The New York Tribune is sensitive about credits. In a recent paragraph some New Jerseyman "did not want to credit everything to the New York Tribune, though it would be but honest and decent to do so,"and the editor thinks "every one of our exchanges, without exception, will enjoy the remarks," especially when he thinks the offender, "as in this case" is somebody else.

As one "of the" exchanges "of the New York Tribune we resent this implication; and it comes with a bad grace from a quarter which does "just that same" itself only in a little different way. In the number where this complaint appears, there are in "Foot Notes on Farming" at least a dozen paragraphs which have been made up from its "exchanges" without any credit, and we do not see that it is any worse to take the whole as it stands, than to alter a preposition, a conjunction or a few punctuation marks, and then claim it as an "original paragraph." For instance, at page 275 of the Gardener's Monthly, we credited to the Memphis Avalanche that "Mr. Stewart the well known nurseryman of that place (Memphis), tells us that he planted out a lot of Eucalyptus in 1877. They grew twelve feet during the season, but were destroyed by the first white frost that killed the potatoes." Then the New York Tribune follows with this paragraph, "a lot of Eucalyptus globulus, planted in the Spring of 1877 by Mr. Stewart, of Memphis, Tenn., grew twelve feet during the season, and were destroyed by the same white frost that killed the potatoes." Any one can see that this is but slightly altered from our note, but there is no credit to the Gardener's Monthly for the language, or to the Avalanche for the fact.

Now we do not object to this. In twenty years of editing this magazine we have never made a complaint of any injustice on the part of any one using our "ideas," "facts," or paragraphs. Our exchanges are quite welcome to make any use they choose of what we write, and in any form they prefer; only we do not like to come under the ban that "there are none perfect, no not one" in the proper treatment of the New York Tribune, and so are tempted to call attention to what, from its own stand point, it ought to regard as slight indiscretions.