Pee beERRY BUSHES
AN WHEAT

BY

ANDREW McFARLAND DAVIS

Peeper RRY BUSHES
AoNa WEE AE

BY

ANDREW McFARLAND DAVIS

REPRINTED FROM
THE PUBLICATIONS
OF

Che Colonial Society of APassachusetts

Vor: XI

CAMBRIDGE
JOHN WILSON AND SON
University Press
1907

iF
’

at Iake
| eh

Nduiy ie eae te Hd eR
ae . AM if Ee A ‘ ras i a’ q M
SORT LLAy Ot UME Mek te

Oe 0} ee Vet

: : ‘
i

an
Rill

al Ce

ce

BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT— A SUPPLEMENT TO A
CHAPTER IN ‘‘THE OLD FARMER AND ©
HIS ALMANACK.”

In offering for the consideration of this Society the following
comments on the subject of Barberry Bushes and Wheat, which
will serve perhaps as a supplement to one of the chapters in Pro-
fessor Kittredge’s recently published work, The Old Farmer and
his Almanack, I may perhaps be pardoned if I preface them with
a few words concerning almanacs in general, their functions and
their evolution. If these introductory remarks shall seem to be
unnecessary, it will be recognized, at least, that they will help us
to appreciate the character of the work upon which Mr. Kittredge
entered when he undertook to analyze the pages of the Farmer’s
Almanac.

An almanac is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as —

a book or table, published from year to year, containing a calendar of
the days, weeks and months of the year, a register of ecclesiastical fes-
tivals and saints’ days, and a record of various astronomical phenomena,
particularly the rising and setting of the sun and moon, the times of high
water at particular ports, ete. In addition to these contents, which may
be regarded as essential to the almanac, it generally presents additional
information, which is more or less extensive and varied according to the
many different special objects contemplated in works of this kind.

The author of the article from which the above is quoted also
says that the almanac proper is often secondary to a variety of
extraneous matter included in the publication, and he refers to two
of these annuals “as works of general statistical reference . . . of
very great value.”

The Century Dictionary says: “ Many annual publications called
almanacs are largely extended by the insertion of historical, politi-
eal, statistical and other current information as supplemental to the
calendar.”

Many statistical works of this class have become absolutely
essential for one who would keep up with the times. The digests

74 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

of current political events contained in the almanacs published
annually by the leading New York papers, for example, are indis-
pensable for the politician who deals with national affairs. In a
similar way there are in Europe compilations known as almanacs
having international reputations, to which a student may turn with
confidence for information as to imports and exports, national debts,
military and naval equipments and expenditures, and the current
events of political importance which have occurred during the year
next preceding their issue. One of these, having a special feature
of its own, is described in Scribner’s Monthly for January, 1907.
“The Almanach De Gotha,” says the writer, —

is to Europe what Burke and Debrett and the other Peerages are to the
British Isles, and it is also the lineal ancestor and model of such topical
encyclopedias as our “ Whittaker”, our “Hazell” and our “States-
man’s Year-Book.” <A political and social history of the world for the
last one hundred and fifty years could be written from its back numbers
if these were readily accessible to students. But they are not. The
Almanach De Gotha began to appear in 1763, but the purchasers did not
file it for reference. The earliest numbers in the British Museum are
those for 1774 and 1783, and a complete set can only be found in the
editorial offices in Friederich’s Allee in the little Thuringian capital
whence the 141st issue was lately published.

The Nation for January 3, 1907, says, ‘“ The Almanach De Gotha
for 1907 (its 144th year) comes to us as usual and takes its place
among books reserved for reference.” !

The belief in the influence of the heavenly bodies upon the con-
dition and affairs of men, early led to the introduction in almanacs
not only of prognostications as to the weather but also of prophe-
cies of events. The popularity based on these appeals to the super-

1 The almanacs printed by the Cambridge Press in the early days of the
Colony have attracted the attention of bibliographers, and their value in the
eyes of collectors has been greatly enhanced by their rarity. One among
them, in which the calculations were made by a future President of Harvard
College, is thus alluded to by Cotton Mather, in his life of Urian Oakes in
the Magnalia:

Being here a lad of small, as he never was of great stature, he published a little
parcel of astronomical calculations with this apposite verse in the title page:
Parvum parva decent, sed inest sua Gratia parvis.

The ‘ parcel of astronomical calculations ”? was the Almanac for 1650.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT a5

stitions of the purchasing public soon caused these publications
to assume the form of annuals. In England a government monopoly
of the right “to sell almanacs and prognostications”’ remained in
force for nearly one hundred and seventy-five years from the date
of the grant.

The original letters patent were issued under James I, October
29, 1603. They were surrendered and renewed in the 13th year of
the reign, 1615, the original letters being recited in the renewal.
“Full power, privilege and authority” were given, “to print or
cause to be printed, all manner of almanacks and prognostications
whatever in the English tongue, and all manner of books, tending
to the same purpose, being allowed by the Archbishop of Canter- .
bury and Bishop of London.” The letters contained a “ prohibition
to all other printers &c. not to buy, sell, or utter any other than
should be printed by the said Company.” The monopoly originally
eranted to two individuals came into the hands of the Stationers’
Company and the profits were for a time shared with the Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge.! It was attacked from time to time in
the courts and was finally overthrown in 1775, in a suit against one
Thomas Carnan.?, There were two points raised in this case — one
that the monopoly applied only to almanacs approved by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London —the other that
it was not good anyway. ‘The decision was sweeping against the
monopoly. How it could have prevented the publication of alma-
nacs not approved by those clerical authorities during this period,
may perhaps be gathered from the definition of an almanac given in
the suit of the Company of Stationers against Seymour in 1654.23

1 In 1781 an annual allowance was made to each of these universities by
the government, “in lieu of the Money heretofore paid to the said Universities
by the Company of Stationers of the City of London, for the Privilege of print-
ing Almanacks.”’ The tenth section of the Act in which this was accomplished
recites that the privilege of printing and vending almanacs had been granted
to the universities and by them demised to the Company of Stationers, for which
they had received one thousand pounds and upwards annually. This privilege
had by a late decision at law been found to be ‘‘a common right, over which
the Crown had no Controul, and consequently the Universities no Power to
demise the same to any Person or Body of Men’’ (21 George III, Ch. 56).

