68 STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



where, that person could not show such conveyance when called for, and would 

 have to pay the penalty the law imposed. The right to propagate to obtain the 

 marketable product would be included in the right to grow the plant in all 

 cases, as propagation is the result of growth with a majority of plants, and is 

 part of the use. 



Of course, growers of protected varieties could transfer the right to grow 

 them with the real estate on which they were situated. All advertisements and 

 circulars of protected varieties should be required to contain the words "Pro- 

 tected according to Act of Congress," with date affixed to the name, and when 

 the marketable product was the means of reproduction, the party exposing it 

 for sale should be required to place a sign or label of the name and affix with 

 such product or attach thereto. All packages of the latter for sending to a 

 distance should be required to have the same words written or printed thereon. 

 This requirement could be enforced by a fine for its neglect. When the system 

 was inaugurated, the name, with the word "Protected," and date would be 

 sufficient. The penalty for growing the plant without right sbould be a moder- 

 ate price per acre occupied by it, the area of land so occupied to be estimated 

 by the ordinary distance of setting plants of the same class. For instance, it 

 might be fixed at $5.00 for an acre or a less area, of anything in Classes 1, 

 2, and $3.00 an acre for anything in Class 3. This measure, besides oper- 

 ating as a royalty to introducers of new productions, would have a tendency to 

 regulate the price of them. They would seek to profit rather by sale of the exclus- 

 ive right than by selling a few plants or seeds at exorbitant rates as they now 

 do. To enable them to do so, the productions would have to be decided 

 acquisitions. Probably they would be extensively taken on trial, to be paid for 

 if found worthy, and not otherwise. The introducer of a new sort of potato or 

 cereal of great merit could afford to sell farm rights at $3.00 each, and yet be 

 enabled to secure ample compensation. An infringement of the right to dis- 

 seminate a production of this kind would be claiming the right to sell it to be 

 grown by any party not possessing such right. It would not be selling the 

 article to any one even though the buyer should tell the seller he intended to 

 grow the plant. 



Under this system of protection, the introducers of new productions would 

 have the exclusive right to appear in print as the disseminators, and if meritorious 

 this advantage alone might enable them to obtain compensation. Whether a 

 valuable production originates on an individual's land through his design or by 

 accident, it is his sole property. He has as much right to the exclusive posses- 

 sion of that kind of property as any other. This right is guaranteed to him by 

 the Constitution of the United States which says: "No person shall be de- 

 prived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." If the owner 

 disseminates it and thus confers a general benefit, it is no more than just he 

 should have such exclusive rights in its dissemination as will enable him to 

 make the benefit reciprocal. 



But when the fact is considered that new varieties are often disseminated 

 without the consent of the producers owing to the facility with which plants, 

 cuttings or seeds of the same may be stolen from the field or garden, for which 

 there is no legal redress; that such productions are generally the result of many 

 years of costly experiment; that even when not stolen the first sales of the pro- 

 duction do not afford the originator an opportunity to obtain compensation (he 

 must rely on these) by reason of the cost of origination and introduction; when 

 it is considered further that the protection proposed would confer inestimable 

 benefits upon the entire nation by stimulating efforts to improve the products. 



