Notes and Gleanings. 107 



ducting a horticultural or agricultural journal is deserving of censure ; and, for 

 one, I shall vote for it. 



" Mr. Pearson opposed the motion in some very able and animated remarks. 



" Several members, wiiile condemning the course of the Journal in respect 

 to its want of principle, were opposed to the motion, believing that the society 

 would be acting outside of its legitimate sphere by passing it. 



" Dr. Hull : I withdraw the motion. I simply offered it to get an expres- 

 sion of the society in regard to the matter ; and have accomplished all I desired." 



Our course heretofore has been to make no reply to the foolish and false 

 things that have been said about us ; to manage our own affairs in our own 

 way : but the remarks that we have copied above do our esteemed friend 

 Col. Wilder, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, and ourselves, so great 

 injustice, that we depart from our rule to show our friends at Alton that they 

 labor under a great mistake. 



Dr. Hull, a gentleman whom we do not know, in Iiis remarks condemns "The 

 Journal of Horticulture " for " puffing unknown and probably worthless fruits into 

 notoriety." "Several instances" are mentioned, ''among them the Wilder 

 Strawberry." What the "several instances " refer to we do not know, and we 

 cannot answer ; but, in relation to the Wilder Strawberry, we ask, What right has 

 any man to declare that it is a worthless fruit when he knows nothing about it .'' 

 as Dr. Hull must admit in his case. We do not believe he ever saw it, plant or 

 fruit. Others Jiave seen it ; and among those who have are the Fruit Committee 

 of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, who for three or four years have 

 seen and examined it, not only on the tables of the society, but on the vines in 

 the grounds of Col. Wilder, where they had a most excellent opportunity to 

 compare it with many of the well-known and approved sorts. We would call 

 attention to the ad-interim report of said committee, as published in the Journal 

 for October, 1868, p. 222, 



Does this look as though we had sought to puff a worthless " fruit into noto- 

 riety " ? Is it possible that it can be so "worthless " after it has been approved 

 by said committee for several years in succession .'' Is the opinion of the intelli- 

 gent Fruit Committee of the oldest Horticultural Society in the country to go 

 for nothing, and be entirely ignored, and even held up to ridicule by this town 

 society, or rather by two of its members who never saw the fruit which they 

 denounce? What are such statements worth to any fair-minded man.'' It is 

 testimony from those who do not know ; while we have given the testimony of 

 those who do know, and whose opinion is entitled to the greatest weight. The 

 testimony of Dr. Hull and Mr. Riehl is just such as was taken by the Dutch 

 judge in a trial that took place before him. Six men swore that they did not see 

 the prisoner commit the crime, and knew nothing of the matter, while only two 

 swore that they did see him perform the act ; and the judge decided the weight 

 of evidence was in favor of the accused, and discharged him. Now, Dr. Hull 

 is precisely in this position, because he never has seen these things of which 

 we have spoken and given illustrations ; and because he does not know any thing 

 about them, either favorable or unfavorable, he therefore just shuts his eyes. 



