OPEN LETTERS. 



1*27 



To illustrate : A barrel of beautifully-faced Spys 

 which I bought in Montreal last spring at a high 

 price contained nothing but rubbish under the 

 facings. The honorable dealer from whom I 

 bought it paid me back fi of his own accord, and 

 my own loss was certainly $2 more. Now, what 

 would a 50 cent fine against a packer of more than 

 nine such barrels in a 100 amount to? Wouldn't 

 it be a farce ? 



Everybody knows the penalty for light weight 

 in the "staff of life," and heartily approves that 

 every loaf so found wanting shall be confiscated 

 and sent to the hospitals. Now, why should the 

 fraudulent packer of this universally used fruit 

 (which could very properly be called the " staff of 

 good health") — why should he escape with any 

 lesser penalty ? If any discrimination between 

 the two be made should it not be in favor of the 

 baker, whose fraud can so easily be detected and 

 without appreciable trouble, and which of course 

 is by no means the case in a fraudulent barrel of 

 apples, as so many of us know at our cost ? 



I therefore beg leave to "move an amendment" 

 to Sec. 3, and to substitute therefore : 



"Sec. 3. — I. That all apples packed in closed 

 packages be subject to inspection by the Govern- 

 ment Inspector, and in case of any package of 

 any one grade being found fraudulently packed 

 and not up to the standard of the grade labelled 

 upon such barrel, that the same be confiscated by 

 the Government Inspector. 



"2. That full reports of all such confiscations 

 be published in the next succeeding number of 

 the Canadian Horticulturist and such other papers 

 as may be deemed advisable." 



It seems to me that any less stringent regula- 

 tion would be ineffective, and would not commend 

 itself to the public generally, and I hope your 

 hottest fruit growers will be satisfied with nothing 

 less. 



There is still another serious objection to your 

 section 3. Every one knows that a packed barrel 

 of apples cannot be properly inspected and re- 

 packed without injury to the keeping qualities of 

 the fruit, for no matter fow carefully it be done, 

 many of the apples are sure to get fresh bruises. 



Now, under your section 3, no one would be at 

 all safe in buying axxy \iaxxt\. not inspected \ but 

 the proposed amendment would very soon, I 

 think, be effective in reducing the number of bar- 

 rels necessary to be repacked and inspected fully 

 75 per cent , perhaps more, to the considerable 

 advantage of the keeping qualities of the fruit, 

 and would of course greatly reduce the work and 

 cost of inspection. 



Is not "an ounce of prevention" worth far 

 more than ' ' a pound of cure " in this case ? 



Would not this suggested amendment be to the 

 eventual profit of all fruit growers, for would it 

 not force some of them, perhaps unwillingly at 

 first to invest in sprayers and to carefuUj- use 

 them, and also to cut down worthless trees in 

 their orchards^ replacing them by better kinds ? 

 They might also soon get into the way of thinning 

 their growing fruit, to its great improvement and 

 better financial return. 



Does some one "seccmd my amendment" or 

 offer a better one ? Geo. O. Goodi.ink. 



Danville, P.Q.. 2f)th Jan., 1900. 



Note bv Editor. — The criticisms of our 

 correspondent reveal an ambig"uity in the 

 wordings of clause 3, which has since been 

 corrected. The clause was intended to save 

 the labor of inspecting- every packag^e by 

 providing- that if ten per cent, were found 

 fraudulent the whole lot mig^ht be so classed 

 without further examination. Thus, if the 

 first ten barrels opened out of a lot of 100 

 be found fraudulent, the inspector could 

 count the whole lot as fraudulent and fine 

 the shipper $50 on the whole lot. 



The following- is the amended reading- of 

 the clause : 



" 3. That all apples or pears packed in 

 closed packag-es be subject to inspection by 

 the Government Inspector, and if on open- 

 ing- one-tenth of the number of packag-es in 

 any one lot, these be found fraudulently 

 packed, then the nine-tenths remaining- 

 shall be so classed, and the shipper be liable 

 to a fine not exceeding^ 50 cents a barrel for 

 all packag-es of that grade in the same 

 shipment." 



riore About Flowers. 



Sir, — I like j'our magazine ; it is good in every 

 way, except that more space might be devoted to 

 flower and vegetable culture. I don't grow any 

 fruit, and I suppose there are a dozen who are 

 fond of gardening who do not to one who does. 

 We have not got one good gardening magazine 

 in Canada that I know of. I cannot call yours 

 such yet, though I hope it will become one — that 

 department of your magazine is only, one might 

 say, rudimentary yet. I know American Gar- 

 dening, and better still, in its earlier stages, 

 Gardening, of Chicago. It was an excellent pub- 

 lication then, now sadly fallen off. I'd gladly 

 double my subscription to yours to get the infor- 

 mation and helps Gardening once furnished its 

 readers with. I say this to encourage you to 

 work in the direction of gardening as distinct 

 from fruit growing more. There is a large and 

 growing field for such a magazine in this country. 

 Yours truly, A. B. O. 



IngersoU. 



We have frequent requests from flower 

 lovers asking- that more attention be g^iven to 

 floriculture, and quite as often we have letters 

 from fruit growers asking- that more atten- 

 tion be g-iven to their particular department. 

 Primarily, of course, our journal is intended 



