WE usually and appropriately set apart the beginning of the year as a time for good resolutions; though, in our opinion, any time is a good one for such a purpose. As a new period of time, how-ever, is by custom thought more fit than another, we take advantage of the New Year to offer some of our professional friends a few words of counsel and advice in regard to a practice which affects somewhat their good name. We hope to be able to say something that may induce them to form a resolution to avoid it for the future. It sometimes happens that an incidental departure from the rules which usually govern trade comes at last, by repetition, to be regarded in a measure : as a part of those rules, and ceases to arrest the attention of the tradesman, though it may seriously involve his best interests. It is in this way only that we can account for the introduction among some of our nurserymen of a practice which we know to be detrimental to their pecuniary interests, and hurtful to the character of the profession. The practice we allude to may be fitly named that of "substitution and duplication;" in other words, the practice of substituting one plant for another, and duplicating others, without the least authority for so doing.

Where the purchaser gives a discretion in the matter, it is all right enough; where he does not, it is clearly wrong. There are certain moral maxims which we ought all to recognize in our business transactions with each other; a temporary wresting of them may bring present gain, but at the expense of future loss which no good man ought to be willing to con-template. In the words of Poor Richard, it is "paying too dear for the whistle." It often happens that the purchaser, by this practice, gets many kinds of plants or trees of which he already has enough; though the kinds sent may in some instances be quite as good as those ordered, still, he has not got what he sent for, and he is dissatisfied and annoyed, and justly so, and it seldom happens that he orders a second time of the same party. Now this is an injury not only to the individual party interested, but to the whole profession. Now let us for a moment put the boot on the other leg. Suppose, for ex-ample, you send to our publisher for a copy of "Barry's Fruit Garden," and he sends you instead "Dodd's Horse Doctor." How would you like it? Would you be quite satisfied if he excused himself by saying that he was out of the "Fruit Garden," and thought the "Horse Doctor" would suit you as well ? Would you not probably say to him, "Well, I guess I know what I want, and I don't want this 'Horse Doctor' at all?" Suppose, again, you should send to a merchant for three yards of broadcloth, and he should send you three yards of green baize.

How would you like that? You would probably get a little excited, and say to him, "I didn't ask you to send me baize; I've got enough of that already. What I want is broadcloth! You can take your old baize back again!" You would feel that he had been perpetrating a wrong, and resent it accordingly. If you condemn the want of fairness in such a transaction in" others, how can you justify yourself? Wherein consists the difference? It is true that some nurserymen have in the introduction to their, catalogues a clause that other kinds will be sent, "unless otherwise ordered;" and this is their justification. They no doubt honestly think they are doing what will be acceptable to their customers. Still, we must say candidly, in view of all we know and hear, that it would be better for all if no such clause existed. It leaves an opening for much dissatisfaction, which is sure, in the end, to tell against the seller. The purchaser does not always read the introduction to a catalogue, and seldom or never thinks of this "saving clause" in making out his list.

He knows he wants certain kinds of plants, and orders them; if he gets others in their stead, he is vexed and dissatisfied, and, smarting under a sense of injury, condemns the whole trade in no measured terms, and concludes to buy no more plants if he can help it. We should be sorry to see the practice become common, for it would act as a serious clog to the advancement of horticulture, and lower the nursery business in the estimation of many good men. There is no necessity for it whatever, and nothing like it finds a place in other respectable pursuits. The example of many influential and successful nurserymen who do not resort to the practice, ought to be sufficient evidence of its impolicy. A man owes something to his family and his friends, and also to society; his good name and fame ought to be put above all price.

Every good business man must see the policy of satisfying the reasonable expectations of his customers; in this way alone can he hope to thrive. There may be individual exceptions, but this is the rule. What we would advise, therefore, is this: when you receive an order from a customer, neither substitute nor duplicate, but fill it as far as you can, and consult him in as to what you shall do in regard to the rest. So shall you make to yourself both riches and a good name.