22 W. Blackstone, p. 1003 et seq.

8 Trinity Term of the Court of Common Pleas, 29 Car. II and reported 1
Mod. p. 256.

76 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

Seymour was sued in an action of debt, for printing Gadbury’s
Almanack without leave of the Company. The Court opens its
decision sustaining the monopoly in the following language:

There is no difference in any material part betwixt this almanack and
that which is put in THE RUBRICK of the common-prayer. Now the
almanack that is before the common-prayer proceeds from a public con-
stitution; it was first settled by the Nicene Council ; is established by
the canons of the church; and is under the government of the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury; so that almanacks may be accounted prerogative
copies.

The Court then goes on to say, “‘ There is no particular author of
an almanack,” and deals with the special matter included in the
publication as follows: “Those additions of prognostications and
other things that are common to almanacks do not alter the case.”’

Fortunately for posterity this case was overruled in 1775, and
Mr. Carnan was permitted to publish “A Diary for the Year of our
Lord 1774,” without responsibility to the Stationers’ Company for
his profits. The dictum propounded by the Court in 1654, that
“There is no particular author to an almanack,” has also been
set aside by authorities competent for the purpose. Allibone prac-
tically settled this question when he enrolled the name of Robert B.
Thomas in his Dictionary of Authors, and Oscar Fay Adams
endorsed the decision by admitting the name among those which he
thought worthy of record in his similar work, limited, however, to
those who claimed to be American authors. Drake, when he gave
the name a resting place in his Dictionary of American Biography,
to all intents and purposes made the same decision, and from his
work the question was passed on to the editors of Appletons’
Cyclopedia of American Biography, where the approval by James
Grant Wilson and John Fiske of the insertion of Thomas’s name
secured the public endorsement of two other authorities to this
repudiation of the doctrine propounded in the old decision.

There is still another dictum in the Seymour case which has
been quoted, viz.: ‘ Those additions of prognostications and other
things that are common to almanacks do not alter the case,” i. e., to
go back to the decision, these additions “made no difference in any
material part betwixt”? Gadbury’s “almanack and that which is
put in the Rubrick of the Common-Prayer.” We may assume

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 77

that Gadbury’s had many of the features which distinguish the
Farmer’s Almanac and hence can cite The Old Farmer and his
Almanack as evidence that the Court was also in error in this
statement. Thus the whole fabric of the decision is toppled over,
and the name of Thomas, which in spite of this ancient decision had
already secured recognition as an author when The Old Farmer
and his Almanack appeared, has through this recent publication
secured a fresh hold upon fame. Existing sets of the Almanac
might be destroyed ; dictionaries and encyclopedias might disappear,
and still Professor Kittredge’s work might be relied upon to vindi-
cate the reputation of the Almanac and rescue the name of its
author from oblivion.

The title-page of the volume containing the chapter on Barberry
Bushes and Wheat which has occasioned this paper, contained the
following description of the contents of the book: “ Observations
on Life and Manners in New England a Hundred Years Ago, sug-
gested by reading the earlier numbers of Mr. Robert B. Thomas’s
Farmer’s Almanack Together with Extracts, Curious, Instruc-
tive and Entertaining, as well as a Variety of Miscellaneous
Matter.”

Notwithstanding the fact already shown that certain annual pub-
lications under the name of almanacs have acquired reputation as
historical authorities upon special points, it cannot be denied that
it required some courage on the part of Professor Kittredge to
attempt an analysis of the “new, useful and entertaining matter”
with which Thomas was accustomed to promise his readers that
they would be rewarded if they should peruse the pages of his
Almanac. Nor does the fact that Thomas has —as disclosed
above — secured recognition through this work as an author, di-
minish to any great extent the tax upon the courage that was
required for a careful and deliberate investigation of a publication
like the Farmer’s Almanac, which not only did not purport to be
historical in character, but which still clung to the feature of prog-
nostications and to sundry other of the things alluded to by the
Court in 1654 as “common to almanacks.” Prognostications of
this sort and the absurdity of some of the material with which
almanacs from the earliest times were garnished has, in times
past, offered a ready theme for satirists like Rabelais and Swift,
and indeed continues to do so to this day. Nevertheless, mixed

78 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

in with the information about the planets, one might expect to
find, in addition to absurd medical prescriptions, notices of saints’
days and predictions of weather and occurrences, occasional refer-
ences to historical events. From much of this miscellaneous
mixture of worthless stuff, the intelligence of Thomas protected
whoever should analyze the pages of his Almanac, and the prom-
ise on his title-page that it would be found to contain “as great a
variety as are to be found in any other Almanac of NEW, USEFUL
and ENTERTAINING MATTER” consequently had some value.
Yet it will readily be admitted that there was still a great demand
left upon the discretion of one who should be required to analyze a
complete set of this work in search for historical matter.

