THE PEAR CONTROVERSY. 



TUE PEAR CONTROVERSY. 



UY DR. J. M. WARD. 



-j^i^ T is niiirvellous to what extent controversies are carried on, at the 



1^^ present day, by luntnal misrepresentation. Devoutly as I had lioped 



^f^Hk that the charm thrown around the stndy and practice of horticulture 



WBr — ils peaceful, love-engenderinfr, purifyinfr influence — would jnx'serve 



^.*^ its devotees from the exercise of this spirit; that which I hud feared 



k seems at last to have come upon us. 



>> These reflections were excited by a perusal of the communica- 



. ;■;' tion, in the February number of the Ifurticnhurist, misstyled "A 



> ' l^eply to Dr. Ward on Dwarf Pears," and evidently penned by 



tlie writer without first having acquainted himself with the con- 

 tents of the articles referred to. Of this I complain, and not that 

 _- the articles should be made the subject of criticism. That there 

 '^ '"''"^ff^" was a degree of sensitiveness in the minds of some that would 

 <•" ■ make a bafe allusion to the failures of the pear on the quince a 



" ripj)le on the surface of the waters," I well knew; and therefore 

 it was that I asked that the storm of opposition the examination of the subject 

 would wake up, might not rest, even by implication, on the shoulders of the 

 Ilortimltiirist, 



The publication of these articles, embodying the result of carefully conducted 

 experiments, I regarded due from myself — a debtor to the cause of horticulture 

 for instruction often enjoyed from the recorded experiments of others in the pages 

 of this journal. They were penned as the result " of the observations of but a 

 solitary individual in his own fruit orchards,"* in the hope, that being made the 

 subject of reflection as well as criticism, the successful trial of many varieties would 

 encourage some, and the failures of other varieties — if such failure could not be 

 accounted for — would serve as beacon-lights to the less experienced ; while the 

 idea of the abandonment of the pear stock by the substitution of the quince for 

 the cultivation of this fruit, would appear, in its true light, as an ignis fahius. 



I claim to be misrepresented where the language used so clearly conveyed my 

 meaning, that a misstatement subjects the reviewer to the charge of xoiJfid mis- 

 representation, or else to the more charitable one of having written without having 

 examined the articles reviewed. 



Before attempting to substantiate this charge, I would call attention to the 

 closing paragraph, in which Mr. F. more than intimates that I should either 

 cease growing certain varieties of the pear on the quince, or else cease writing 

 against the cultivation on that stock, verily declaring that I object altogether to 

 tlie use of the quince stock. Again he says: "A certain gentleman who had 

 visited my grounds, had found abundant testimony in favor of the quince stock on 

 my own grounds ;" thus intimating, with equal clearness, that I had denied this 

 altogether. Now, do such assertions find support in my recorded views on that 

 point? On page 21T, May number, it is written : " A few pears upon quince 

 stocks succeed much better than upon their native stock, and are really so im- 

 proved in character as to demand their perpetual use," &c. 



This charge of misrepresentation will now be substantiated by further extracts 

 from the articles alluded to. 



* Page 216, ilaj number, Mr. T. suggests tliat Dr. W. " should have visited other orchards." 

 Would this have helped him in recording the experiments made in his own orchard ? 



