, 1885-01-31

cane q glSantlc grass plant, which, III COM
mon with all species of grass not productive
of seed, is comparatively satisfied with %
moderate quantity of nouriShment. In
spite however of this favourable character
of the plant, the result of a long continued
growth of the same plant on the same soil
has been to deprive even the rich soil of
the Western part OF the island of so much
of its original fertility, that it has become
far from being able to produce as much as
1t did in its primitive virginia. state. The
way the cultivation is carried on is de-
scribed as this: The planter divides his
land into two parts, the best part he re-
serves for the canes, the rest is kept "a
pasture and food for the cattle, the manure
from which is applied to the cane bearing
soil; in other words he withdrawS gradu-
ally the nutritious power from the soil in
pasture and grass, and carries 1t over to
the cane-land, and this cane-land he de.
prlVeS year after year of the whole crop it
brings forth.
He then goes on to show, how according
to the degree of fertility of the soil the
same cane plant can for a long period con-
tlnue to yield new crops by merely cutting
off the growing one, until gradually the
roots lose their vital powers, an decay.
In new land Virgin soil of great fertility
this reproduction ratooning can go on
twenty years and longer, but when the
soil from prolonged cultivation of the same
plant has been deprived of much of it's
original nouriShing substance, this power
of reproduction gets lesSenea to such an
extent, as scarcely to enable the plant to
reproduce a growth three or four years.
The manure obtained in the manner above
mentioned as offal from the cattle fed on
the part of the land kept as pasture and
grassland, is all the nOurishment with
which the land has been provided, and no
other consequence could enSue, than that
this unceaSing cultivation has in the course
of time deprived the canefelds of the
greatest part Of the nouriShing substances
originally eXtant i'll the soil.
This is, what Mr.. Hagemann with pro-
priety calls u robbery kind of cultivation,
and this he says is a type of the whole Co
lonial cane cultivation. Whether it is
literally correct, to call the st. Croix prac-
tice a type of the whole Colonial cultiva.
ton whether in reality the cultivation as
it is carried on in st. CroiX is the same as
all over the West Indies or whether this
island is not somewhat behind hand, com
pared with some cane-sugar producing
countries, even among the West India Is
lands; and whether therefore Mr.. HIS
criticism is not rather lenient than other
wise, may after all be question. At all
events has he not a right to call the sys-
TEN here in practice a "ROvdrift",-fOr
which he is found fault with The Danish
term 'Rovdrift" is exactly the same in
English as "robbery thrift" as applied to
the soil. Suppose now, you lock up q
mule or an OK in your stable with only
half Of the food necessary to restore to
him the nourishing substances he con-
sumes, partly in the necessary functions
of life, partly in working for you, do you
not rob him of the means of continuing
his work, and if you persist, of the very
means of existence? 1t is therefore not
without good reason, that the system has
been called a rObbing-system the soil is
actually robbed of the means of producing
what it might and ought. Who can even
say, that not many Of those have pursued
the system, were quite conscious of the
wrong they were doing, particularly at a
time, when but few proprietors took an
active part in the management Of their
Estates, but were either too much embar-
raised to procure by purchase the requl-
site materials of food far the soil, or COM
forted themselves with the consideration,
that the progress of deterioration and decay
was so gradual, that things would last
their own lifetime, a consolation, however
selfish, still not without logic, as long as
the soil did not become actually impover-
ished, as long as the state of slavery made
- 1..:II A. o-JA;-,4o ~-;@I o,Aoon