May 3, 1913 



H R T I C TJ L T U E E 



671 



Soon the rhododendrons will be in 

 bloom. Although the records here given 

 are not complete they are published 

 at this time in order to make a begin- 

 ning and to call attention to the sub- 

 ject. We need more definite informa- 

 tion on the time of bloom, size of 

 plant and range of successful growth 

 of hardy, hybrid rhododendrons. 



For example, Charles Dickens and 

 Everestianum are both old reliable 

 varieties and both early bloomers but 

 their colors do not harmonize and they 

 should not be planted together. If 

 they must be planted near each other 

 they should be separated by white va- 

 rieties which bloom at the same time. 



Through the courtesy of Mr, Hat- 

 field of Wellesley and Mr. Dunbar of 

 Rochester their observations have been 

 combined in the foregoing tables 

 with our measurements and records of 

 thirty-four Arboretum varieties, all of 

 which are established plants twenty 

 years old or over. It is from just 

 such collections as these that this kind 

 of information can best be gathered. 

 In these tables the letter A preceding 

 the name of a variety means that this 

 variety is recorded from the Arnold 

 Arboretum at Boston, Mass. In the 

 same manner H refers to Hunnewell 

 Gardens at Wellesley, Mass., and R to 

 Highland Park, Rochester, N. Y. 



It will be noticed that the three 

 records do not always agree but th5s 

 makes them all the more worth while. 

 Another season will give a further 

 check and will lay the emphasis where 

 it rightly belongs, namely, on the con- 

 ditions under which the plants are 

 grown. For example the majority of 

 the Arboretum plants recorded in these 



tables all appear to run smaller in 

 size than plants of similar varieties in 

 Hunnewell Gardens or at Rochester. 

 If this is so, what is the reason? 



Again, such varieties as F. L. Ames, 

 Lady Grey Edgerton, Mrs. H. S. Hun- 

 newell, Mrs. Harry Ingersoll and Sef- 

 ton, while perfectly hardy at Roches- 

 ter and growing both in the Hunne- 

 well Gardens and at the Arboretum 

 can not be recommended for general 

 planting in New England because lo- 

 cal conditions enter so largely into the 

 success or failure of rhododendron 

 plantations. 



Among these necessary conditions 

 should be mentioned an abundance of 

 water with also good drainage. On 

 this point it is interesting to note that 

 while Mr. Gomer Waterer lays special 

 emphasis on good drainage Mr. Hat- 

 field writes that some rhododendrons 

 are doing well in a swamp near 

 Wellesley. The soil must be in fine 

 condition with plenty of leaf mould or 

 well-rotted manure but no traces of 

 lime. There must also be no indica- 

 tions of lime in the water used for 

 watering the plantations in summer. 



The general location should face the 

 north or northwest with a wind-break 

 if possible and always some shelter 

 from the early morning sun. Many 

 plants prove to be tender because 

 they have to take the early morning 

 sun. With the beds properly mulched 

 the roots seldom become frozen in the 

 winter but the leaves and buds do. In 

 the early spring with hard frosts at 

 night and warm sunshine during the 

 day the alternate rapid thawing and 

 freezing of the foliage of unsheltered 

 plants is what does the harm. The 

 best exposure is towards the north- 

 west with shade furnished by ever- 

 greens or a bordering woodland early 

 in the morning. 



In addition to the above the matter 

 of stock in grafted plants and of 

 parentage in seedlings is of the ut- 

 most importance. Formerly we ac- 

 cepted the tender ponticum stock If 

 the graft were made low and the plants 

 set deep so as to completely bury the 

 stock. But now this should no longer 

 be tolerated. Ponticum stock is short- 

 lived at the most and should not be 

 used for New England plantations. 

 Plants worked on the hardy native 

 Catawbiense stocks are much more 

 satisfactory, and so are those which 

 have been layered and started on 

 their own roots. Maximum stock 

 does not take the graft well and is 

 little used for this purpose. In seed- 

 lings those which are crosses between 

 the best of our hardy hybrids and 

 either Catawbiense or Maximum as 

 one parent or which are crosses be- 

 tween Catawbiense and Maximum 

 themselves are the most hopeful 

 sources for successful American types. 

 This does not always follow, however, 

 as is shown by Rh. Wellesianum, a 

 cross between Catawbiense and Maxi- 

 mum, which is still not reliably hardy. 

 But we already have some standard 

 sorts from this kind of parentage, 

 such as album elegans, album grandi- 

 florum and delicatissimum and it is 

 gratifying to know that American 

 hybridizers are unanimous in believing 

 that ultimate success will come from 

 just such hardy, native crosses. 



In conclusion let me urge other 

 readers of HoRTicuLxntE to add any 

 scrap of information available which 

 will help to fill out and complete these 

 rhododendron tables. In publishing 

 such incomplete notes it is the writer's 

 desire simply to suggest more observa- 

 tion on these things which are so es- 

 sential to good landscape planting. 



R. W. GUBTIS. 



WANTED— A TARIFF FREE FROM 

 AMBIGUITY. 



McHutchison & Co. are sending- out 

 to the nursery trade a very important 

 letter of which the following is a 

 copy: 



Dear Sir:— The Underwood Tariff Bill, 

 now before Congress, embodies exactly the 

 same errors In classification as the Payne- 

 Aldrich Law which took years to rectify 

 and is still open to much dispute. 



There cannot be any good reason why 

 the new Tariff Bill should go through 

 filled with errors and ambiguities which 

 serve to enrich lawyers, puzzle importers 

 and allow openings for fraudulent entries. 

 The wording should be clear and specific 

 and not an Incentive to fraud and litiga- 

 tion as it at present reads. 



Sections 219 and 220, Schedule G, covers 

 horticultural products, such as bulbs, 

 plants and trees. On such items accuracy 

 of classification and definition is of vastly 

 more importance than the rate of duty, be- 

 cause the duty depends altogether upon 

 the definition. Vnless some changes are 

 made, we will have the same litigation, un- 

 certainty and fraud over again. Here are 

 some of the ambiguities: 



Section 219 rates "Orchids. Palms, Aza- 

 leas and all other decorative or greenhouse 

 plants 2'> per cent ad valorum." Section 

 220 rates "All fruit and ornamental trees, 

 deciduous and evergreen shrubs and vines 

 commonly known as nursery or greenhouse 

 stock, 15 per cent ad valorum." This makes 

 the same items 15 per cent and 25 percent 

 ad valorum, "Greenhouse plants" and 

 **Greenhouse stock" being the same. 



The word "Azaleas" is too vague; proba- 



bly Azalea Indica is meant. All other va- 

 rieties of Azaleas, such as Amoena, Hino- 

 degeri, etc., are grown outside in nurseries, 

 and are nursery stock — not greenhouse 

 plants. It should be clearly stated which 

 azaleas are 15 per cent and which 25 per 

 cent. 



Section 220 rates "Myrobolan plum seed- 

 lings $1.00 per 1000." Section 561 rates 

 "Myrobolans" free of duty. It should be 

 specifically stated whether Section 561 re- 

 fers to Myrobolan seedlings, seeds or fruits. 



Section 220 rates "Evergreen shrubs and 

 vines and all trees, shrubs and vines com- 

 monly known as nursery or greenhouse 

 stock, 15 per cent ad valorum." Section 

 602 rates "Evergreen Seedlings" free, but 

 places them under the classification of 

 "Seeds" — same as last tariff. This should 

 be made more definite, an evergreen seed- 

 ling being defined as an evergreen four 

 years old or less, grown from seed. 



Section 220 rates "Seedlings of Briar 

 Rose, three years old or less, $1.00 per 

 1000"; also rose plants, budded, grafted or 

 on own roots, 4c. each." The principal "Briar 

 Rose" in commerce is Rosa rugosa, a 

 shrub, grown from seed and sold as low 

 as .$4.00 per 1000. The tariff should specifi- 

 cally include Itosa rugosa as a briar rose 

 to avoid the duty beinf assessed as roses 

 at 4c. each. While there are many Treas- 

 ury decisions on file to prove that Rosa 

 rugosa is a briar rose — not a rose — these 

 decisions do not hold on new tariffs, which 

 means that unless the wording is corrected, 

 we will have the same delay, expense and 

 litigation over again. 



This might seem a small matter to you. 

 so we give the following illustration. When 

 a shipment of. say, 20.000 Rosa rugosa 

 seedlings arrive, the value being $4.00 per 

 1000 or a total of $80.00. duty Is paid as 



briar roses at $1.00 per 1000 or a total of 

 $2000. About three to six months after, 

 the Government makes a peremptory de- 

 mand for $780.00 more duty because some 

 employe thinks Rosa rugosa is a rose. The 

 amount must be paid at once, so the Im- 

 porter can appeal, then in from six to ten 

 montiis the case comes to trial. If be has 

 witnesses and evidence enough he mignt 

 win, and if lucky he will get part of this 

 amount back in from two to four years, 

 the lawyer getting half; so you can see 

 why the wording should be clear and spe- 

 cific 



Section 219 rates "Hyacinths" as 

 "clumps" instead of bulbs. The same mis- 

 take was made in last tariff and took years 

 of time and much unnecessary expense to 

 "TPot ix V 



Section 219 rates "Seeds of all kinds, not 

 specially provided for in this Section. 15 

 per cent ad valorum." This should read 

 10c. per lb., as on seeds subject to fluctna- 

 t'on in value, a specific duty is always to 

 be preferred to an ad valorum rate with 

 all its attendant inju.stice and disputes. 



Mr. Underwood writes us that the matter 

 is now beyond the jurisdiction of the ways 

 and Means Committee and is now before 

 Congress, so we request that you at once 

 write your Congressman and Senator, ask- 

 ing them to insist upon these Sections be- 

 ing corrected before they give their assent 

 to the Bill. .^. .. 



You will probably not agree with the 

 proposed duty on all items: neither do we; 

 but on the whole the Bill is fair and equi- 

 table. Don't suggest changes of duty or 

 you will cloud the main issue — that ofhav- 

 Ing tlie tariff made understandable. Write 

 your Congressman and Senator today. 

 Respectfully yours, 



McHUTCHISON & CO. 



