RECENT NUMBERS.

First, to the pro and con of pasturing corn-stalks. That is a subject, like many others, on which much can be said on both sides. Mr. Stahl (in No. 50) quotes Prof. Sanborn as saying that a ton of corn fodder, "rightly cured and saved," is worth two-thirds of a ton of good timothy hay. That may be true; but to be rightly cured and saved it must be protected from the rains and snows as the hay is; otherwise it will be as worthless as the corn left standing in the field. Most people who have cut their corn and left it standing in the shock during the fall rains, know by experience that large portions of it are rendered useless. And if we deduct the waste of corn by wet, and by rats and mice, and the waste of fodder, added to the cost of cutting, it would seem that a "Subscriber" (in No. 52) has at least a strong side of the argument. But these men are both right, in a degree. In the East in cases where the crop is not large, or in the West, and where the producer has large barns or sheds in which to store his fodder, it had doubtless best be cut and utilized in that way. But where no such facilities exist and the crop is large, as usual in the West, I can conceive of no better way to utilize the product than to feed it where it grew.

HOW TO RAISE WHEAT.

Prof. Hamilton (see No. 52) has hit the nail squarely on the head in his essay. I doubt if there has been a more valuable article on wheat-growing in the public prints, for many a day. It gives a new view of the question, and in my opinion illustrates, at least in part, why it was that in the early days of wheat-growing throughout the prairie States, the crops were so much better than now. Wheat was then sown for the most part on newly broken prairie sod, and its character was such that the grain could not be deeply covered, nor could the ground be heaved so much as in later sowings, when it has been mellowed by deeper culture. Prof. Hamilton's essay ought to be read by every wheat-grower in the country. Other valuable articles in No. 52 are those of J.H., on Corn, Prof. Hall's lecture on Schools, and many others—not omitting what the two talented ladies say about hens and bees.

COUNTS AND BARONS IN AMERICA.

Some alarm has been manifested in certain quarters, and Congress been inquired of, concerning the fact that divers European noblemen have been purchasing large bodies of lands in our public domain. There are no laws, I believe, to prevent foreign noblemen from acquiring lands in large or small quantities in our Territories; but it is clearly contrary to public policy to permit these, or our own capitalists or syndicates to do this thing. The public lands should be held for actual settlers, and for them alone; and it is to be hoped that Congress will so amend the laws as to prevent English or European lords, or American lords, from acquiring large bodies of land. The Government has been generous—too generous—to the railroads in the gift of lands; and that policy ought now to cease, and the roads required to fulfil their side of the contract to the letter.

MONOPOLY—AGRARIANISM.

In connection with the above, it will do to say, that as monopolies increase and gain strength, agrarianism also is extending. Legislation should be so shaped as to check the one, and give no cause for the other. Good government and strict regard for the rights and interests of the masses, are the surest means of checking agrarian and nihilistic tendencies. Had the French monarchy and governing classes been just, the revolution would have been impossible.

TO CONCLUDE.

It does seem to me that your magnificent offer of your Standard Time or Commercial Map—worth $2 itself—in connection with The Prairie Farmer, all for $2, ought to bring you hosts of subscribers, and that it does is the hope of