Facing page 81 of The Old Farmer and his Almanack there is
a reproduction of a page from the Almanac itself where we may
see in facsimile the entries for the month of October, 1800. Under
the heading “Courts, Aspects, Holidays, Weather, gc. §¢.,”’ predic-
tions are given that on the first there will be ‘Cool Breezes ;” on
the fifth it will “ Storm ;” on the eighth, ninth, and tenth it will be
“ Pleasant for the Season ;” and so on through the month. Informa-
tion as to tides, sun-rise, eclipses, and church festivals is varied with
what was of equal importance to a large part of the community,
the dates and places of assemblage of the Supreme Judicial Court
and the Court of Common Pleas. The historical anniversaries
alluded to are: “16th, Q. of Fr. behead 1793;” “17th, Burgoyne
sur. 1777;” “30th, Pres. Adams born 1785.”” Under the heading
“Farmer’s Calendar”’ there is a good deal of sound advice to the
farmer as to what may be done to advantage at this season of the
year and what also ought not to be done.

A glance at this facsimile page will reveal the size of the task
which was imposed upon one who would run through the great
number of pages of this character, necessitated by the search for
topics alluded to therein which might bear upon life and manners
in New England a hundred years ago, even though reliance was
placed upon prefatory matter, rather than upon the pages of the
Calendar. It is with keen appreciation of the thorough manner in
which this work was performed by the author of The Old Farmer
and his Almanack, that I venture to take up the subject intro-
duced under the title “ Barberries and Wheat” on page 827, in the
hopes that what I can add thereto may prove to be of interest.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 79

Mr. Kittredge quotes from the Almanac a letter dated at Malden,
August 26, 1799, written by one P. Sprague, who speaks of the
barberry bush as “the most pernicious bush that ever I knew grow
upon the face of the earth, multiplying exceedingly fast though
great pains are taken by many of our people to clear their lands of
them, but to no purpose. Some cut them down, some burn them on
where they were cut; others attempt to pull them up with their
oxen, but they soon sprout again four to one, and it is said by many,
that there is no way to clean the land of them.” The writer then
goes on to prescribe the following method of getting rid of them:

An effectual Method to Destroy Barberry Bushes.

Let a man take a small chain with short links, and lay it on the
ground round a bunch of bushes, then lay one of the hooks across the
chain and draw it as snug as he can with his hands about the bush close
to the ground, then put on a sufficient team to bring it up by the roots
at once. If this be done in the months of October or November, it will
never fail to exterminate them.

Sprague’s letter is introduced by the author with the preliminary
statement that “The barberry already had a bad reputation. It
infested the land and was a great nuisance to farmers on account
of its tenacity of life,” the italics being mine.

Having thus transcribed to his pages Mr. Sprague’s effective
method for destroying the bushes, Professor Kittredge continues
as follows: ‘Our correspondent, it will be noted, has nothing
to say of the blasting powers of the barberry, but we have a very
circumstantial account of them from about the same time, in Presi-
dent Dwight’s narrative of his journey to Berwick, Maine, in
1796.” Extensive quotations are then given from this narrative.
President Dwight dwells at length upon the pest that the barberry
bush had proved to be to farmers in Eastern Massachusetts. He
says “neat farmers” are able to keep them down in the open fields,
but cannot eradicate them along the division walls. He expresses
the belief that it would be impossible to get rid of them without
tearing down the division walls, i. e. the walls which separate the
fields from each other as well as from the highways. ‘ The bush,”
he says, “is, in New England, generally believed to blast both
wheat and rye.” This he attributes to the blossoms which for

80 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

a long time emit a pungent effluvium “ believed to be so acrimoni-
ous as to injure essentially both these kinds of grain.” He then
enumerates instances of observation which justify this belief. <A
single barberry bush grew upon the southern side of a wheat field
in Long Island. Southerly winds prevailed when it was in bloom.
The effluvium and the dead blossoms were borne over a small breadth
in the field to a considerable distance. Wherever this took place
the wheat was blasted. In Worcester County, Massachusetts, he
heard of two similar cases. In the first of these, which he describes
at length, there also was a single barberry bush at the south end
of the field, and there also “ the grain was blasted throughout the
whole field, in a narrow tract commencing at the bush and pro-
ceeding directly in the course and to the extent in which the
blossoms were diffused by the wind.” ‘The second of these cases
was of substantially the same character. It occurred in the same
township as the one just described and was disclosed to him by
the same authority.

Dr. Dwight’s conclusions are given in the following words:
“As no part of the grain was blasted in either of these cases,
except that which lay in a narrow tract leeward of the barberry
bushes; these facts appear to be decisive and to establish the
correctness of the common opinion. Should the conclusion be
admitted ; we cannot wonder, that wheat and rye should be blasted
wherever these bushes abound.”

Having got on track of these well authenticated and specific
instances of the evil effect of permitting barberry bushes to grow
in proximity to fields of grain, we may be sure that they furnished
the Doctor a topic of conversation and at Jast he found one person
ready to bring the new charge against the barberry bush that it
was an enemy to esculent roots. He did not, however, accept this
as proven, but in winding up his indictment of the pernicious
bush, he says, with reservation, “If there be no error in the
account, it indicates that the barberry bush has an unfavorable
influence on other vegetable productions beside wheat and rye.” }

Professor Kittredge then quotes from Lieutenant John Harriot
who speaks of the difficulty of growing wheat in 1794, on the sea-
coast in New England, which is attributed by some to saline

1 Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, i. 381-383. Cf. i. 376.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 81

vapors, by others to the vicinity of barberry bushes.! Harriot’s
own opinion was that the true causes were poor soil and bad
management.

