks on tho subject though it is not the ease as I shall make it appear hereafter. Whether tho resolution introduced by Mr. Curtis was passed 111 the aflirmalive by that high Court ot hrror or not I do not know, as I do not read the Pel ugraph excepting when it is sent to me for particular purposes, but Irom what 1 nave seen in a similar case, 1 shall run no great risk in presuming that it passed by an unan unous votn ; for that would bo in accord anco with tho doing of the Temperance Society of Montpolier, hist October, during the sitting ot the Legislature. At that time there was, at a meeting of that socio tv, a resolution introduced, similar to tho one introduced by Mr. Curtis to the Bran don temperance society, previous lo any action being hail on tho temperance peti tion in tho Legislature, except the rehiring said petition to 11 committee ; and alte thoir orators had exhausted themselves on the 6ubiect, nnd n political clergyman, Mr Wright, had applauded the females of tho society lor the influence which they had oxcrted in tlio tctiipcranco cause, they wcro a 1 1 requested, who wore in favor of tho passage 01 too resolution, 10 mai,o 11 main lest by rising frum their seats; which they did, and I behevo the vote was unanimous so far us it respected the temperance so clcty. Hut a majority of tho members of the logislaturo proved refractory ,and would not consent to havo the edict of tho tem perance society recorded in the nrchiovc3 of the State j and for this thoy have been Hlandorcd, and represented as acting from unworthy motives, and as being ignorant of the principles ol the Coiu',jtUUou. I would now nsk Mr Curtis if, in view oi his conduct 111 the temperance society of Brandon, heretofore alluded to, together with Hint of Montpolier, itdocs not nppcar that the finger of Political Priest Craft is very busy in nil those societies ; and I will furl her nsk of Mr. Curtis, if his con duct in the case alluded lo docs not better correspond with Hint of tho Pope, possess ing all spiritual nut! temporal power, than with tho character of tin humble ambassa dor of Jesus Christ, who proclaimed to his followers that his kingdom was not of this world. I shall not prcsumo to be your judge on these questions. I put them for your consideration, nnd shall leave them for a candid public to decide. I will now proceed to examine your ar guments adduced in support of tho Bran don resolution, and those in opposition to that of the legislature ; and first, I will observe, that almost all the arguments ad duced by the opponents of tho resolution of the legislature, and the references to tho constitution of tho State, are all for the purpose of proving, that the legislature has constitutional powor to pass all laws which arc necessary for the public welfare. But you will perceive by my reply to Mr. Holcomb, that there is no question between us on that point ; but I deny that such a law as you and others contend for would bo for the public welfare. You presume that such a lav would bo for the public welfare, out adduce no arguments to prove the fact. , I shall now proceed to notice the man ner in which you treated tho subject under consideration. Your resolution introduced to the temperance society of Brandon de clares that the legislature of the Stale of Vermont has the constitutional right to pass a law to prohibit (he traffic in ardent pints. It you wished to discuss the pro priety of the votes of those who voted in tho affirmative of Hie resolution of the legislature, as it appears it was your object, why did yon not slate the resolution as il was passed by tho legislature: Why did you state one half of the question contained in the resolution? anil then hold it up to public view as meeting nil the principles contained in that resolution. But in your pecoh before tho temperance society in Brandon on the subject in question, you say that you have repeatedly affixed your name to petitions soliciting the legislature to interdict by law, the sale of ardent spi rits as a drink. By the manner in which you qualify your expression you appear to virtually ndrnit that the sale of ardent spirits under proper restrictions is necessary which is admitted by many of the temper anco reformers ; which admission virtually concedes all tho principles contained in the resolution which you so much condemn and represent as a baseless fabric ; for I believe Unit you will not admit that the use ot or. dent spirits is in some cases necessary, and yet contend that the making of spirits is unnecessary. The petitions that were presented to the legislature last fall, many ot them prayed tor a law to interdict both the making nnd vending of ardent spirits without any qualification whatever. And on the other hand thu resolution of the legislature declared that it did not possess the constitutional power to pass a law to interdict the making and vending nf ardent pirits ; though that vote for that resolu tion diil not contend against the constitu tional right of the legislature to regulate the sale of ardent spirits in any way that the good of the public may require; but they contended that the legislature did not possess the constittuional power to deprive the people of Vermont of the use of ardent spirits in all casps whatever, which would have been the ellect ol tho law prayed lor. But the committee of the legislature to whom was referred the tempcranco peti tions say in their report, that a law may be clearly nnd strictly constitutional and yet be not based upon sound policy or common sense. Jsut 1 deny the constitutional right of the legislature to pass nny law that is injurious to tho people. That the legisla turc has a constitutional right to pass a law that is wrong, is a contradiction in terms, besides being a reproach upon the sages that formed that instrument. But let us examine this prmciplo for a moment. The framors of tho constitution in the Cth section of the plan ofgovernmcnt, after specifying numerous grams of power given to the legislature, nod being sensible that they should not be able to particular ize all the powers that would bo necessary for the legislature lo exorcise, they then, in order that the power of the legislature might bo co-extensive with tho wants of tho public, grant a gonoral power to the legislature in the following words: " Anil then shall have all other powers necessary Jor the House of Representatives of a free and sovereign stale, but Uiey shall have no powers la add, lo alter, abolish, or expunge any pari of (his constitution ;" meaning thereby, that the legislature should not in fringe upon the powers granted to other departments of the government, but should in all cases keep within tho