No. 7. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. 491 



that's what we ought to do. If people are not honest, they ought 

 to be made honest, in this case any way. Not only the growers, but 

 I am here to say, that the buyer is just as dishonest in his dealings. 

 He will buy another man's apples and he will face the barrels with 

 the fine grade and fill the rest of the barrel with culls that he bought 

 from some other man, and market them all as the honest man's 

 fruit. I understand that there has been several objections made to 

 this bill that 1 haven't mentioned, and I think a few of those things 

 ought to be changed to allow certain things. I believe this law will 

 be a great benefit to the growers so that no man can brand a package 

 and have inferior stock in it. Possibly there is some one else here 

 who is better posted on this than I am. I thank you. 



MR. E, C. TYSON: I do not feel qualified to express an opinion 

 upon this important subject. It is a matter, however, which seems 

 to me to be of great importance to fruit growers and one which 

 has claimed quite a little of our attention for some time. In order 

 to familiarize ourselves with the situation, as it now exists through- 

 out the United States, we have had quite a little correspondence 

 with other Horticultural Associations. We discover that there are 

 five different dimensions for a heaped bushel in the United States, 

 which becomes confusing in the matter of inter-state shipments. 

 We regard this point of sufficient importance to justify consideration 

 by the Porter Bill, looking toward the establishment of a legal 

 bushel for apples and other produce of like character. We believe, 

 however, that the matter is not mentioned in the Porter Bill as 

 it stands at present. Our correspondence also developed the fact 

 that there are numerous conflicting dimensions for apple boxes and 

 also a wide interest in the passage of a suitable law of this kind. 



Our Western correspondents all strenuously object to the adop- 

 tion of an arbitrary length, width and height for an apple box as 

 provided by the Porter Bill, and in view of the conflict which is 

 sure to arise over any attempt to thus prescribe a definite dimension, 

 it is our opinion that it would be better to confine the proposed 

 standard to a statement of cubical contents both for the bushel and 

 the box as well as the barrel. 



It is our opinion that 2,440 cu. in, most nearly represents what 

 is likely to prove satisfactory as the cubical content for a legal 

 bushel, our conclusions being based on the average of many replies 

 to inquiries as to what would be a proper amount of heaping for a 

 bushel of apples, namely a three-inch cone on a Winchester bushel. 



It is likewise our opinion that 2,440 cu. in., which is practically 

 the same as the Colorado box, also represents the proper size for 

 a legal box with the additional advantage, as experiment proves, 

 that three boxes of apples of that size just nicely fill a standard 

 New York barrel. 



The Porter Bill in its present form establishes three grades of 

 apples on a basis of cross-section diameter, which shall be applicable 

 to all varieties of apples, irrespective of their characteristic size. 

 It seems to us that the Canadian method of grading combined with 

 that practice in the far West would be a better basis of packing. 

 That this method is satisfactory in Canada is borne out by a recent 

 letter from Mr. Alexander McNiel, Chief of the Fruit Division of 

 the Canadian Department of Agriculture in which he says: ''The 