The chapter on “ Barberry Bushes and Wheat” which is under
our consideration closes with the statement that “The innocent
barberry bush gradually lost its bad eminence in the farmer’s
mind.” Jn thus declaring innocent the culprit indicted by Presi-
dent Dwight with such vigor and force, our author was evidently
affected by the close proximity to the end of his chapter, in the
arrangement of his material, of the doubts of Harriot and of
certain other doubts of later date, to which also he refers. It is
to the question whether the specific charges of President Dwight
were not entitled to preference that I now address myself, and the
authorities which I shall cite belong to the New England of a
hundred years ago and upward as well as to the modern scientific
world.

Let us turn first to the statutes of the Province. We shall find,
if we examine the legislation of the General Court in December,
1754, that this very subject was there taken up and that a tem-
porary Act to remain in force for nine and one-half years was then
passed, the purpose of which was to secure the extirpation of the
barberry bush in Massachusetts. It will also be seen that the
difficulty alluded to by President Dwight with regard to the divi-
sion walls was recognized at that time and provision was made for
the destruction of the bushes where they grew in walls or fences.
This legislation is introduced by a preamble which distinctly
asserts that “the blasting of wheat and other English grain is
often occasioned by barberry bushes.” The tenacity of life of the
pernicious bush, so strongly set forth in the Sprague letter, was
evidently recognized by those who drew up this statute, but the
sole cause for this legislation was, if we may accept the allegations
of the preamble, because of the office of the barberry bush in
blasting grain. Unfortunately we have no record of the journey
through Massachusetts of any Dr. Dwight in 1750, and must
depend exclusively on the general assertions of this preamble and
the character of the legislation itself for our knowledge of the
observed facts on which the statute was based, The observations

1 Struggle through Life, London, 1807, ii. 32-33.
iG

82 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

recorded by Dr. Dwight must have occurred about thirty years
after the expiration of the temporary act referred to. It may be
that for a time the farmers got the upper hand of the barberry
bush. At any rate, it will be noted that all knowledge of the
legislation or of the experience which led up to it would seem
to have been forgotten when Dr. Dwight and his interlocutors
exchanged views upon the character of the barberry bush.}

For an appreciation of the completeness with which the ground
was covered by those who drew up this statute it is necessary
to reproduce the Act itself in full. It may, however, be useful
before doing so to say that the law was evidently based upon the
belief that the people of the Province demanded its passage. The
power, therefore, to carry out its provisions was given to the people.
Primarily the owner or occupant of the land was required to
remove all barberry bushes; if he failed to do so, methods were
prescribed through which any person might enter on the land and
remove the bushes and collect from the owner for services in doing
the work. The occupant of land also had his right of collection
from the owner for work of this sort. The only penalties imposed
by the act were fines on towns in case the surveyors of highways
neglected to destroy the bushes in the highways of their districts.

The following is the language of the Statute :

’ Preamble. HEREAS it has been found, by experience, that the

blasting of wheat and other English grain, is often
occasioned by barberry-bushes, to the great loss and damage
of the inhabitants of this Province, —

Be it therefore enacted by the Governour, Council and
House of Representatives,
Barberry-bushes [Sect. 1.] That whoever, whether community or private
to be extirpated 2 - a :
onorbefore person hath any barberry-bushes standing or growing in his
aoe or their land within any of the towns in this province he or
they shall cause .the same to be extirpated or destroyed on
or before the tenth day of June, Anno Domini one thousand

seven hundred and sixty. ;

1 This will apply equally as well to the earlier and later Connecticut legisla-
ion on the same subject which is quoted hereafter (pp. 89-91, 93).

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 83

Be it further enacted,
(Sect. 2.] That if there shall be any barberry bushes Liberty after

standing or growing, in any land within this province, after ea id
the said tenth day of June, it shall be lawful, by virtue of nae yi
this act, for any person whomsoever to enter the lands

wherein such barberry-bushes are (first giving three months’

notice of his intention so to do, to the owner or occupant

thereof) and to cut them down, or pull them up by the roots,

and then to present a fair account of his labour and charge

therein to the owner or occupant of the said land; and if

such owner or occupant shall neglect or refuse by the space Provision in case
of two months next after the presenting of said account, peta neglects
to make to such person reasonable payment as aforesaid, ~”

then the person who cut down or pulled up such bushes,

may bring his action against such owner or occupant, owners

or occupants, before any justice of the peace, if under forty

shillings; or otherwise, before the inferiour court of common

pleas, in the county where such bushes grew; who, upon

proof of the cutting down or pulling up of such bushes, by

the person who brings the action, or such as were employed

by him, shall and is hereby, respectively, empowered to

enter up judgment for him to recover double the value of

the reasonable expence and labour in such service and

award execution accordingly.
Beit further enacted,

(Sec. 3.] That if the lands on which such bushes grow Actions may be
rought as in

are common and undivided lands, that then an action may cases of the like
: . c nature,

be brought, as aforesaid, against any one of the proprietors,

in such manner as the laws of this province provide in such

cases where proprietors may be sued.
Be it further enacted,

[See. 4.] That the surveyors of the highways, whether Surveyors of
publick or private, be and hereby are empowered and re- Seger Corea
quired, ew officio, to destroy and extirpate all such barberry meee pacer
bushes as are or shall be in the highways in their respective cigs
wards or districts; and if any such shall remain after the
aforesaid tenth day of June, Anno Domini one thousand
seven hundred and sixty, that then the town or district

in which such bushes are, shall pay a fine of two shillings Penalty, in case.

