We have before us a letter, giving some praise to our magazine for the general intelligence displayed by correspondents who write for it; and another correspondent calls attention to his copying a paper from our pages for an agricultural paper, but which was not "agricultural enough for its columns" in the opinion of the editor.

We often wonder at the idea of a farmer many agricultural editors evidently have. Sometimes they give wood cut illustrations, and generally he is depicited as a weather-beaten old dowdy, his clothing suggesting that he made a change of linen only once a year on Thanksgiving Days, and with a vacant stare on his face, as if even the sight of the alphabet would insult him. Now and then we find him painted as a frowsy looking subject for entomological study, at the end of a string attached to the hind leg of a hog, with the animal leading him on; and somehow our thoughts wander to that editor who is trying to lead that same old farmer in pretty much the same old slough. It is. a queer association, but we cannot help it.

It is strange that a live agricultural editor should regard the farmer as but little above the beast that perisheth, with no other concern in life but his belly full of corn ! Horticulturists are at any rate not of that class; you may not find one that is satisfied with mere husks of swine. We have always felt in managing this magazine, that we were dealing with the most intelligent circle in the community, and that it was a privilege to be admitted as a reader of the magazine into this circle. It is a real pleasure to find by these occasional letters that our efforts are appreciated.