This new competitor for public favor is now in its fifth month. We have received the four numbere already out, and have carefully perused their contents before we should venture to speak our opinion as to the merits or demerits of the magazine. It were an ungracious act to play the critic over the opening number of a magazine, and we have accordingly deferred our notice until we should see further numbers.

The publishers in their prospectus say, "That for a long time the demand has been felt for a journal in this department (Horticultural) of high tone and liberal ideas, employing not only the best talent in America, but the selection of all that is good from the English, French, German, and other foreign works. This demand we design to supply."

Language such as this would seem to imply that there was no Horticultural journal "of high tone and liberal ideas" in the Country, an inference which we by no means consider the publishers as warranted in making. Without, however, caviling with the publishers for words rather of bad taste than bad intent, we express the hope, that if this desideratum does really exist, the American Journal may have the good fortune to fill it.

A new journal of Horticulture ought not to be criticised as a purely literary magazine, nor as a work on science. It has to follow pretty much in the same beaten track in which its predecessors have gone, and with the same subjects and opportunities as its cotemporaries. It has no novelties to unfold - few new subjects to discourse upon. It is rather to be judged by the manner in which it handles old themes, and the degree of intelligence manifested in the work; So far as the list of contributors is concerned, the American Journal gives a very goodly promise; and it must be confessed that in the several divisions of Horticulture, Pomology, Botany, Landscape Gardening, Natural History, etc., they have a very fine array. The next question is, will all these gentlemen do their part to keep up the standard of the Journal for which their names are responsible ?

The January number is a very creditable specimen. So far as the accidents of good paper and elegant typography go, it stands

A No. 1. The embellishments of this number are chiefly borrowed. The architectural structure at the head of the article on Garden Architecture is taken from Hughes' Garden Architecture, very slightly altered, not improved, without giving any credit to the author from whom it is borrowed. So also in- the continuation of the same article in the February number, the illustrations are taken bodily from this beautiful work of Hughes, and the unlearned reader given to understand that these are all the drawings of the very original writer of the article in question. Against this we enter our protest, for it is nothing more nor less than what is usually called piracy. We would recommend to this writer hereafter, when he has occasion to borrow so extensively, if he chooses to claim all that he writes as his own original matter, to at least give credit to the poor author for the illustrations. The April number of the Journal continues the subject with an article of nearly six pages, which it acknowledges as "adapted from 'Garden Architecture and Landscape Gardening,7 by John Arthur Hughes." Adapted! we charitably suppose that this is a misprint, and that adopted is the word intended ; for the article is copied word for word, and with the illustrations corresponds exactly in words and figures with the original.

We confess to having our bile a Fittle disturbed by this beginning ; it is bad enough in an old journal, when short of matter, to crib a little, but for a new journal starting fresh in the race, it is, to say the least, very bad policy. Its leading number should be original, and give evidence of the fact that the Journal can rely upon its own resources. In other respect the Jan-nary number is a good one\. The leader on Spring Flowers is well written and timely, full of tasteful and beautiful instruction on an always welcome subject. There is also a very sensible correspondent on pear culture: his ideas we like very much, but can't say we admire his wood-cut illustrations. We have grown all the varieties he speaks of, and have had many pets among them, but, sad to say, we don't recognize them in the cuts. Better forbear the cuts until the artist can have a chance to see the fruit, cut it, and draw the outlines from the sections.

The February number opens with a portrait and memoir of Marshall P. Wilder. We find a portrait of the same distinguished gentleman, and a memoir by P. Barry, in the March number, 1855, of the Horticulturist. This number also contains the continuation of the Spring Flowers - a very valuable paper entitled May Flowers. It is refreshing to meet such a writer, and we tender him the warm hand of welcome, with our distinguished consideration. Blessed be the May Flowers, flowers of the month sacred to the blessed mother honored above all women! welcome the writer who discourses so eloquently on the flowers of this month of months.

Thanks also to the author of the article on Field Mice. The Journal is happy in such a correspondent. We have had this subject at heart for a long time, and been big with an article thereupon. Very few are aware of the importance of this subject, and of the incalculable loss which every year ensues from so small a cause. The writer has by no means exaggerated his theme. In the March number we have a leader from the "Sage of the Tribune" - a long talk about Dirt. The writer is evidently not much of an euphuist, or he had not chosen such a title. The article itself would make a most capital leader for the Young Folks Magazine; but as the readers of the American Journal are not supposed to be Solon's grandchildren, the article is hardly worthy the place of a leader. The writer's question, " What is dirt?" is pretty well answered by the article itself, for it is all over dirt; it remindeth us of Trin-culo's burst of indignation uttered to the monster Caliban on emerging from the filthy pool into which Ariel's mischief had beguiled him - he has put our nose in indignation.

Walter Scott has put the same idea into better words as uttered by the gipsy Hayraddin, when asked what were his expectations on meeting death. u To be resolved into the elements." Said he, "My hope, trust, and expectation is, that this mysterious frame of humanity shall melt into the general mass of nature, to be re-compounded in the other forms with which she daily supplies those which daily disappear and return under different forms: the watery particles to the streams and showers, the earthly part to enrich their mother earth, the airy portions to wanton in the breeze, and those of fire to supply the blaze of Aldebaran and his brethren" - and this was written some forty years ago.

What a journal of this kind most needs is correspondents composed of plain practical men who write simple, unvarnished, useful articles full of information, the result of their own experience. Publishers of these journals are too apt to think it necessary to engage reputed names, at large prices, to write, as often happens, articles in which they take no interest, and without a particle of inspiration. They will discourse brilliantly through several pages of glittering generalities without any apparent aim or definite object. Such writing is well described by the familiar expression of "penny-a-lining." We could point out precisely such writing by a reputed name in one of these four numbers, but as we have no malice to gratify, we refrain from being more explicit. If any one thinks the cap fits, he is welcome to wear it. But our space will not permit our going into further detail. We welcome this new magazine to the field; there is room enough for it, and more besides. It comes forth in very handsome attire, and we wish it success.

Only let it bear in mind what is due to others when it quotes or copies, otherwise we shall be down on it like a thousand of brick.

The American Journal Of Horticulture #1

Are you not a little severe on this journal ? Because its editor East is young, and its editor West writes long articles that grasp but little, should you censure the one for supposing the horticultural world have never before read anything, or the latter for being voluminous? Why grumble because that journal chooses to re-stereotype a record of one of the best and most worthy men in horticulture, as if the thing had never been, or that that man's record was not better known over the Union and abroad than by those who prepared the matter or published the magazine ? But aside from these old re-hashes of matter and copyings from abroad without credit, there is in the magazine a great deal that is good, and I advise every reader of the Horticulturist to take and read it. They will then find that they can not get along any way without the Horticulturist and the Gardener's Monthly, even if those journals do not profess to absorb all the talent of the country. Reuben.