Provision if such
bushes grow in
stone wall, or
fence.

Owner or pro-
prietor to pay for
pulling up or de-
stroying said
bushes.

Limitation.

THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

for every bush standing or growing on such highway,*to be
recovered by bill, plaint, information, or the presentment
of a grand jury, and to be paid, one half to the informer
and the other half to the treasurer of the county in which
such bushes grew, for the use of the county.

Be it further enacted,

[See. 5.] That if any barberry bushes stand or grow in
any stone wall, or other fence, either fronting the highway,
or dividing between one proprietor and another, that then
an action may be brought, as aforesaid, against the owner
of said fence, or the person occupying the land to which
such land belongs; and if the fence in which such bushes
grow is a divisional fence between the lands of one person
or community and another, and such fence hath not been
divided, by which means the particular share of each person
or community is not known, then action may be brought, as
aforesaid, against either of the owners or occupants of said
land.

Be it further enacted,

[Sect. 6.] That where the occupant of any land shall
eradicate and destroy any barberry bushes growing therein,
or in any of the fences belonging to the same (which such
occupant is hereby authorized to do, and every action to be
brought against him for so doing shall be already barred)
or shall be obliged, pursuant to this act, to pay for pulling
them up or cutting them down, that then the owner or pro-
prietor of such land shall pay the said occupant the full
value of his labour and cost in destroying them himself, or
what he is obliged to pay to others as aforesaid; and if the
said owner or owners shall refuse so to do, then it shall
be lawful for said occupant or occupants to withhold so
much of the rents or income of said land as shall be ‘sufli-
cient to pay or reimburse his cost or charge arising as
aforesaid. ;

[Sect. 7.] This act to continue and be in force until the
tenth day-of June one thousand seven hundred and sixty-
four. [Passed December 26, 1754 ; published, January 13,
1755.]*

1 Massachusetts Province Laws, 1754-55, Ch. 20, iii. 797, 798.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 85

It will be seen that five years and a half were given within which
owners of land were to extirpate all the barberry bushes in the
Province, and that provision was made for procuring the work to be
done in the case of common or undivided lands, as well as in
cases of doubtful responsibility such as that of bushes growing
in division walls. To secure the accomplishment of this work,
reliance was placed upon the authority given to the general public
to perform it in case of neglect by the owner. The Act
was of a temporary nature. It expired by limitation in 1764.
Much of the legislation of that day was temporary, and if
there seemed to be occasion for renewal, the operation of such
statutes was from time to time extended. This particular statute
was not extended. Whether we may infer from this its success or
its failure, is a matter purely for conjecture. In view, however, of
the fact that modern botanists have established beyond doubt a
connection between the barberry bush and the rust which infects
wheat, it would seem probable that this wholesale attack upon the
barberry bushes of Massachusetts probably had such a beneficial
effect that when the time of the expiration of the Act came round
it was not thought necessary to stimulate farmers by public legisla-
tion to protect their wheat fields in the future.

This subject cannot properly be closed without mention being
made of what the function of the barberry bush is in propagating
rust on growing wheat. In order to do this we must necessarily
trespass upon a field of scientific research foreign to the objects of
this Society, but fortunately for our special purpose we have at our
command material which will in the main be intelligible, even if
we are not ourselves sufficiently skilled to comprehend technical
details.

First, let us quote from a note to this chapter in the Province
Laws, written by our associate Mr. Abner C. Goodell. He says:

It will be seen in the following communication to Silliman’s Journal,
by the distinguished botanist, Dr. Asa Gray of Cambridge, that the
sagacity of the promoters of this measure is fully vindicated by the
later researches of European cryptogamists :

The effect of barberry-bushes in rusting wheat, after having been long
accounted a groundless popular superstition, is at length understood and ad-
mitted by the cryptogamists. The botanists used to rebut the farmers by the
statement that the rust in the grain-fields and the prevalent fungus of the

86 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

barberry belonged to very different genera, and that therefore the one could not
give origin to the other. But De Bary in Germany and (Eersted in Denmark,
following up similar inquiries by Tulasne in France, have concluded that
Uredo, Puccinia and Aicidium are to be regarded, not as so many genera, but as
three successive forms of fructification of the same fungus, or, in some sort, an
alternation of generations. De Bary ascertained that the spores of Puccinia
graminis do not germinate when sprinkled on the leaves and stalks of the cereal
grains, which this rust infests, while they will germinate on the leaves of the
barberry, and there give rise to the 4cidium berberidis ; and the spores of this
are equally inert upon the barberry, but will grow, in their turn, upon wheat,
and then reproduce first the Uredo, or yellow rust, and later the Puccinia gram-
inis or dark rust. Another species of Puccinia equally produces Acidium upon
buckthorn ; another alternates between the cereal grains and certain boragineous
weeds. These results have been practically tested, in the large way, last sum-
mer (1869) in France. Long hedges of barberry planted along the Paris and
Lyons railway in a commune in the Céte d’Or, were complained of by the adja-
cent cultivators and were cut away at certain places by way of experiment; and
an investigation by the railroad company, whose interests were adverse to such
a decision, left no doubt of the injurious effects of the barberry on the contigu-
ous wheat fields. — American Journal of Science and the Arts, vol. 49, 1870, p. 406
(No. CXLVII., 2d series).

The French account referred to is in “Bulletin de la Société Botanique
de France,” tom. 16, pp. 331-3833.

