There are examples in abundance to support the efficiency of systematic pruning, and again there are frequent instances to support those disciples of nature who believe a tree is better if left to itself, and not pruned at all, except to remove injured or diseased branches. Such differences of experience render it impossible to lay down any fixed law in horticulture as to pruning. We have an example in point: Dr. J. Stay man, of Kansas, has an orchard conducted on the natural system, which is left by nature to its own tendencies, and untouched by the pruning knife. He says, "after more than forty years of careful observation in pruning for various purposes, suggested by different authors, the last ten being devoted to a practical test and comparison of the relative value of pruning, 1 have become fully convinced that pruning is in no instance of any benefit, but in most oases an absolute and irreparable injury. Instead of pruning for form, vigor, health and transplanting, they shall only be pruned as a remedial agent in disease, in overcoming injuries and removing unnatural obstructions and deformities".

The Doctor does not believe that a tree should be pruned either in the nursery or orchard, or at the time of setting out and transplanting, nor at any subsequent time.

The Doctor takes a radical position opposed to all the usual practices of horticulture, and, like the "grass theory of cultivation" is a pill not to be heartily swallowed by the rest of the fraternity.

The Doctor's orchard is grown in grass, and is not pruned ; the trees grow in all possible direction, unshaped and uncontrolled, and yet are loaded with fruit year after year - the orchard is a great success.

Yet we advise no one heartily to do as he does. His soil is favorable for fruit culture ; the climate is a great aid. Trees that are pruned are doing just as well as his.

In another soil and another climate, not as favorable for fruit as his (Kansas), we feel confident his system would be productive of total failure. In Delaware we have seen orchards unpruned that never were successful. We have in mind now a row of pear trees which have never been touched since they were put out, ten years ago, yet have never borne a particle of fruit, while other trees of the same variety (Bart-lett) pruned judiciously, have yielded regularly.

The finest pear orchard near New York, which yielded $10,000 last year, is a monument in honor of judicious pruning. Mr. William Saunders, of Washington, who formerly believed as Dr. Stayman did, that fruit trees should go unpruned, has now, we believe, changed his opinion and practice, and considers pruning, more or little as the case may need, one of the necessities of fruit culture.

Remember we have no sympathy for indiscriminate pruners, who cut at random, or by the wholesale, in every part of the tree. A good pruner will take as much care and time in selecting the right branch, and how much of it to trim off, as a cook would do in fashioning the outside proportions of a handsome cake.

In some portions of the West, where growth is too rank, the grass theory can for a time be brought into requisition with good results. We do not say but that it may occasionally be useful, and so in some soils which have just the right food for the tree, so it will grow without much urging, and produce good crops naturally, the orchard may very properly go without pruning for a long series of years. On a limestone soil nearly all kinds of fruit will do well even if neglected.

But for the largest expanse of territory, and among the largest class of cultivators there are only two orthodox systems:

1st. Prune your trees regularly in summer to develop the fruit spurs, and in winter for wood.

2nd. Cultivate your orchard, but allow no other crops therein, and mulch occasionally. Other practices than these, or other advice, must have an unwholesome effect.