^34 



THE CANADIAN HORTICULTURIST. 



THE BEN DAVIS CONTROVERSY. 



*'-T WAS not really my intention to add 

 another word to the controversy on the 

 Ben Dav'is which has been carried on 

 ^^ in The Horticulturist for many months 

 past. But on communicating- with Professor 

 Craig, whose opinion was cited by Senator 

 Ferguson as against the longevity of this 

 particular tree, I find that he in nowise bears 

 out the Senator's view. On the contrary, 

 he fully justifies my own contention that the 

 deterioration he spoke of at Halifax must 

 apply in a commercial sense to the fruit and 

 not to the tree. " A misapprehension will 

 not down until it is plainly corrected," writes 

 the Senator, in the April number, and as 

 there has evidently been a misapprehension 

 of Professor Craig's words on somebody's 

 part (not mine), I beg leave to state the case 

 in dispute clearly and terminate with the 

 authority which practically settles the case. 



In an article in last year's Horticulturist, 

 I marvelled at an opinion expressed to me 

 by Senator Ferguson, who had recently re- 

 turned from a trip to Nova Scotia, that the 

 Ben Davis tree was a "slow grower" and 

 of "short duration" in that province, and 

 also in Eastern Prince Edward Island. The 

 estimable Secretary of the F. G. A. of Nova 

 Scotia immediately took the matter up, and 

 declared that the tree was as great a grower 

 in his province as I found it to be here, and 

 as to duration, that was a question for time 

 to determine. I rejoined that this must 

 necessarily be so ; but that a portion of a 

 discussion in the N. S. report for 1899 con- 

 veyed the same impression as did the Sen- 

 ator's words. Professor Sears was con- 

 cerned in the citation, and he comes to the 

 rescue by saying that the Davis was not 

 intended by the parties to the discussion to 

 be regarded as a " slow grower," but the 

 Gravenstein a more rapid grower, and, 

 therefore, not desirable as a top graft on 



such stock. And he modifies this somewhat 

 by adding that this is not so much so be- 

 cause the Gravenstein can outgrow the Davis 

 (which is questioned very generally), but 

 because the former has the habit of making 

 comparatively few large branches, whilst the 

 latter divides up into numerous small ones. 

 Senator Ferguson also invokes his splendid 

 paper, read at the late annual meeting of the 

 F. G. A. of P. E. I., in which he says "that 

 Professor Craig does not regard it (the Ben 

 Davis) as a tree that will, as it grows old, 

 continue to bear the best fruit" ; still hold- 

 ing, all will observe, to the idea that this tree 

 must be short lived. I could never discover 

 the data on which such an opinion was 

 based. When the Senator read the passage 

 in question before the association, I made 

 bold to interrupt him and say : " Did Pro- 

 fessor Craig really declare that the tree 

 would not last, or did he say the present 

 place of its fruit in public favor would not 

 last when it became better known?" " He 

 said, in his opinion, the tree would be of 

 short duration," the Senator replied. " Well, 

 we ought to know," I added, " on what he 

 bases this opinion." Now, it transpires that 

 with those gentlemen the tree and its fruit 

 have been interchanged with undue freedom. 

 No mortal man ever contended that the fruit, 

 especially as grown with us, could ever be 

 regarded as No. i. It will grow well, keep 

 clean easily, fill the barrel surprisingly, suff'er 

 all the incidents and accidents of transit, and 

 go on the market at Liverpool at a time when 

 fruit is scarce, in splendid shape, and thus 

 secure a good price ; that is all. But the 

 tree, as a tree, is g-rand. It grows like " a- 

 house-a-fire," if you permit me a boy's 

 phrase ; stands extreme climatic changes 

 admirably ; is free from the enemies which 

 beset other sorts, and wants less attention 

 than any other tree we plant. Why it 



