12 



ous advocates who have not only a theory to 

 advance, but profit in its advancement. 

 Nearly all the advocates of American vines 

 are making large profits by the sale of plants 

 and cuttings. I could astonish my readers 

 if I should reproduce some of the passages 

 in the numerous pamphlets and books on 

 American vines, extolling even the merits 

 of the wines produced from them. Many of 

 them assert positively that the wines, for 

 instance, from the Mustang grape of Texas 

 are superior to the finest French wines, and 

 at the same time describe the method of 

 making such wines as requiring the addition 

 of sugar and alcohol to give them body. A 

 witty opponent of American vines suggests 

 that equal results can be obtained by taking 

 barrel of river water, adding sugar and alcohol. 

 But nevertheless the American vine men 

 are in the lead, and very soon there will be 

 more American vines cultivated in France 

 than in America. In this effort, however, 

 each merchant is advocating the variety that 

 he has to sell, while the experiments prove 

 that the best, for the purpose, are the wildest 

 original varieties. It will, therefore, become 

 soon a question of supplying grafting stock. 



But here we reach a new question which I 

 have already touched upon. When in Paris, 

 before studying the question in the vineyards, 

 I happened to fall upon the mere suggestion 

 of the idea of regenerating the vineyards by 

 means of seedlings. It appeared to me to 

 be so reasonable that I dwelt upon it with 

 some force. 



I inquired everywhere I went, asking where 

 I could find authorities on the subject. It 

 surprised me that I was everywhere repulsed. 

 People, interested nominally in the problem 

 of fightiug the phylloxera, but really in ad- 

 vancing some pet notion, which promised, if 

 popular, to become profitable, seemed to 

 consider the idea as heretical in the extreme. 

 At Montpellier, I saw rows of seedlings of 

 French as well as American vines. I could 

 see no difference in the results, but I was 

 told curtly, without explanation or proof, 

 that the European seedlings would not resist. 

 It was true, no doubt, tha: many of them 

 would succumb to the plylloxera; it was 

 equally true of the American vines, for out 

 of hundreds of varieties of the latter, only 

 five or six are proof against the severe attack 

 of the pest. 



Persisting in my inquiries, at the risk of 

 offending the savans, most of whom were 

 speculators in American vines, I was referred 

 to Mr. Bouschet, the noted pepirderlst, as one 

 who propagates by seeds is called. He told 

 me so positively that the seedlings were fail- 

 ures that I lost nearly all faith in the idea. 

 Since then I have learned that he, also, is a 

 trader in American vines. 



Prof. Foex advanced an interesting theory 

 concerning the cause of the resistance of 

 American vines, viz: The physical consti- 

 tution of the roots affording protection on 

 account of structure. But a distinguished 

 naturalist here sagely remarks that Prof. 

 Foex has compared under the microscope 

 roots of young American with roots of old, 

 exhausted European vines. The conditions 

 of observation have not been the same. 



The fact still remains that the European 

 vines are the product of cuttings, through 

 successive centuries, from vines, the original 

 germs of which were planted centuries ago. 

 If it is a sound doctrine that these vines 

 do not become exhausted in vitality by such 

 methods of multipiication, then k follows 

 that the primal law of nature has exceptions, 

 and that, without regeneration by seed, the 

 vine may be perpetuated forever. 



I have, however, found some satisfaction 

 here in the consideration of what I think 

 may be properly termed the natural theory 

 of propagation. If this holds true, it does 

 much to establish the true theory of the 

 phylloxera, as disease, rather than as the 

 original cause of disease. Having found 

 that support, through amelioration of the 

 soil, aids the plant to resist, if amelioration 

 of the fconstitution of the plant by natural 

 means also adds to the resistance, the prob- 

 lem is practically solved. 



But there are reasons for opposition to the 

 method of regeneration from the seed, which 

 must first be considered. The vine-growers 

 know that by seedlings the character of the 

 yield of the vines may be more or less 

 changed. He fears changes. He thinks he 

 knows that the roots of the American vine 

 will resist and will support grafts; hence he 

 is satisfied with the remedy. Every one can 

 plant seeds; hence there is not so much ad- 

 vantage in that method to the promoters, who 

 try to monopolize the field in selling new 

 cuttings and plants. Phylloxera is, in all 

 events, a disease, and the country is full of 

 quack doctors and patent medicine. In Cal- 

 ifornia we have not a million acres of dead 

 vines; two or three thousand million dead 

 plants to replace; hence we can afford to be 

 less excitable on the subject. We have new 

 vineyards to create, instead of old ones to 

 restore; hence we can well afford to begin 

 with sound principles of multiplication and 

 reproduction. We have no traditional vines 

 and wines to preserve; hence we need not 

 fear changes. We may, indeed, hope for 

 improvements, for the vine has improved 

 during past ages; the viticulturists of East- 

 ern States have improved the wild vines, and 

 we may do something, also, with the super- 

 ior vines that are suited to our climate. 

 But I am happy to say that the question 