The foregoing may perhaps be considered adequate to establish
the fact that our ancestors were on the right track ; that it was not
the mere “ tenacity of life” of the barberry bush which disturbed
them, but that its presence was an actual menace to the wheat. If,
however, we require more evidence we may turn to that encyclo-
pedic dictionary, The Century, where we shall find the following
definition for Puceinia, which may be considered as fully corrobor-
ating the charge of complicity on the part of the barberry bush in
propagating rust.

Puccinia— A genus of parasitic fungi of the class Uredinee; the
rusts. Plants of this genus exhibit the phenomenon of hetercecism,
that is, they pass through different stages of their life-history upon
different host plants. P. graminis, one of the commonest and most
destructive species, may be taken as a type. It appears in the spring on
the leaves of the Lerberis vulgaris, constituting what is known as bar-
berry rust, or barberry cluster cups. This is the ecidial stage, and

1 Massachusetts Province Laws, iii. 835.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 87

received the name of cidiwm Berberidis before the hetercecism was
suspected. Later in the season the uredo stage makes its appearance
on the leaves and stems of the cultivated oats, wheat, etc., appearing as
pale yellowish or whitish spots on the leaves. Soon the tissues are rup-
tured and the long lines of orange red, uredo spores are exposed, now
constituting the red rust of oats, etc. By the rapid germination of the
uredo spores the disease is quickly spread, and may involve the entire
plant. In the fall, just before cold weather, the black teleuto-spores
are produced. This is known as the black rust, and is designed to carry
the fungus over the winter, when it again begins its life-cycle on the
barberry. About 450 species of Puccinia are known, not a few of
which are serious pests to the agriculturist or horticulturist.

Our somewhat desultory discussion has taken us into the domain
of almanacs; we have quoted largely from English law reports
and from a book written about a set of almanacs; we have invaded
the field of Provincial legislation ; and finally we have been stranded
upon that abstruse modern science, cryptogamic botany.

The discussion of purely botanical questions is foreign to the
purposes”of this Society, yet I cannot refrain from communicating
the substance of a letter to me from Professor Charles E. Bessey of
the University of Nebraska. After speaking of the rust and its
methods of propagation, Professor Bessey says:

It was noticed, however, long ago, that there was wheat rust in
abundance where there were no barberry bushes, and in some places
there were barberry bushes that were not affected with rust to any great
extent. The explanation of this is that for some reason or other, the
rust is not wholly dependent upon its barberry phase of existence. On
the plains and prairies of the west there are no barberry bushes except-
ing a few that are planted in the gardens and on the grounds around
houses, and yet this species of rust, Puccinia graminis is very abundant.
Some years ago it was found that the phase of rust which occurs on the
wheat plant is able to live through the winter. Infection may take place
in the late autumn, and the rust persists through the winter, so that
there is no need of infection of the wheat in the spring of the year
from the barberry bushes. I should say that the autumn infection of
the wheat is from the preceding wheat crop.

We have here, apparently, an interesting case of a change of habitat
of a parasite, whereas it formerly (and normally) lived first on the bar-
berry, where it gained sufficient strength to form large spores able to

88 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

penetrate the wheat, and then on the wheat to develop its second ‘stage.
Now, apparently, under favorable conditions offered by the wide cultiva-
tion of winter wheat, this rust parasite is able to pass from wheat crop
to wheat crop directly.

Thus we have the testimony of a recognized authority on such
subjects whose residence in Nebraska has permitted personal obser-
vation. This evidence is of such a nature that we can no longer
deny the possibility of an “innocent” barberry bush. Yet this
does not release the pernicious bush from the condemnation which
it received at the hands of President Dwight, nor ought it to lessen
our admiration for the observations of our ancestors made in New
England under circumstances when the widespread cultivation of
winter wheat did not present the favorable conditions for the prop-
agation of rust upon the wheat plant itself which now exist upon
the plains and prairies of the West. On the contrary, we must
admit the sagacity which could connect cause and effect under con-
ditions which, according to Dr. Gray, led scientific men to account
this “ a groundless superstition” which they sought to rebut by
declaring the rust on the wheat to be incapable of origin from the
fungus on the barberry bush. The farmers proved to be right and
the botanists of that day wrong.

Two things are impressed upon us as a result of this review of an
interesting but comparatively unimportant matter. The first of
these, the unerring sagacity with which observers traced out the
source of the contamination of the wheat fields, has already been
dwelt upon. The state of botanical science at that time did not
permit that the mysterious method of propagation should be then
revealed, but it will be admitted that a compulsory application
of the legislation which sought to cure the evil by removing the
source of propagation could only have produced beneficial results.
Apparently, in after days doubts were thrown by scientific men
upon the justice of the recorded observations, and then, under the
influence of these doubts, came forgetfulness of the lesson which
had been so thoroughly learned. In a similar way the experiences
through which the same people passed, during the period when they
were dependent upon bills of public credit for a medium of trade,
furnished a complete object lesson as to the evils of a redundant
irredeemable paper currency, a lesson which was freely accepted by

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 89

the best intellects of the Province. Yet this too was neglected by
their posterity when the printing-press proved a more convenient
method than borrowing for covering an emergent need. Whatever
may be the feelings of the student of our Provincial history at
finding this tendency to forget well certified experiences, he will at
least be grateful for their evidences of intelligent observation and
receptive mentality on the part of our forefathers.