A Word To The Trade #1

Thank you, Mr. Peter B. Mead, for the leader on the above subject And I will warrant me there are hundreds and thousands of your friends who will say amen and amen to my thanks. "A word fitly spoken," and may it do good.

Allow me to ask a question. Suppose, for example, you send to our friends C. M. Saxton & Barker for $20 to $80 worth of books, and they were to charge you, "Packing 1 box, 75 cents," would you not think it " coming the giraffe?" It is a small matter complaining of so small a thing, and so is it to complain of sending a tree at fifty or at forty cents, when another was ordered; but, in this instance, admit a charge made for labor: two men, at $20 each per month, will pack ten to twenty boxes per day, which, at above rates, pays $7 50 to $15 for less than 75 cents to $1 50 expense. The right way to do is to charge for trees, and, as they have to be packed for the purchaser to get, make no charge for packing.

[The above approval, from our friend Dr. Philips, is peculiarly acceptable, though we ought not, perhaps, to expect thanks for performing a necessary though unpleasant duty. We have even been thanked by a nurseryman, who is fain to acknowledge that he has lost more than he has made by the practice; and this we believe to be the fact with all who indulge in it. We wish our friends would think of this matter seriously. - Ed].

Peter B. Mead, New York. - Dear Sir: Reading to-night, in your January number, page 55, the queries propounded by Mr. Geo. H. Goodwin, from that famous place "Hartford" Conn., and your prompt answers, I propose to ask you a question from this spanking new republic; and, by the way, in the neighborhood of Hartford I guess there are some left who would like to have a hand in "spanking" this republic, as my mamma need to spank this writer.

Some time since, in writing an article on fruit culture, I warned subjects to beware of two-year-old Pear-trees, and I was picked up by a sterling good writer. I prefer "maiden trees " - year-olds - to two-year-olds, because there are more fibrous roots, and fewer long roots; I prefer them because they are better, and, besides, cheaper. The reason they are better is, many unsalable in maidenhood are kept for two-year-old prices, and the fibrous roots bring additional advantages. Many thrifty yearlings have been advanced to seniority, because the extra price is an inducement. If select maiden trees are taken from the nursery and replanted at a distance of 3 by 3 apart, instead of remaining in the nursery, the tops and bottoms being judiciously pruned, then a two-year-old may be better. This is my opinion, from purchasing and growing trees since 1832. Am I correct?

I have yet another objection to two-year-olds. The proportion of top to root is not so good, unless the purchaser lifts the trees himself, and understands what he is after: and then, the hole for setting should be proportionally larger. I have bought two-year-olds from one of the best nurseries on record, replanted at a year old, and not had half the growth as from my own year-olds; of course, removal to a distance, and being packed for thirty days, makes a great difference.

If sorrowing with all suffering from losses by fire could avail, I could help; but nothing of that kind avails. Courage and determination to succeed are all that will do.

Tours, with best wishes, M. W. Philips.

Republic of Missisippi, Edwards, Jan. 25, 1861.

[Republic of Mississippi! That is a strange sound to our ears. We could wish it were otherwise, for the sake of the estrangements it will cause, and for the sake of our common country. Many of us, no doubt, have been naughty enough, and deserve more " spanking" than your mamma probably ever gave you. But, Doctor, we can not let you out of our "parish." - We are glad to hear that you were pleased with our answers to Mr. Goodwin. We seem, somehow, to have met the wants of a great many in those answers. - Tour experience with maiden trees is that of a great many. Trees are planted so close in nursery-rows, that after the first year they become much injured. Some nurserymen understand this, and are now giving their trees more room, with the best results to top and bottom, and to the great satisfaction of their customers. Then, again, through carelessness in lifting, the older the tree the greater the injury the'roots receive. We must keep talking about these things to get them right. - Thank you for your sympathy.

We have some courage left, and a " determination to succeed." - Ed.]