Almost every new comer in the field of rural literature echoes the stereotyped expression of one idea, - that their mission is "to give sound and practical instruction - to avoid sharp personalities - to correct the articles of empirics whose suggestions would surely lead to grievous disappointment - and to make the history, theory and practice of rural pursuits more scientifically correct"

One other expression, we notice, is quite frequent, somewhat like this: "The articles of a majority of our writers are, generally, the work of persons whose reading and practice have been too limited to afford the quali fications needful for giving instruction."

And straightway some first-class, well-established journal is selected for a first-class criticism. The editor finds, much to his regret, after a free tilt, that the selection of such for unnecessary criticism is bad policy, and brings down the enmity of others from general sympathy with the attacked party. We have a good laugh, occasionally, when these new fledglings get caught themselves. So the following instance is worth relating. A new Brooklyn journal, in its first number, criticises The Country Gentleman for publishing a pretty story, which it says, unfortunately, is not true. In the same number it publishes a nice disquisition on the Jerusalem Artichoke, saying that it came originally from Canada. Whereupon, the New York Nation retorts, that the Jerusalem Artichoke did not come from Canada, but Louisiana; and the Brooklyn editor, upon investigation, really cannot tell, to a certainty, where it did come from. Now we do not speak of this, except to mention it as a curiosity of "sharp eyes watching to trip new critics."

After a year or two spent in time, talent and money, to get a new journal well started, the editor gets lonesome, and finds, after all, it is not best to pitch into the older journals, and it is decidedly more advantageous to be on good terms with them. Tilton's Journal of Horticulture was doomed from the first to unpopularity and failure, because of its ungal-lant attack upon others of same profession.

With regard to writers of experience, we think it worth mention that the most successful agricultural editor of the present day, one highly esteemed by men thrice his age, is a young man, never brought up on a farm, did not live in the country for but few years, resided entirely in the city while engaged in literary work, and never made a speech in his life. It is a complete disproof of the old idea, that "it takes a successful farmer to make a successful agricultural editor." He had great power of observation, easily learned what farmers liked, sought for information which would suit them; got ideas from every source, correspondence and selections, condensed them, and made a model paper; and yet not once living or visiting a farm. He is still agricultural editor of one of the "leading journals of the United States." . We maintain that a successful farmer never can be a successful editor- He knows too much, and is not ready to believe or credit what others know; hence, he never will make a good news distributor; he judges everything by his own opinions, and usually wants to tell only what he knows himself.

Almost all successful farmers have hobbies and prejudices, and these are gratified; hence, he looks upon experiments of other people as not likely to bring out any more good than his own. A successful editor's idea of a model journal is to tell what others know. A successful farmer's idea of a model journal is to tell what he knows. And yet, the editor, bred to his position, and the former who has gained his knowledge by years of hard work, experiment and application, cannot change places with each other.and do as well. Each has his place. Therefore it is unwise, we say, for any one to keep ringing a tone of scorn, prejudice or criticism about editors of inexperience. Each has his peculiar ability, and the world has its proper room for him. The measure of a man is not so much what he knows (but keeps to himself), as what he does, and how well he benefits others.

The main questions considered in taking a journal are, 1. Does the subscriber get his money 's worth? 2. Does it give good information? Beyond these points the public have no business to demand inquiry. Yet almost every one seems to make it his duty to search till he can find a fault. In judging of editors of rural journals, the mass of subscribers will always go for the side of the one who interests them most; and the most interesting editors are those who study the people closest; not those who know the most, and then tell it only in a doleful, dreary way. A youthful editor can often polish to brightness the obscurely expressed facts and ideas of the more erudite scholar.

It is not wise for any one to brag of great knowledge, especially new comers; nor "established authorities" frown down others of less knowledge, who are doing good work according to their means.

But we have made a sermon of what was intended only as a hint at the ways of rural editors, who seem to be especially fond of criticism.