1877.] 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



59 



grape to attempt to comply. I have seen, eaten 

 and greatly admired it, but I have never studied 

 it. i have not even fruited it, though I hope to 

 do so the coming season. I have no interest in 

 it whatever, save as I am interested in every new 

 fruit that promises to be an improvement upon 

 what we have hitherto had, and so a promoter 

 of the public welfare and enjoyment. 



Dropping, therefore, all farther reference to 

 this or any other particular variety, I will, with 

 your permission, give some reasons for the view 

 expressed in the article referred to, on the sub- 

 ject of "Horticultural Protection." By this 

 phrase I mean the protection by law of the 

 originator's right to a new fruit, as our patent 

 laws now protect an inventor's right to a new 

 implement. 



What is the design of the whole system of patent 

 laws f — It is to secure to inventors such a com- 

 pensation for their time, labor and expense in 

 making valuable improvements in machinery, 

 <fec., as will encourage others to use their abili- 

 ties and energies in the same direction. Thus 

 the public welfare and happiness (at the main- 

 tenance or promotion of which all legislation 

 ought to aim) are advanced by constant im- 

 provements in the arts. 



Why should the same principle apply to horticid- 

 tural improvements as to mechanical, or rather we 

 may ask. Why shoidd it not? — The burden of 

 proof does not rest upon the advocates, but upon 

 the opponents of "horticultural protection." 

 If (as is generally admitted) the principle upon 

 which all patent laws are based is sound, then 

 why should that principle be restricted in its ap- 

 lication to mechanical improvements? That is 

 a question which the opponents of horticultural 

 protection are bound satisfactorily to answer. 

 If the public good is as truly promoted by the 

 production of such a grape as the Concord, or 

 of such a potato as the Early Kose, as it is by 

 the invention of a new toy ; then why should 

 our laws give to the inventor of the toy such a 

 a patent as secures him an abundant compensa- 

 tion, and at the same time refuse to give Mr. 

 Bull or Mr. Bresee any protection at all ? There 

 is the pivot on which this whole question turn.s. 

 It is a question of justice and right. The origin- 

 ator of a new and valuable fridt has a right to 

 the same treatment from the government which 

 it gives to the inventor of a new machine. If 

 he has, then the principle of horticidtural prof ec- 

 tection is right. If he has not, then it is incum- 

 bent upon those who say so to show why he has 



not. I am aware of the answer that will be 

 made to this, that "if the principle is right, yet 

 the appliation of it is impracticable. The at- 

 tempt, it is claimed, would be met at once with 

 so many and so serious difficulties that it would 

 be unwise to make it." 



The length of this article forbids my attempt- 

 ing to state and answer the objections that are 

 urged by the opponents of horticultural protec- 

 tion. But if the Editor of the Gardener's Monthly 

 will state them as clearly and briefly as possible, 

 I will consider them in another article, and en- 

 deavor to show that they furnish no adequate 

 reason for refusing to apply to horticultural im- 

 provements the same patent-law principle which 

 ii now applied to mechanical. 



[We doubt that our meaning has been made 

 plain to our correspondent. We do not want 

 any articles on the justice of protection . All that 

 is granted. Of course if anybody denied that 

 the principle of protection should be applied to 

 horticultural improvement, the "burden of 

 proof," would be on them. But it is not denied. 

 The reason given by our correspondent for not 

 attempting a patent-office description of the 

 Secretary is, that he is not sufficiently familiar 

 with it. Then let him try the Concord. It will 

 serve our purpose just as well. 



What are the especial points in the Concord 

 not possessed by any other grape, for which Mr. 

 Bull is to claim a patent right? and so expressed 

 as to satisfy the Patent Office clerk, who knows 

 nothing of fruits, but something of language* 

 that some one was infringing on Mr. Bull's rights? 

 Mr. Main might, for instance, claim a patent for 

 the " Main Grape," and the clerk would have to 

 refer to his books to decide. The exact wording 

 might not be quite the same. The clerk might 

 give Mr. Main a " patent," and what is the result? 

 "Briefly," and we hope " clearly," we say that 

 language nor drawings can clearly convey to a 

 Patent Office clerk the special points of novelty 

 in any new fruit. — Ed. G. M.] 



LAND AND GAME BIRDS OF NEW ENGLAND. 



By H. D. Minof. Published by the Naturalists' 

 Agency, Salem, Mass. 



BY T. G. G. 



A careful examination of Mr. Minot's book on 

 birds, convinces me that the author has spared 

 no pains to bring before the public a highly use- 

 ful, as well as entertaining and instructive vol- 



