178 THE ROSE CONTROVERSY. 



controversy to shake this opinion. In the attempt to 

 controvert it in last week's "Gardeners' Chronicle," new 

 ground is taken up by starting from the point of " fine 

 blooms" instead of "prize blooms." The case there 

 assumed as the " negatives " in which " the worst possible 

 soil is selected" "dug not deeply" "as manure is injurious 

 none is given either directly or indirectly " " water, how- 

 ever much needed, is withheld" "and especially the 

 grosser feeding sorts are encouraged," throws no new or 

 valuable light on the subject, because it is only an 

 imaginary case opposed to actual facts. If these are " the 

 negatives of the practices of exhibiting firms," they are 

 only imaginary negatives, have no existence in fact, are 

 things in posse rather than in esse. Starving is not met 

 with in any Rose nurseries, whereas "cobbing" for prize 

 blooms is commonly practised. Now facts cannot be 

 successfully assailed by imaginary statements, but only by 

 facts. The treatment here assumed is not practised or 

 advocated, and no sane man is likely to practise or 

 advocate it. Although the grower for prize blooms selects 

 the best soil, digs it deeply, fills it with manure, deluges it 

 at times with water, and adopts various practices to get 

 the strong growth necessary to produce large blooms, it by 

 no means follows that the grower who does not compete 

 for prizes selects "the worst possible soil," and in other 

 matters rushes to the opposite extremes. 



Is there no standing ground between the system of 

 cultivation which produces gorged plants, with more sap 

 and pith than wood and fibre, and that which produces 

 starved plants ? No one who reasons can doubt that the 

 health and constitution of a plant, as of an individual, may 

 be injured by starvation as well as by gluttony, but this is 

 a curious argument to advance against healthy and 

 moderate feeding. Some men and the lower animals 

 suffer from gluttony, but would it be fair in argument to 

 accuse those who condemn over-feeding of advocating 

 starvation ? 



