224 MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



session in looking out for woodchucks. The question is whether 

 a law like this that Mr. Underwood recommends would be a wood- 

 chuck for the man that originates a new seedling. That is the ques- 

 tion for you to discuss. 



Mr. A. B. Choate : I was very much interested in the paper 

 because, first, it is right in line with my business and, secondly, 

 two or three years ago I read a paper before this society upon this 

 subject, taking more particularly the case of Mr. Knudson's cherry 

 tree. It seems to me, if I may speak upon the question from a legal 

 standpoint particularly, that Mr. Underwood is right in saying 

 there should be legal protection just as much for the man who 

 would spend care and time in producing a new variety of fruit as 

 is given to the man who produces a new kind of clothes pin. Mr. 

 Underwood said there was no legal protection whatever, but there 

 is no adequate legal protection which we can give the discoverer or 

 producer, a protection he ought to have, in my judgment. It seems 

 to me it is much more to the interest of the public that a man should 

 be encouraged to spend his money and time in producing a new 

 kind of fruit, especially in this northwestern country, than it is to en- 

 courage him to produce almost any other thing; whereas it is just 

 the other way, a man is encouraged by law to produce everything 

 except a new kind of fruit. As I explained to you before, in my 

 judgment a man may be protected legally by making a contract with 

 every man he sells to to the effect that this man shall not sell to 

 any one else, and if he does the producer or originator can sue him 

 for damages. That would do in a measure, but it is not an ade- 

 quate protection. He ought not only to be able to collect damages, 

 but, as Mr. Underwood says, it ought to be a misdemeanor. He 

 ought to be punished if he violates the law. I do not wish to take 

 up more time, but I fully agree with the author of the paper. 



Mr. O. F. Brand : I am very glad to know that the correct 

 position has been taken in the reading of this article, for it is a 

 matter that the public generally takes very little interest in, and 

 the attention of the public needs to be called directly to it. Several 

 years ago I undertook to call the attention of a member of congress 

 to this matter, and he did make an effort to have a bill introduced 

 covering this matter, but he failed, but I think if there were a united 

 effort made by horticulturists of this country we 'could get a law 

 that would protect a man who originates or introduces a new fruit. 



Mr. L. R. Moyer: It seems to me that on general grounds 

 there ought to be some protection to the originator of new fruits, 

 still to get such protection there would have to be a national law. 

 and to have such a law would require an amendment of the con- 

 stitution. If you remember the constitution it provides that con- 

 gress may grant to authors and inventors a patent for the protection 

 of their rights, but we cannot say that a producer of a new fruit is 

 either an author or inventor. It is rather a gift of God, and it can- 

 not be covered by a national law until we have a constitutional 

 amendment to cover it, and you all know how difficult it is to amend 

 the constitution of the United States. We might pass a resolution 



