348 



THE CANADIAN HORTICULTURIST. 



appeared, the clover not being affected so much 

 as the grass which turns brown, and is withered as 

 if about dead. There are fifteen or twenty such 

 spots. I thought lime from the brick walls might 

 be the cause, but in only one or two of the spots 

 could I find any, and then but very small pieces. 

 An answer will greatly oblige, 



Subscriber. 



Evidently something is wrong- with the 

 soil in those spots. Possibly too much 

 lime or other element. Possibly the best 

 remedy will be the removal of the earth five 

 or six inches deep, and the replacing with 

 earth that is rich and clear of such im- 

 purities. 



Moth Catchers. 



1236, Sir, — As I am interested in fruit grow- 

 ing, 1 sent for a moth-trap from S. A. Haseltines, 

 Springfield, Mo., U. S , which did not give very 

 good satisfaction, so I got a contrivance made to fit 

 on an ordinary farm lantern which proved more 

 satisfactory. If I were to send a number, free of 

 all cost, would you mind trying one yourself or 



give them to a good practical fruit grower who 

 will give them a fair test? 



I would also like to know if there are any moths 

 beneficial to farmers, if so, where will I find their 

 description and the benefits the farmers derive 

 from them. 



Branchton. A. Lake. 



We cannot say much in favor of this hap- 

 hazard, wholesale method of killing insects, 

 not one in twenty of which would be injuri- 

 ous to fruits, while friends as well as foes 

 would be included in the wholesale destruc- 

 tion. Those who have examined batches, so 

 collected, say that very few of the codling 

 moths are attracted by the light, and this is 

 one of the most serious of our insect enemies 

 in Ontario. 



For information about injurious insects 

 we would refer our subscriber to "Saunders' 

 Insects Injurious to Fruits," or to " Weed's 

 Insects and Insecticides." 



©[p(i[r| Ld'^tei?'^ 



The Fruit Marks Act. 



Sir, — While admitting your right to 

 criticise the action of the Senate regarding 

 the Fruit Marks Act, 1901, will you permit 

 me to say that the comments in July number 

 of the Horticulturist furnish an amusing 

 commentary on the claim for superior know- 

 ledge. You set up for certain "wise heads," 

 who have taken some interest in this 

 legislation. 



In the first place the Bill you publish, 

 "as finally amended and assented to by the 

 Senate and the House of Commons," is not 

 the act as so passed. You are evidently 

 unaware of the fact that in addition to 

 striking out clauses 6 and 7 as the Bill 

 passed the Commons, the Senate made three 

 other important amendments thereto. 



As one who took part in expunging 

 clauses 6 and 7, I might reply to your 

 complimentary remarks by saying that the 

 persons who drafted these clauses and asked 

 parliament to ratify them, were evidently 

 ignorant of their real bearing, but I forbear, 

 as that might seem discourteous. Here are 

 the clauses in question. 



6. No person shall sell, or oflfer, expose or have 

 in his possession for sale any fruit packed in a 

 closed package, upon which package is marked 

 "A Xo. I Canadian " unless such fruit consists of 

 nearly uniform size, of good color for the variety, 

 of normal shape and not less than ninety per cent, 

 free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other de- 

 fects, and properly packed. 



7. No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have 

 in his possession for sale any fruit packed in a 

 closed package, upon which package is marked 

 the grade "No. i Canadian" unless such fruit con- 

 sists of specimens of one variety, sound, of fairly 

 uniform size and not le?s than eighty per cent, free 

 from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects, 

 and properly packed. 



These clauses if enacted would declare to 

 the world that a barrel of No. i Canadian 

 apples might contain 20 quarts of wormy or 

 scabby apples, and that a barrel of A No. i 

 Canadian apples might contain 10 quarts of 

 similarly defective fruit. It would in my 

 opinion be impossible to give a more 

 damaging advertisement than this, to Can- 

 adian fruits, and our American competitors 

 would be very dull if they did not point 

 triumphantly to the low standard thus 

 created by the Parliament of Canada. 

 Clauses 6 and 7 were vicious because they 



