274 STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



size of barrel; yet I supiDose the law provides a piinisliment for violation. 

 Now, this alone leaves a majority of our apple-growers uni^unished 

 criminals. 



So much for the legal jjhase of the business. As for the moral features 

 in the case, perhaps it is best not to discuss that j)oint, as we are becom- 

 ing more and more convinced that it does not enter into the calculations 

 of most of our growers. But let us examine it as a question of business 

 policy, and see how it pays. The apple crop of 1889 was a large one, 

 probably larger than in any other state, and proved to be the financial salva- 

 tion of Michigan farmers. It was also one of the very best years to learn 

 facts regarding the trade. During that summer and fall, I made it a jDoint 

 to learn as nearly as possible what the difference in price was between the 

 full standard barrel and the "snide" in Chicago. I found the range of 

 prices for the season to be $1.25 to $3.50 per barrel, and by inquiring at 

 different times and of a number of dealers, I found that the amount of differ- 

 ence in fruit amounted to a little less than one half a bushel and the dif- 

 ference in the selling price was from oO cents to 75 cents per barrel, or an 

 average of 60 cents per barrel, after paying a slightly increased cost on 

 the barrel. Or, iu short, the Michigan grower received $1.20 per bushel 

 for all the extra apples required to pack full standard barrels. And fur- 

 ther, it is the large barrel that sells promi)tly, while the small barrel often 

 suffers loss, in case of a glut, by rotting down. This makes the difference 

 still larger. The shij)pers in the city are the largest and best buyers, and 

 they always want a large barrel with ten hoops and are willing to pay 

 for it. 



The same rule applies to the whole line of small fruits, as the case in 

 common use is supposed to hold 16 quarts, but in reality holds only 14 to 

 to 14| quarts. We frequently hear men state that jthey do not represent 

 them as quarts, but only as 16 boxes. Such statements are unworthy and 

 suspicious, and we would expect the same man to ease his conscience from 

 any little dishonorable act by the plea that he had not promised not to do it. 

 Again, we hear men justify themselves by saying that others do so and 

 they have as good a right as anybody. If that man should, unfortunately, 

 settle in a community of horse thieves, would he steal horses and justify 

 himself in the same manner? His crime and position would be similar, 

 only different in degree. In this manner our package manufacturers 

 come in for a share of the blame, as they have, to a certain extent, aided 

 in the deception by manufacturing the "snide" package. They will say 

 that they can not control the people's wishes in the matter, and they are 

 in the business to make anything the people want. This is to a certain 

 extent true, but the best information we can get is to the effect that nearly 

 every change in the size or style of package is first made by the manufac- 

 turer, and offered for our adoj)tion, even without a demand, and we all 

 know they are constantly making changes in the style and form of pack- 

 ages; and one idea seems to run through all the work, and that is to make 

 them a little scant measure; and the majority of our farmers seem to think 

 that a barrel is a barrel, even if it is not more than two thirds grown, and 

 the same with a quart box. Apj)eals have been made time and again to 

 the honesty and good sense of our growers to discontinue the use of such 

 packages, and the practice of "stuffing" or dishonest packing, but so far it 

 has accomplished but little; and I think the explanation must be in the 

 fact that a great majority of the fruitgrowers do not attend society meet+ 

 ings, nor do they read papers devoted to their interest; for if they did 



