The emergency having passed away that induced me to reenter the pages of the Horticulturist as a contributor, having for several years denied myself the pleasure of being found there, I have no longer any apology for occupying a place among its correspondents. Your remarks appended to my notice of Rural Societies warn me from the purpose that I had contemplated, since you advise me that he who would unfold the causes of the low position of these societies in general must be a judge, and not a lawyer. Poor as a lawyer, I must make a still less efficient judge, and prudence admonishes me to allow Societies Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and all the others whose positions are yet undefined, to rest in peace. Of No. 5, your neighbor across the river, I should have wished to speak, as it commends itself to the lovers of horticulture, not only for the energy of its first officer, but for the results it has achieved.

I find, however, that, obnoxious as my style has proved to many of the former readers and writers in the Horticulturist, 1 am equally obnoxious to parties nearer home, who have for years helped to pull the wires of several of these Societies; and I am even now charged with advocating all manner of "extreme ideas " and " impracticabilities" - with arriving at "hard-shell" conclusions, etc., etc. You will excuse me for the present if I decline being elevated to the judicial bench to try this case, preferring to leave it in your and your readers' hands. Permit me, however, to correct the amount of vested property held by Society No. 2. It is now $11,000, instead of $13,000, as last reported. Several other slight differences in amount of property may be noted, but the statements are very nearly correct. You will readily remember the period in the history of No. 3 when we were obliged to permit a great showman to humbug us into holding its annual exhibition at a Broadway museum. Has it never recovered that shock? will it never recover?

[We were rather pleased that somebody had undertaken the task of analyzing the causes which have operated in many instances to impair the usefulness of our Rural Societies. It was something that we' had proposed to do, and felt relieved that somebody else had undertaken it. Our idea was, to analyze the principles upon which these Societies were, conducted, to ascertain, if possible, wherein they had failed, and to suggest such modifications as might be called for; but to be very careful not to pull down unless we had something better to uprear. This would make it incumbent to look at all sides of the subject, much as a judge looks at a case from the bench, and not as a lawyer, who advocates only one side and without mercy to the other. This is what we meant by our judicial allusion. Are we not right? We do not fear investigation, and Mr. Scott we know is not afraid to make it; but perhaps the subject had better drop for the present. That museum show was undoubtedly an unfortunate affair, and damaged the Society, but it afterward saw some palmy days.

The immediate causes of its failure you will know hereafter. - Ed].