three? To spare you all possible confusion, we will take them
separately and in order, beginning with the hardest.

For rural dwellings in New England stone is rarely used, except for
foundations below ground, being, according to the common notion,
better for that purpose than brick, but not as worthy to be seen,
unless hammered and chiselled into straight lines and smooth surfaces.
Errors both. Well-burned brick laid in cement mortar are nearly always
as good as a stone foundation, while nothing can be more effective in
appearance than a well-laid wall of native, undressed stone. We have
too long neglected one of the most available of our resources in not
making use of the small loose stones that abound in many localities.
They are cheaper and better than bricks, and, rightly used, so
thoroughly in harmony with the nature around them that we should find
them in common use if men were half as wise in accepting the means of
grace provided for them as they are prone to seek out many inventions.
The earlier farmers with enormous industry built them into fences, and
then added a second story of wood to keep the sheep from walking over
them, or piled them up in conical heaps, watch-towers for the
woodchucks. The later farmers, with less patience but possibly more
enterprise, are running away from them to the smoother fields and
richer mould of the Western prairies. We can do better than either;
for, wherever found, they may be used most favorably, not only for
foundation walls that are deeply hidden from mortal view, but for the
main walls of the entire building,--favorably, not only in point of
economy and strength, but with most admirable result as to external
appearance. And here you touch your fundamental principle, that the
best outward effect can only be obtained by a judicious use of the
materials with which you build. You must not make the walls without
any reference to their composition or proportions, and then try to