The foregoing, relative to barberry bushes and wheat, has not
touched upon the legislation in the other New England Colonies
on the same subject. To fill out this gap in the discussion I add
hereto certain references to the Colonial Records of Connecticut
and Rhode Island, which have been furnished me by Mr. Albert:
Matthews, and it seems to me that the statutes referred to are
entitled to be given in full. The oldest legislation upon the sub-
ject took place in Connecticut in May, 1726, when the following
act was passed :

An Act concerning Barberry Bushes.

a Whereas the abounding of barberry bushes is thought to be very hurt-
ful, it being by plentiful experience found that, where they are in large
quantities, they do occasion, or at least increase, the blast on all sorts
of English grain,

Be it therefore enacted by the Governour, Council and Representa-
tives, in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same,
That the inhabitants of the several towns within this Colony, may and
they are hereby fully impowered at their annual town meetings, to deter-
mine and agree upon the utter destroying of the said bushes within their
respective townships, and the time and manner how, And if any of
the inhabitants of such town or towns so agreeing shall oppose the
cutting down said bushes within their fields and enclosures, and forbid
the other inhabitants coming thereinto for that end, they shall incur the
penalty of twenty shillings, to be paid into the treasury of the town
wherein they dwell. And if any such person shall thenceforward con-
tinue to oppose the cutting said bushes as aforesaid, they shall also
incur the penalty of ten shillings per month until they shall declare to
the Selectmen their free consent for their entering into such enclosures
and destroying the said bushes therein growing. Said penalties to be
recovered by distraint on the goods and chattels of the person or
persons so offending.

90 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

Provided nevertheless, That if any person or persons have any of
said bushes, the which they make use of or depend upon for a fence,
such person or persons shall not incur either of the aforesaid penalties
till after just satisfaction to them made by the town, as they and the
selectmen can agree; or as by two or three indifferent men, chosen by
said parties or appointed by the civil authority, shall judge reasonable.?

It will be seen that the Massachusetts statute was anticipated
in Connecticut by upwards of a quarter of a century. The method
of procedure in Connecticut was peculiar, the whole matter being
referred to the several towns, thus making it almost certain that
there would be no concert of action throughout the Colony.
Moreover, the hands of the opponents of the bill are to be seen in
the proviso, which threw upon the towns the necessity of first
settling with farmers who might claim that the offending bushes
were made use of or depended upon as fences, before they could
enforce any of the penalties of the Act.

The caution with which the preamble of the Act is drawn is
worthy of notice. ‘The presence of barberry bushes in great quan-
tity was “thought” to be very hurtful; plentiful experience hay-
ing shown that large quantities of the bushes occasion “or at
least increase ” the blast of all sorts on English grain. Of course
those who drew up this preamble were ignorant that the fungus
required a host-plant and that the different varieties of ecidium
could propagate upon different plants, but they had discovered the
essential fact that the barberry bush “at least increased ” the blast
on grain. Its extirpation might not entirely remove the rust from
the wheat, but they felt sure it would reduce it.

“hii he power thus lodged in the towns remained there unaltered
for fifty-three years. There is no indication that the subject was
under discussion in Connecticut during these years, but the fact
that there was during this period legislation against barberry
bushes in Massachusetts and in Rhode Island suggests the possi-
bility that the action of these Colonies may have been brought
to the notice of the government. At any rate in January, 1779,
a new Act was passed, authorizing in a general way the destruc-
tion of barberry bushes, at certain times of the year, but still leay-
ing the enforcement of the Act to the discretion of town-oflicers.
This Act follows. /

1 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vii. 10.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 91

An Act in Addition to and Alteration of the Law of this State
entituled An Act concerning Barberry Bushes.

Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in
General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That any
person or persons whatsoever, with the advice and consent of the civil
authority and selectmen, or the major part of them, of the town where
any barberry bushes are or shall be growing, may in the months of
March, April, October or November, enter into and upon any lands
whereon shall be growing any barberry bushes and dig up and destroy
such bushes without being liable to any action, suit or demand therefor ;
any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.’

{ The first legislation in Rhode Island was not until ten years
after that in Massachusetts and is to be found in the Records of the »
Colony for the year 1766. The Act, which applies only to the
town of Middletown, was passed in August of that year. It reads
as follows:

An Act for destroying barberry bushes in Middletown.

Whereas experience showeth, that barberry bushes have a very great
tendency to blast English grain,

Be it therefore enacted by this General Assembly, and by the au-
thority of the same it is enacted, That where any person in the town
of Middletown, hath any barberry bushes growing in his or her field, or
enclosure, and shall be applied to by any free holders in said town,
to destroy them, and the person so applied to, shall refuse or neglect
for the space of one month, to to[sic] cut up and destroy them, that then,
and in such case, it shall, and may be, lawful for the person so apply-
ing, to make application to one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace,
who is hereby empowered to grant forth his warrant to impress labour-
ers to cut and destroy all the barberry bushes there growing (for the
destroying of which, applications hath been mde [sic] as aforesaid,)
at the cost and charge of the complainant or complainants and not
at the expense of the owner of the land, committing as little waste,
and doing as little damage to the owner of the land, as the case will

admit of.
God save the King.”

If the title of this Act had been changed to “ An Act to protect
barberry-bushes in Middletown,” it would have defined its appar-

1 State Records of Connecticut, ii. 176.
2 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vi. 509.

92 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

ent purpose about as well. The method of procedure laid down for
the freeholder of the town who wished to compel his neighbor
to eradicate the barberry bushes in his fields was so complicated,
elaborate and expensive, and so many dangers lurked under the
phrase, “ doing as little damage to the owner of the land as the
case will admit of,” that it practically insured the peaceful life
of barberry bushes in Middletown.

