advances which they have made in the skill and taste in arranging their fruits, in selecting them for exhibition, and in the correctness of nomenclature that characterized them. This is itself no mean evidence of the great advantages derived from these State Fairs, which are indeed our great high schools of agriculture, making, in their several departments, a grand agricultural university, where all our people can derive the benefit of valuable instruction. On the other hand we were humbled, first, by observing the limited sized building devoted to pomology, which was so small that several exhibiters were obliged to crowd their material into one-half the space required for their proper display; and secondly, a still greater cause of regret to your committee was paucity of entries upon the book we held in our hands. That our great State, from her million of orchards, and vineyards and gardens, should have been able to attract but a score of exhibiters to her annual festival, is indeed mortifying. Why this scarcity of exhibiters? it may properly be asked. The reasons are not obvious. The fact is patent, and has been observed in other States, as well as in our own. In former years, and in our own earlier exhibitions, the displays were not so handsome, the naming was very defective, and often erroneous; there was less taste manifested in the arrangement, and less judgment exercised in the selection of varieties, but then every farmer brought his quota from the orchard, and the accumulated contributions made a grand show. Now a few extensive orchardists bring numerous varieties with which they secure the prizes for collection and display, while from all these they may select duplicates to form choice lots of the best varieties, to put in competition for all the other premiums, and thus the common orchardists finds that he has no chance of winning against such odds he becomes discouraged and withdraws from the field in coming exhibitions. How to remedy this evil we do not pretend to suggest. Another reason of the limited number of exhibiters in this department is the very small amount of the premiums offered as an inducement to any one to take the necessary care and labor of selecting, labeling, transporting and displaying of his fruit, to say nothing of its loss which amounts to many times the value of the premiums paid. In this department of your show beyond the premium, there is no motive but pure patriotism and perhaps personal pride to prompt the exhibiter if he be a farmer or even a commercial orchardist. He cannot sell his products like the stock grower and breeder, nor can he sell and advertise his articles as do the machinist and manufacturer of agricultural implements which constitute so valuable and important elements of our great shows; if beaten, how fairly soever, he feels dispirited too often, he becomes disgusted and declares he will never come to a show again, a declaration we have lived to see verified frequently in the course of a few years by the vacant places of our former ex hibiters. Now to remedy the evil we would respectfully urge you to enlarge your premiums. and we leave to your wisdom the formation of a schedule of such a character as to induce more exhibiters from the mass of our farmers, all of whom have orchards. They are the men to be especially benefited by a share of the vast amount of valuable information which is always to be gathered at these shows, and the exhibiters are the parties most benefited by them. Before rendering our awards, we desire to make a showing of the reasons which guided us in our decisions: In the smaller lots the greatest excellence of all the varieties with the best selection of the specimens was considered entitled to the award, and in some cases the skill of the exhibiters made this a very nice and difficult point for us to decide, as will be seen by the lists to be appended. In the baskets, together with the excellence of the varieties, we considered the taste displayed in their arrangement, and should have been pleased to witness the addition of aids, such as sprigs of evergreens or even flowers with a well chosen basket to show the specimens. In the grand collection, the greatest number of good varieties, correct ly named with the fewest inferior sorts, was considered in connection with the excellence of the specimens. Some exhibiters failed by presenting fruits of comparatively little value, others by not having them correctly named, though in their collections they have fruits of the greatest excellence, which a better judgment would have chosen for these select lists. To such we give a word of encouragement with the above suggestions that may be of use in future years. JNO. A. WARDER, J. A. SCOTT'S LIST OF APPLES-PRESENTED AT STATE FAIR, AT DAYTON, '66. 8. Westfield Seek-no-further. 26. Kaighns Spitzenburg. 44. Putnam Russett. 9. Pecks' Pleasant. 10. Swaar. 11. Spafford Russett. 12. Roxbury Russett. 13. White Pippin. 14. King of T. County. 15. Newtown Pippin (yellow). 16. Newtown Pippin (green). 17. Esopus Spitzenburg, 18. Russett Greening. No. 1. Prince Yellow Harvest. No. 1. Gravenstein. 2. Graniwinkle. 3. Porter. 4. A. Summer Pearmain. 5. Maiden's Blush. 6. Detroit Black. 7. Twenty Ounce. 8. Hawley. 24. Dutch Mignonne. 25. Tulpahocken. There were 40 varieties not named, some of which were very choice. Winter varieties. Fall varieties Summer varieties. Winter and Fall.. Total number varieties.... 55 24 40 127 AWARDS ON PEACHES, PEARS, QUINCES, AND WILD FRUITS. Best 10 varieties of pears, not less than 5 of each, G. Powers & Son, Perrysburg....$10 Best 5 Best 3 66 Best half peck, one variety, G. W. Turner, Springfield Second do, G. Powers & Son... Best display not less than 12 varieties, G. Powers and Son... 66 5 3 3 2 15 10 3 2 Best collection native uncultivated fruits and nuts, J. H. W. Mumma, Dayton...... 