AN APOLOGY TO MR. J. OTTO THILOW 



Business has to be founded on truth, if it is to ,<ui-\ ive. It is for the love of 

 truth the forthconiini; explanation is suhmitted. 



In oonsiderinj; the purchase of "Melrosine," the new Rosebug insecticide 

 from Mr. Hugh B. Barclay, a private gardener of Merion, Pa., the testimony 

 of those who tried it previously and had approved its merit by both word 

 and letter was of utmost importance to decide upon its real value, and to present 

 the merits of this article in a verified fashion to the public during the year of 

 introduction. Mr. Barclay enjoys the reputation of a gentleman, whose word 

 has never been questioned by those who know him. 



Among the names as referred to above was that of Mr. J. Otto Thilow 

 of the Henry A. Dreer Co. of Philadelphia. Upon seeing his name mentioned 

 in connection with the offer of "^DilLROSINE," Mr. Thilow protested against 

 this, claiming that he never tried "MELROSINE." nor has given any testimony 

 as to its merits. 



As Mr. TTiilow enjoys the reputation of an eminent Horticulturist and a 

 gentleman, whom I respect equally well as to veracity, I feel that my sense of 

 courtesy dictates to me to let the inexperience of youth bow to the reverence 

 of age and to offer to Mr. Thilow this public apology for whatever I have 

 committed in the premises, which hurt his feelings or injured his interests. 



MAURICE FULD. 



In fairness and justice to Maurice Fuld and myself I am compelled to state 

 here publicly that Mr. Fuld is absolutely blameless in the use of Mr. Thilow'e 

 name as an endorser of "'MELROSINE," having acted upon the statements of 

 facts as given to him by me and if any blame is to be attached to anyone I am 

 willing to accept that blame and responsibility. But in order to be judged 

 impartially and fairly by the gardening fraternity, I feel it my duty to present 

 herewith an explanation of my action. 



Mr. Thilow acknowledges having received a sample of the insecticide for 

 test in May, 1918, but claims he has not teeted it or given any approval of it. 



My memory which has always served me in the past, tells me that at a 

 certain meeting of the Philadelphia Florist Club held on the Roof Garden of 

 the Hotel Adelphi in the Spring of 1919, Mr. Thilow approached me with the 

 request that I prepare an article on some subject for a future meeting of the 

 club. My reply was that I feared 1 could not write anything of interest to 

 Florists unless it were something about my Rosebug Insecticide and then re- 

 quested of him, how his tests of the remedy proved. He replied, "Oh, it's all 

 right: it's all right." 



The word of a gentleman once uttered I never question and 1 helievc<l tliat 

 this statement of Mr. Tliilow"> justified me in adding his name to the list of 

 other endorsers from some of whom I also have only their spoken word. 



I desire to here pid)Ii<ly apcdogize for using Mr. Thilow's name without first 

 consulting him and securing his permission. 



HUGH B. BARCLAY. 



We Still Have Many Testimonials W^hich Cannot Be Repudiated 



89 



