150 STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



author, whose opinions command attention. The editor of The Garden 

 writes: "We should not plant any grafted tree or shrub so far as what are 

 called ornamental trees and shrubs are concerned. There may be reason 

 for the universal grafting of fruit trees, though we doubt it." I have not 

 cited these quotations in any controversial spirit, but simply to show the 

 positiveness with which the practice of graftage is assailed. And as the 

 presumption is in favor of any practice which has become universal, these 

 statements possess extraordinary interest. 



The reasons advanced for these denunciations of graftage, are three, so 

 far as I can learn; and as these are essentially the reasons which have 

 already been cited by the opponents of the system, we will consider them 

 here. These are, 1, the citation of numerous instances in which graftage 

 (by which I mean both grafting and budding) has given pernicious 

 results; 2, the affirmation that the process is unnatural; 3. the statement 

 that own-rooted plants are better — that is, longer lived, earlier, more virile 

 than graft-rooted plants. 



1. The citations of the injurious effects of graftage are usually confined 

 to ornamental plants, and the commonly cited fault of the operation is 

 the tendency of the stocks to sucker and choke the graft. This fault is 

 certainly very common, but on the other hand there are numerous 

 instances in which it does not occur, for instance, in peach, apple, pear 

 and many other fruit-trees, and in very many ornamentals. In fact, it is 

 of no more common occurrence, in the plants which have fallen under my 

 observation, than is the pernicious suckering of plants grown from cut- 

 tings, as in the lilacs, cutting-grown or sucker-grown plums, and many 

 other plants, in which suckers must be assiduously kept down or they will 

 choke the main stem which we are endeavoring to rear. And these 

 remarks will apply with equal force to every citation which I have ever 

 seen of the ill-effects of graftage: the cases simply show that the opera- 

 tion has been a failure or is open to objections in the particular instances 

 cited, and afford no proof that there may not be other plants upon which 

 graftage is an entire success. For myself, I am convinced that graftage 

 has been indiscriminately employed, and it is apparent to everyone that 

 there have been many failures. But this does not prove graftage wrong, 

 any more than the wrong practice of physicians prove that the science of 

 medicine is pernicious. If there are plants upon which graftage is 

 entirely successful, then all must agree that the operation itself, per se, is 

 not wrong, however many cases there may be to which it is not adapted. 



'2. The proposition that graftage is unnatural and therefore pernicious 

 is no more or less than a fallacy. In the first place, there is nothing to 

 show that it is any more unnatural than the making of cuttings, and if 

 naturalness is proved by frequency of occurrence in nature, then graftage 

 must be considered the more natural process of the two, as I have already 

 shown. One of the more determined writers upon this subject has said 

 that " it is quite fair to say that raising a tree from seed, or a shrub by 

 pulling it in pieces (cuttings) is a more natural mode of increase than 

 by grafting." I can not understand by what token the author is to prove 

 that pulling a plant in pieces is more natural than graftage; and there 

 has been no attempt- so far as I know, to show that it is so. 



But the whole discussion of the mere naturalness of any operation is 

 really aside from the question, for every operation in the garden is in 

 some sense unnatural, whether it be transplantation, pruning, or tillage. 

 And it is well known that these very unnatural processes may sometimes 



