Wayside Notes. BY A MAN OF THE PRAIRIE.

I notice that Mr. Sanders, of the Treasury Cattle Commission, thinks it beneath the dignity of Congress to adopt retaliatory measures against France and Germany for prohibiting American pork products from entering those countries. He thinks it a far better scheme to appoint a small army of inspectors to examine all the pork before it is shipped from this country. This might be more dignified, and after a time effectual, but how shall we make France and Germany stop shipping their poisoned goods to this country? Will they be equally "dignified" and appoint inspectors on their side that will be satisfactory to our people. Probably they would after a few months of prohibition; never before. Dignity is a good thing, but protection to the health and wealth of the people is better. Besides, Government inspectors are expensive luxuries, and by no means always efficient. A fat Government appointment is a nice thing—for the appointee, as Mr. Sanders is aware, but it is not profitable to the tax-payers of the country to multiply them too extensively. In my opinion the easiest way out of the muddle is to strike back and to hit where it will hurt worst.

Clinton Babbitt, Secretary of the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, is reported to have said at the late meeting of the State Dairymen's Association that he had a very poor opinion of editors. In fact, that he held them in about the same esteem as Ben Butler does. Now I don't suppose it makes an iota of difference to any editor under the sun what Butler or Babbitt think of him; what Ben and Clint need to look out for is what the editors think of them. Big Ben got an inkling of this a few weeks ago; Little Clint's turn may come next.

For some time I have been noticing the advanced style of writing in the two or three "Down East" agricultural papers that come under my notice. They bear evidences of "culcha" that are truly encouraging, but here is a case that is actually exhilarating, or would be were it not somewhat bewildering. It is from an article about the Jersey Lily, Mrs. Langtry: "Who ever vocalized such a word with a more complex intonation, or with a more marvellously intimate union with a more inextricably intertwined relationship to the most exquisite sensibilities that accompany and mark the infinite flights and reachings of the soul, as within its human casement it burns with fire divine?" Now, I call that decidedly fine, and were I the owner of a whole herd of Jerseys I should endeavor to engage this genius to write them up for me. At any rate I think he should be brought West to help on the Jersey boom.

I sent the editors of The Prairie Farmer, the other day, from Springfield, where I was paying a flying visit to the agricultural rooms, a copy of the Reynolds argument for a change in the awarding of sweepstakes prizes on cattle. Mr. R. applied it to the Fat Stock Show alone, and I believe the State Board adopted the suggestions. But for the life of me I can not see why the principle is not equally applicable to the State Fair premiums, and indeed to similar exhibits at all our fairs. Next year I hope the State Board will extend the innovation to the State Fair, and from this it may be it will extend to similar organizations of lesser magnitude.

I notice that the National Academy of Sciences have decided that glucose is not injurious to health. Well, this is good news, at any rate, but it does not follow that manufacturers and merchants have the right to mix it with cane sugar or sell it to us for genuine cane sirups, or real honey, or pure sugar candy, or in any of the other ways in which we are made to pay two or three times what it is really worth. It does not do away with the great need of a rigorous food adulteration act, though there is great satisfaction in knowing that when we eat it we are not taking in a mild death-dealing potion. But, come to think of it, there are other great scientists in the country besides those composing the National Academy. Some of them have decided in a contrary manner. Is it not best to have the question decided by a majority vote of reputable chemists, and then stick to the good old things, whichever way the decision may be? On principle I don't object to suine, oleo, or any of the objectionable articles. All I want is to know when I am buying, and paying for them in real genuine dollars. Bogus dollars are every whit as respectable as bogus butter or bogus honey, though the law makes it a little unhealthy to use them with any degree of liberality.