Ateil 28, 1904. 



The Weekly Florists' Review, 



J 205 



Easter View of the Columbia Avenue Store and Conservatory of John C, Graccy, Philadelphia. 



TARIFF ON CUTTINGS. 



In the ease of the American Express 

 Co., which protested at the duty assessed 

 at the port of Buffalo on certain rooted 

 rose cuttings imported for the Heller 

 Bros., of the South Park Floral Co.; 

 John Burton and others, the decision of 

 the Board of General Appraisers is so 

 important that is is given here in full: 



These protests relate to importations of so- 

 called rooted rose cuttings, which were assessed 

 for duty at 2\^ cents each under the following 

 provision of paragraph 2n2 of the tariff act of 

 1897: 



"Rose plants, budded, grafted, or grown on 

 their own roots. 2^ cents each." 



They are claimed to be dutiable at twenty- 

 five per cent ad valorem under the last sub- 

 division of the paragraph, which reads as fol- 

 lows: "Stocks, cuttings, and seedlings of all 

 fruit and ornamental trees, deciduous and ever- 

 green, shrubs and vines, manetti, multlflorn. 

 and brier rose, and all trees, shrubs, plants 

 and vines, commonly known as nursery or 

 greenhouse stock, not specially provided for In 

 this Act. twenty-five per centum ad valorem." 



The official samples consist of small rose cut- 

 tings, with slight tendrils or rootlets sproutinL' 

 from the base. The evidence is not In the 

 most satisfactory form, but tends to show that 

 the cuttings have been placed in sand a auffl- 

 clent length of time to start root action In 

 order to make them more hardy for trans- 

 portation ; that they have never been In soil 

 or In i>ots; that they are advertised In trade 

 papers as "rooted cuttings," the price ranging 

 from $1.50 to $2.50 per hundred; that they are 

 Intended to be grown into plants after being 

 placed In soil In pots; that rose plants aro 

 usually sold in soil in pots, and range in 

 price as high as $20 per hundred. 



The Board has hitherto held that rose cut- 

 tings were not dutiable as "rose plants" un- 

 der said paragraph 252. being the youngest 

 virgin stock from which hybrid rose plants 

 "grown on their own roots." as distinguished 

 from roses grafted, budded, or grown from 

 seed, are cultivated. The record in this case 

 supplies no good reason why a different rule 

 should apply to the so-called rooted cuttings 

 In controversy. On the contrarv it Is per- 

 suasive of the view that the term "plants" 

 was not meant to include articles such as 

 these. In which the root development Is so 

 small and to all appearances so Immature as 

 to be Insignlflcant. 



The last subdivision of paragraph 252 is not 

 altogether free from ambiguity, owing to the 

 uncertainty as to how far the expression 

 "stocks, cuttings and seedlings of" qualifies the 

 cL-iuses which follow it in the paragraph. The 

 cuttings involved, while they may liave been 

 grown by budding or grafting upon wild or 

 hardy stock — such as manetti, multiflora. , or 

 brier roses — are themselves. It would appear, 

 hybrids, Intended to be reared into plants 

 having such names as "Bride," "Bridesmaid." 

 "Meteor." "Perle." "Sunset," etc. Since rooted 

 rose cuttings can not be said to be either 

 "trees," "shrubs." "plants," or "vines," If 

 these goods are dutiable at all under the pro- 

 vision referred to, it would seem to be as "cut- 

 tings of plants commonly known as nursery 

 or greenhouse stock." This construction. It will 

 be seen, extends the effect of the expression 

 "stocks, cuttings and seedlings of" to all the 

 subsequent members of the paragraph, and 

 reads It as though as it were printed as fol- 

 lows: 



Stocks, cuttings and seedlings (not specially 

 provided for in the act) of all 



(1) fruit and ornamental trees, deciduous and 

 evergreen. 



(2) shrubs and vines. 



(3) manetti. multiflora and brier rose. 



(4) trees, shrubs, plants and vines, commonly 

 known as nursery or greenhouse stock. 



The Board is of opinion that this Interpre- 

 tation should be adopted. Although it may 

 appear doubtful upon a strictly grammaticnl 

 construction of the paragraph, it accords with 

 what we believe to have been the purpose of 

 Congress, viz.. to include within the compre- 

 hensive language of paragraph 252. together 

 with paragraph 251. practically everything In the 

 nature of nursery or greenhouse stock. (Tariff 

 Hearings. 1896-7. vol. 1. pp. 1038-50.) In con- 

 struing statutes the Intent Is to be soupht 

 without controlling regard for mere gram- 

 matical rules. (Endllch on Interp. of Stat., 

 sees. 81. 295. 414, ct seq.) The protests are 

 sustained and the collector's dec^ion Is re- 

 versed in each ease. 



VIOLETS. 



Decline of the SpeciaKst. 



Anyone who will look fairly and un- 

 derstandingly at the situation will be 

 compelled to admit that the day has 

 passed when the grower can make the 

 good money growing violets that he did 

 a few years ago. In our estimation, 



there are several reasons that cause us 

 to arrive at this conclusion. First is the 

 overproduction that always occurs when 

 someone sees somebody else having what 

 looks Ifke a good thing, and all plunge 

 into it. This, then, leads to another 

 thing, the lessening demand when the 

 product becomes too plentiful and com- 

 mon, and this always to the result that 

 the best paying customers, those who 

 have the most money to spend for flow- 

 ers, naturally turn away and look for 

 something that is not so constantly be- 

 fore them. 



Another reason is that violets never 

 seem to be grown with equal success 

 year after year, even when they receive 

 the same careful, painstaking attention, 

 due, I think, much to atmospheric con- 

 ditions over which we have no control, 

 and not thoroughly understood, often 

 blocking our efforts for what otherwise 

 gave promise of a fine crop. 



Notwithstanding these and other rea- 

 sons, violets hold a place, and always 

 will, by reason of their color and fra- 

 grance, that nothing else will till, and 

 will continue to be grown ; but I incline 

 to the opinion that it will be more and 

 more by the individual grower, in con- 

 nection with his other stock, for his own 

 trade, rather than by the specialist, 

 mainly for two reasons: 



For the specialist it is yearly becom- 

 ing more and more risky, owing to de- 

 crease and uncertainty in prices. The 

 general grower will take them up because 

 he so often wants them on short notice 

 and has not the time to send for them 

 and, owing to the lessened call for them, 

 finds it unprofitable to have a regular 

 daily consignment of them, as at present 