into spirit and meaning of the constitution ; and yet this learned committee infer from this general grant of power, (for there is no specified power granted 111 the constitution to the legislature to pass such a law) that the legislature possesses the right to pass a law that is a mockery of sound policy nud com moii sense ; unit I will add, if the report of that committee is not n mockerv ol coin 111011 sense, I do not know where to look for any thing that is. You say in your address, that tho legis laturo have requuntly panscd laws involv ing tho same power as that now called in questionmoaning the powor called uiiuslion in the resolution of the legislature heretofore spoken of of which thoso in relation to L'tnnblinn-. horso racing and tho vending of lottery tickets, nrc examples. But this is far from being correct in my view. 1 bclicvo that you will ndniit thut k fumbling, horso racing nnd tho vending of VOL. XI No. 573 lottery tickets arc nil injurious to the pub lic mornls when practised in the Icntt de gree, while on tho other hand the making and vending of ardent spirits, under proper tcstrictions, is bnlh necessary nnd useful, and docs not involve the snmo principle. If tho legislature had passed a law to in terdict the raising nnd selling of horses to prevent hnrso racing, such a law would in- volvo the same principle ns a law to intor dict the making and vending of ardentepir its to prevent drunkenness. I will now conclude with you, Mr. Cur lis, after making one general remark, viz. that history and experience has abundant ly proved, "in all ages of the world, that bigoted scctatians, however honest they may have been, arc unsafe guardians of tho general welfare. I will now return and take my leave of Mr. Holcomb. You say, sir, in your right hand compliment, that it is a folly for mo to lot my feelings rise so high, while con versing wilh a left-handed blacksmith, who is destitute of common sense. If I had in dulged myself in angry feelings towards you, 1 should consider your admonitions just, but I am not conscious that such ia the case in my reply to your left handed compliment. I endeavored to treat you according lo your character as manifested in that production ; and on maturo reflec tion I find no cause to regret nny thing that I have said in that reply. You say also, that you did not design lo scandalize any of the sixty three that voted for my resolu tion, and yet you ofijrcd to bet that they were under the influence of rum sellers or rum drinkers at the time they voted for tho passage of tho resolution. I can scarcely believe that any man of common sense could believe that such an insinuation was nut intended to scandalize, nnd yet you say that that was not your design. I wish to be as charitable as possible, nnd nm mora disposed to pity than to bj angry with you, aod will therefore conclude, by giving you tho best advice that I am capable of. You say you arc a blacksmith. 1 would therefore advise you, if you have a good run of custom in your line of business, to stick close to your trade, and in that way you will bo more useful to yourseii anu beneficial to the public, than in spending your lime in writing compliments to me, which aro not very edifying either to mo or the public. As to myself, I can assure you that I can spend my timo much moro usefully and agreeably in my domestic con cerns, than in writing answers to your compliments. I will therefore conclude by wishing yon health and prosperity in all your laudable undertakings. Elijah Dee. Mr. J. Holcomb, nf Brandon. Georgia, Feb. 24, 1838. Front the Cultivator. THE NEW HUSBANDRY. V. ROOT CULTURE. The advantage of root culture to thrj soil, in the alternating system, has already been briefly alluded to; but this culture possesscss higher claims to our notice than the bare influence it has in ameliorating the soil : It constitutes otherwise a valuable source of fertility to the farm, and of profit, to the farmer. It trebles tho amount of cattle food, and doubles the quantity of manure, i'otatocs constitute a great por tion of of the bread and meat of the Irish peasantry, feed their cows, fatten their pigs and poultry, and form an article of foreign commerce. I he turnip has Jong been made an important crop in German husbandry. The beet has become so im portant in Prance, as lo engage the atten tion ol her scientific men, and of the aov- crnment, in extending its culture. Tho field culture of the carrot has long been profitably pursued among the Flemings. And as it regards ureat Britain, whosu example in husbandry is deservedly held up for our imitation, her best writers on rural matters, and her best practical farm ers, all concur in saying, that her pre-emi nent success in modern husbandry, has been in a great measure owing to tho introduction of turnips as a field crop in that island. We will here quote a passage from the New Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, in corroboration of whnt wo say: Hie introduction of turnips into tho husbandry of Britain, occasioned one of those revolutions in rural art which aro constantly occurring among husbandmen, and, though the revolution camo on with slow and gradual steps, vet it may now ha viewed as completely and thoroughly estab lished, belorc the introduction ol this root. it was impossible to cultivate light soils successfully, or to devise suitable rotations for cropping them with advantage. It was likewise a difficult task to support livo stock through the winter and spring months; nnd as for feeding and preparing cattle and shucp for market, during these inclement seasons, the practice was hardly thought of, and still more rarely attempted, unless whore n full stock of hay was pro vided, which only happened in n very few instances, The benefits derived from tur nip husbandry arc, therefore, of great magnitude: light soils arc now cultivated with profit and facility; nbundanco of food is provided for man and beast; tho earth is turned to its uses for which it is phytically calculated ; and, by being suitably cleaned with this preparatory crop, a bed is provid. cd for grass seeds, wherein they flourish and prosper with greater vigor than after any other preparation." Few of our reader aro probably appria. cd of the fact, that English beef, so highly extolled, and of which John Hull so vaunt ingly boastsand perhaps no peoplo havo bettor beef is mostly winter fattened upon turnips and straw very littlo hay being used. This will account for tho high value which the tiiinip culturo has obtained in Great Britain. All tho nbuvo named roots aro well adapted to our noils nud climate; and where their culture has bocti undertaken

Other pages from this issue: