124 



THE GARDENER'S MONTHLY 



[April, 



munication I propose to show that it is capable 

 of application also against his scheme to protect 

 by act of copyright alone. 



Endless litigation is another objection. It 

 would be optional with introducers to litigate. 

 To prevent infringement by the trade would be 

 the principal requirement, which there is good 

 reason to believe could be enforced. Desultory 

 infringement among the people would not ma- 

 terally affect them. The enactment undoubtedly 

 would be considered a great innovation, but 

 when it became apparent, by means of litigation, 

 that originators had rights of property in their 

 productions which must be respected, and that 

 the public was protected in the purchase of those 

 productions, such litigation would show itself to 

 be far otherwise than an unmitigated evil. 



The objection has been made that if an indi- 

 vidual bought plants of a new variety he would 

 have a right to make such disposition of them as 

 he chose. The objectors overlook the fact that 

 under the law proposed the right to use the 

 variety for a certain purpose would not be 

 bought. A manufacturer may own all the ma- 

 terial and appliances for making a patented de- 

 vice, but the law forbids him to do so, even for 

 his own use. The owner of a printing press is 

 forbidden to publish the simplest pamphlet pro- 

 tected by copyright. All wooded plants once 

 set out to produce fruit or for ornament soon be- 

 come unsaleable apart from the land, or too large 

 for removal, therefore the exclusive right of the 

 introducer to disseminate to be grown would not 

 interfere with the inclinations of the mass of 

 purchasers. It is commonly asserted that the 

 best way to remunerate originators of valuable 

 productions is to pay them sufficient amounts 

 from the public treasury. But the value of new 

 varieties for general cultivation could be deter- 

 mined by no committee, however competent, 

 before public trial and dissemination of them ; 

 hence the producer of a new apple or pear would 

 have to wait fifteen to twenty years, or more, 

 before its value could be thus ascertained and he 

 be recompensed therefor. Then is it to be sup- 

 posed the government would pay anything for 

 the origination of a new flowering or ornamental 

 plant ? If a patent or protective letters were 

 conferred for anew sort the producer would have 

 an opportunity to obtain compensation immedi- 

 ately by the sale of his exclusive right, or within 

 a comparatively brief period by propagating a 

 stock of plants for sale. 



[At Mr. Moore's urgent request we have de- 



cided to insert this communication, chiefly to 

 show that those who are pressing this matter have 

 not advanced beyond the old difficulty. We 

 have asked those who contend that an intelli- 

 gent board at "Washington could define a "new" 

 fruit, to give us a specimen of their own defini- 

 tion. If Mr. Moore will please place in language 

 a " definition " of what is to constitute the 

 "novelty entitling to protection " in the Ams- 

 den, the Honeywell, the Alexander or some 

 early peaches, as an illustration, we might pro- 

 ceed with the further discussion of the subject. 

 We have asked for this preliminary, but it does 

 I not come. It is a waste of time and space to 

 talk of protecting a definition if the article be 

 undefinable. — Ed. G. M.] 



FRADULENT PRACTICES. 



BY EUGENE GLENN, ROCHESTER, N. Y. 



I am quite as strongly opposed to " patent 

 plants" as you can be. At any time you desire 

 I will cheerfully take the negative on this dis- 

 cussion, and point out wherein and why they 

 would result disastrously. 



The "copyright upon the names of new varie- 

 ties," advocated by me a year ago, difters as 

 widely in its working and results from plant 

 patents as does the east from the west; and 

 until some one will venture to tell the public 

 wherein and why it would be found impractica- 

 ble, I shall feel justified in believing and assert- 

 ing that such fears as to it are without founda- 

 tion. That measure proposed in part to encour- 

 age artificial hybridization ; but it vvas mainly 

 directed to the prevention of frauds in the dis- 

 semination of new varieties. I know these 

 frauds to be wide-spread, and by no means con- 

 fined to traveling agents ; but judging from your 

 remarks, made at the Nurserymen's Convention 

 held in this city last Summer, when the subject 

 of frauds was under consideration, I was con- 

 strained to believe that you did not realize the 

 extent to which the innocent public are being 

 swindled, as well by dealers and agents as by 

 nurserymen, who through long continued ad- 

 vertising and distribution of handsome cata- 

 logues have secured the rank of respectability. 

 The idea which we often hear urged that people 

 will avoid all risk by ordering directly of a nur- 

 seryman, is absurd as well as impracticable. 

 Absurd because the masses cannot know which 

 nurserymen " carry little hatchets" and which 



