29O MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



of a paying orchard, as does the practical orchardist. From want 

 of knowledge he is unable to apply the principles governing the 

 habits of trees, their qualities and productiveness. To him a tree is 

 a tree. All trees seem much alike to him. He does not take into 

 account such matter as location, soil, conditions, manuring, prun- 

 ing and general cultivation. If he has adopted any regular methods 

 likely as otherwise they have been wrong methods, such methods 

 as are illustrated in the practice of one of my neighbors during the 

 past season, who having heard that the pruning of fruit trees would 

 increase fruitfulness, put the theory in practice by beginning with 

 the lowest branches and making a clean sweep of everything as high 

 up as he could reach with an ax, leaving the entire bodies of his trees 

 bare and naked and with no protection whatever to the open wounds 

 caused by the removal of limbs two to three inches in diameter. 

 The very system by which he had thought to bring about a good 

 result has proved a lasting injury and in the end will be the ruina- 

 tion of his little orchard, that had already commenced to bring 

 him fair returns. But he had carried out his idea of pruning. 

 When the inquiry of our farmers shall be, how much labor can I 

 put upon my orchard with profit to myself rather than how can I 

 secure a crop of fruit with the least expenditure of time and effort, 

 then will his success multiply, and his failures decrease propor- 

 tionately. 



The practice of making up losses to the customer either free of 

 cost or at half price we believe has, all things considered, worked to 

 his disadvantage. This plan doubtless was first adopted by some 

 dealer with the view to securing future orders, since it affords the 

 seller an opportunity to call upon the patron an indefinite number of 

 times. Under such a system the careless planter is more liable to 

 neglect the performance of his duty than would be the case if he 

 were left without recourse upon the nurseryman. Not infrequently 

 do disputes arise between buyer and seller in reference to the con- 

 ditions upon which stock failing to grow should be replaced, and 

 occasionally the law has been called upon to settle the differences. 

 I cannot imagine why the farmer is not under as much obligation 

 to stand one-half of the loss that might accrue from the ravages of 

 cholera among a lot of pigs purchased of him by a neighbor farmer 

 as the nurseryman is to make good the loss of nursery stock during 

 a drouthy summer or frigid winter. From my standpoint of reason- 

 ing the nurseryman has done all that reason and justice requires of 

 him when he has placed in the hands of his customer a thrifty and 

 healthy tree or plant, true to name and adapted to its environments, 

 and this is where his responsibility should cease and that of the 

 purchaser begin. 



