ii6 • . State Horticultural Society. 



"As in article three, that in the h'ght of past experiences the un- 

 restricted naming- of fruit varieties by originators, discoverers and in- 

 troducers has resulted in complexity, confusion and frequent duplica- 

 tion of fruit names, alike destructive to scientific accuracy in pomology 

 and detrimental to the best interests of both the amateur and the 

 commercial grower. 



Also Rule 2, article A. "No variety shall be named unless dis- 

 tinctly superior to existing varieties in some important characteristic, 

 nor until it has been determined to perpetuate it by bud propagation." 



At the recent meeting of the Missouri Society in St. Louis, no 

 objection was made except from the source referred to and the ques- 

 tion raised by them was satisfactorily explained to every one but 

 themselves, and unanimously sustained, and when, as you haVe stated, 

 the parties casting reflections by innuendo were asked by the Society 

 to put their charges in writing, they failed to do so. 



Jt .was the general opinion of all those fully acquainted with the 

 matter that the object of their pernicious attack was to force the 

 Society, rather than to submit to the insinuations, to shut them off. 

 Then they could say they could not get a hearing before the Society 

 on account of prejudice and use the statement as an advertisement. 



The frequent use of the statement "that it was the first oppor- 

 tunity" they had had to present their grievances, leaving the impres- 

 sion that such opportunity had been denied them, when they or no 

 one else had ever been denied any opportunity before the Society, 

 gave proof of this conclusion. One of the Starks asked to be ap- 

 pointed on the finance committee, probably for the same purpose, 

 thinking more than likely he would not be appointed, but when he 

 was appointed, made an excuse that he could not serve. 



We are not one who believes in condoning the misdeeds of a pub- 

 lic officer, political or social, nor are we willing to see them wrongly 

 condemned. 



We are- so familiar with all the facts and motives patent to this 

 case that we would be derelict of our duty did we remain silent. We 

 do not claim that any one is dishonest in their views, claims or opin- 

 ions in this controversy. 



The Society unanimously adopted a statement at its last meet- 

 ing reaffirming its position on the Gano-Black Ben Davis contro- 

 versy. This statement was recommended by the Executive Board 

 after being duly considered. They declined to accept a statement that 

 had been submitted to them for their signatures, compromising the 

 former action of the Society. 