5 There were 19 entries in this class. The following is the report of the Committee: The committee could not decide in regard to the half peck of best pears, but came to the conclusion that the two best varieties were highly entitled to the first premium and consequently have placed the first premium on both. The Seckel, exhibited by Mr. Powers, has always been considered a pear of standard excellency, and the committee do not feel like calling that reputation in question; but the Bushel Claregeau exhibited by Mr. Turner, is a very superior pear both as to quality and appearance. J. AUSTIN SCOTT, AWARDS ON GRAPES, HARDY. Best 6 varieties, not less than 3 bunches each, W. Z. Barney Sandusky... Best 6 bunches Catawba, W. Z. Barney.... There were 14 entries in this class. The Committee made no report. Committee. $8 .10 3 3 3 3 3 AWARDS ON DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS, ETC. Best life-size photograph, colored in oil, by Ohio artist, Louis ton Seebohm, Day..diploma and $10 Second do, E. Edmundson, Dayton 5 Best specimen painting in oil, by American artist, Josephine Klippart, Columbus... 20 Same by Ohio artist, E. Edmundson Dayton............ 20 Best specimen in water colors, Mary Forrer, Dayton ...diploma Best specimen uncolored photographs, T. W. Cridland, Dayton..... ..diploma Best specimen of not less than 12 distinct subjects of natural history in water colors, by Ohio artist, Mary Forrer... Best specimen Ohio landscape, by Ohio artist, W. P. Prill, Dayton.... .diploma ...diploma Best exhibition of paintings, by Ohio or foreign artist, E. Edmundson.. diploma and 10 Second do, Mary Forrer.. .diploma and 5 Best specimen penmanship, Bryant, Stratton & Co., Chicago. ....diploma Awarding Committee-A. B. BUTTLES, MISS H. LOOMIS, MRS. C. S. MEDLER, JOHN HOWARD, J. C. PENCE. AWARDS ON SCULPTURE, ETC. Best sculpture, C. Dow, & Winder, Dayton... Best collection marble work, same.. AWARDS ON MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. $10 .10 Best grand or semi-grand piano forte, Rex & Kenney, Dayton... The committee, after mature consideration, would recommend that "rustic work," and summer house attached thereto, as not only worthy of consideration, but would recommend that a premium be awarded to the owner. Best model of bridge, J. H. Artley, Williamsport, Pa.. .......dip. There were 16 entries in this class. The following is the report of the committee: We, the undersigned, after much deliberation, give the preference to Knabe's Square Piano. In doing which, the committee would highly commend the square piano exhibited by Marshall & Co. The committee award a first premium to Knabe's Grand Piano. We, the undersigned, award a first premium to violin entered by Kenney & Steele, of Dayton, Ohio. The committee award diploma for Boehm Silver Flute, entered by Kenney & Steele, Dayton, Ohio, and specially commend the guitar, banjo and violin bows, entered by same parties. The committee award a first prize on Mason & Hamlin's Parlor Organ, and highly commend their Church Reed Organ. The committee award a first prize upon W. W. Whiting's Improved Melodeon, being of superior workmanship; of touch and new improvements in the construction of bellows action, enabling the performer to play quick-every note answering to the touch properly. AURELIA ROBERTSON, W. S. PHELPS, F. KETLE. J. H. KIERSTED, Committee. Commended List of Articles at the Ohio State Fair, 1866. E. D. Leonard, Urbana, Ohio, stallion, "John C. Breckenridge," 10 years old. Frank Black, Hamilton, Ohio, portable steam engine. Simeon Sherman, Cincinnati, Ohio, water wheel. Feutenbatch & Englis, Indianapolis, Ind., patent hand propeller. W. H. Nauman, Dayton, Ohio, blacksmith's drill. G. W. Warren, Three Rivers, Mich., addressing machine for printers. E. Shopbell, Ashland, Ohio, tire upsetter. J. P. Schmucker, Ashland, Ohio, wood bending machine. C. M. Cross, Covington, Ohio, blacksmith's tweer. E. Thrasher, West Liberty, Ohio, thresher hub borer. J. M. White, Springfield, Ohio, blacksmiths' tweers. M. L. Smith, Armada, Mich., fruit ladder. A. D. Hoffman, Detroit, Mich., leather fly net machine. T. M. Huston, Orange, Ind, machine for filing (gumming) saws. Thomas & Mast, Springfield, Ohio, cider mill and press. Samuel Males, Cincinnati, Ohio, convertible corn-sheller and cider mill. H. Black, Lewisburg, Ohio, flax scutcher. White & Botswick, Norwalk, fence cap boring machine. Warner Bros., Norwalk, Ohio, apparatus for gigging logs for drag saw-mills. J. D. Mathews, Bowling Green, Ohio, portable hand sawyer. Tiffin Agricultural Works, Tiffin, Ohio, revolving hay rake. Terrell, Ludlow & Chorpenning, Springfield, Ohio, grubbing machine. Wm. Mason, Palo, Ill., corn and cane harvester. Bomberger, Wight & Co., Dayton, Ohio, cotton planter. Fowler & Wick, Upper Sandusky, Ohio, stack bottom. Jas. Guckain, Camden, Ohio, sorghum stripper and cutter. Lighter & Curtis, Hamilton, Ohio, flexible metalic drill tubes. Culp & Keeney, Florence, Ind., harvester coupling. M. H Lineback, Greenfield, Ind., corn-planter and cultivator. Ferrell, Ludlow & Chorpenning, Springfield, Ohio (working model), brick machine. Jas. F. Winchell, Springfield, Ohio, farm gate. A. Gray, Reiley, Butler county, Ohio, hive of Italian bees. Porter & Schneider, Cleveland, Ohio, portable sheep shed and rack. Jas. Sed gebeer, Painesville, Ohio, two-handed cottage mill. Ohio Valley Manf. Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, Hutchinson's patent feeder and grain cleaner. Jas. Bradford & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, portable grist mill. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, display of scales of all kinds. Nordyke, Marmon & Co., Richmond, Ind., grist mill. W. A. Flanders, Shelby, Ohio, method of handling and hiving bees. Jas. McIlhenny, Dayton, Ohio, bolting machine. J. G. Wolf, Morristown, Ind., grain screen. R. R. Smith, Delaware, Ohio, flour-bolt knocker. |