(In the seventh volume of the Records of Rhode Island, an Act
for the destruction of barberry bushes throughout the Colony is
referred to.! Although the text of this Act is not given in the
published Records, it is to be found in the Session Laws for the
year 1772. )

The following is the language of the Act:

Act for destroy- AN ACT for destroying Barberry-Bushes throughout

ing Barberry

Bushes. this Colony.

Preamble. WHEREAS it is found by Experience that Barberry-
Bushes are very destructive to English Grain:

Persons neglect- E it therefore Enacted by this General Assembly, and,

sieoy aie by the Authority thereof, Jt is Enacted, That if any

heaved **° Freeholder in this Colony shall apply to any Person having

£10 00

Barberry Bushes growing in his Field or Inclosure to destroy
them, and the Owner of the Land shall neglect or refuse to
‘cut them annually, or otherwise destroy them, he shall pay
as a Fine, the Sum of Ten Pounds Lawful Money, One Half
to and for the Use of the Town in which the Barberry
Bushes grow, and the other Half to the Informer, to be
“recovered by Information before the Court of General-
Sessions of the Peace, where the Land lies.
Barberry-Bushes AND be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid,

in Commons or

Highways tobe That if any Barberry-Bushes shall be found in the Commons
Towne Y™° or Highways in any Town in the Colony, and any Free-
holder of any Town therein, shall make Application to the
Town-Treasurer of such Town to destroy them; and such
Town-Treasurer shall refuse or neglect so to do, for the

Space of One Year, That then, and in such Case, such Free-

1 Rhode Island Colonial Records, vii. 54.

1907] BARBERRY BUSHES AND WHEAT 93

holder may make Application, to any One of His Majesty’s
Justices of the Peace for said Town, who is hereby em-
powered and requirea to grant his Warrant to procure
Labourers to cut up and destroy the said Barberry-Bushes ;
the Expence whereof shall be paid out of the Town-Treasury
of such Town.’

This is a decided improvement upon the earlier Rhode Island
statute, if its purpose was, as its title indicates, to secure the destruc-
tion of barberry bushes, and its presence upon the statute books
of the Colony doubtless furnished a weapon for those who were
disposed to make war upon this mischief-making bush.

A glance at the chronology of this legislation is instructive as
well as interesting. The Colony of Connecticut began the war
against the barberry bush in 1726. The subject was taken up in
the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1756. Ten years later,
Rhode Island was awakened to the situation and joined, in a
half-hearted way, in the fight. After an interval of six years this
last Colony, in 1772, took the subject up again and this time passed
an Act which, if not all that the enemies of the barberry bush
might wish, was at any rate much more pronounced in its efforts
to secure the destruction of the bush than the earlier statute.
Then comes the second attack of Connecticut, now a State, in
1779. This statute was perhaps capable of being made more effec-
tive than the law of 1726, but was still hampered by the deference
to the town officers which was the characteristic feature of the first
legislation on the subject, and which is perhaps to be explained by
the system of representation which has prevailed there from the
days of the Charter to the present time. ‘That the subject should
have attracted so much attention in New England as is indicated
by the foregoing review of the legislation, and then should have
been so completely forgotten that modern cryptogamists were
obliged to start at the bottom in their scientific study of this
fungus, is very remarkable.

A quotation has already been made from Dr. Gray, giving the
results of modern scientific study of the fungus which makes its
home upon the barberry bush. A few words may, perhaps, be
appropriately added as to the knowledge and the possibility of

1 Rhode Island Laws, August, 1772, p. 46.

94 THE COLONIAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS [JAN.

knowledge of this legislation on the part of European and Ameri-
can botanists. I am indebted to Dr. William G. Farlow, of the
Department of Cryptogamic Botany in Harvard University, for the
following references which, as far as they go, cover this ground.
He tells me that as long ago as 1788, a German traveller in the
Middle and Southern States published an account of his experi-
ences and observations, in which he referred to this legislation.
The author was obviously a disbeliever in the charges against the
barberry bush, but he gives a brief account of the law derived from
hearsay during his travels in the section of the country indicated
above, and not from actual inspection of the printed statute It
is not certain to which of the laws he referred, but it is interesting
to discover that this legislation was the subject of discussion at
this time, so far from the locality where the pest provoked these
laws.

The Massachusetts statute was referred to in various botanical
journals towards the close of the last century,? and in 1882 Pro-
fessor Farlow forwarded to Charles B. Plowright of King’s Lynn,
England, the full text of the law. This was published by him
as a supplement to a communication to the Lynn News of Decem-
ber 23, 1882, and was reprinted on a separate sheet under the
heading ‘“ Wheat Mildew.”

The cultivation of wheat in this country has persistently moved
away from the coast as our population has increased with such
regularity, that after a little study of the statistics of emigration,
one who knew the population of the country at a given date could
easily predict where the contemporaneous wheat fields would be
found. The question of the protection of wheat from fungi is no
longer of interest in New England, but perhaps the same spirit of
observation which inspired the legislation which we have been dis-
cussing, applied to the great wheat fields in the Middle RE may
be helpful to our farmers to-day.

1 Johann David Schépf, Reise durch einige der mittlern und siidlichen
vereinigten nordamerikanischen Staaten nach Ost-Florida und den Bahama-
Inseln unternommen in den Jahren 1783 und 1784. Erlangen, 1788.

2 The possibility that Arthur Young may have seen this naturally suggests
itself. In that event the presumption that it was instrumental in leading up to
the series of observations chronicled by Young and quoted by Mr. Kittredge
(p. 96, below) makes this reference doubly interesting.

8 See Botanical Gazette, May, 1584, ix. 83.