A correspondent says : "Note in N. Y. Tribune of last Monday, July 9, a criticism of Sargent's notes on trees, and the writer's own opinion of the worth-lessness of foreign ornamental trees. The last part of the article is very remarkable".

[Our daily papers have improved in many respects of late years, - but in the matter of technical affairs they have generally deteriorated, and have little or no influence. Smart young men, fresh from the High School, will furnish an article very readable, on any subject under the sun, on five minutes' notice. They are perused with pleasure one moment and the next forgotten. This particular paper with the "Know-Nothing" title quoted, is purely of this species, and only that it has troubled our correspondent, who is an eminent tree-lover and tree-planter, it would hardly be worth notice at this long date after printing.

The author of the paper tells us that " no tree will thrive under other climatal conditions than those which prevail in its original habitat." One would have to know what is meant by "climatal conditions" and "original habitat," and particularly what is meant by "thrive," before affirming or denying these propositions. We saw recently a magnificent mass of English beeches, nearly a century old, on grounds near Philadelphia, quite equal to any of the same age seen in the North of Europe. But perhaps they are not " thriving " as the author means; or in his estimation the "climatal conditions" between Philadelphia and Norway or England may be the same. Then we are told that the Norway spruce is no good for American forestry, - " not half a dozen remain of those originally used in the Central Park." The Central Park is rather a limited locality to decide questions of " American" Forestry.

Some have thought that Japan trees might be useful in American Forestry, - but this gentleman has no such an idea, because " they have not yet been grown in sufficient abundance to serve any economic purpose." If a few dozen trees can be grown successfully " in Central Park," - grown rapidly in soil that suits them, and the timber is just what we want, - Why not grow a million as well? " The Larch was considered the timber tree of greatest promise years ago." True, and if we take an alpine tree from its rocky loves, and set it down on the sea level, in a soil that it hates, why should its removal to "America" be the sole cause of its failure? " It will grow quickly on thin soils, but so will White Pine." Certainly; no one will underrate White Pine. But there are certainly places in "America" where Larch would have a better chance to succeed than White Pine would; admitting, of course, that "Central Park" is not "America." The "Chestnut is superior to the Larch." No doubt, when you have it on limestone soils, or soils just suited to it - for it is very nice in its exactions - but there are millions of acres in "America" where first-class Larch could be had, that would not give a solitary chestnut post.

The statement that "in the Eastern States the effort to acclimate foreign trees looks like a waste of energy." Here again it would be necessary to get a definition of "acclimate." There are millions of foreign trees growing in the " Eastern States," - we do not mean Central Park merely - that seem to us as fairly " acclimated " as any native trees.

The idea that an ornamental tree must be in some of its features distinct from a common tree that furnishes " fuel and timber," is not by any means a prevalent idea. In fact, we have never heard, in all our long experience, any one object to a tree that had real beauty being planted on his grounds, because somewhere the wood was used for fuel or timber. This is simply a specimen of "smart writing " and nothing more. However, with " ideas like these holding sway," "it is small wonder that in our parks and private grounds more foreign trees than natives are to be found." Have these "foreign trees" no use as fire-wood or for timber, that they have been so extensively planted?

But, not presuming to deny what may be in " Central Park," we are free to say that if any portion of this continent may be considered "America " beyond its limits, the vast majority of trees planted the past twenty-five years in our ornamental grounds have been American trees, - not particularly because they are prettier or better adapted to our soil and climate, but because we are a practical people, bent on proving all things and holding to that which is good, no matter where its birthplace may have been.

The clause our correspondent refers to reads: " As a rule it will be found in landscape planting that American trees are best adapted to American skies, just as truly as in economic planting American trees are best suited to American soil and climate".

No one but a "smart writer" would suppose "adaptation to American skies" was the chief effort of a landscape planter. We are told that " native trees compose better than when mingled with foreign forms;" that "our trees have no superiors in grace, dignity, and nobility of expression," and similar " highly written " trash. The suggestion that the State colleges should plant an arboretum, where only the trees of the State should be grown, " and not another one," is very original, truly.

It will, perhaps, not be considered wholly waste of room to note this curious article; for it will be a good lesson to look to the technical magazines, and not the "brilliant writing" of a daily paper, for the information needed to make the arts and sciences flourish].