326 
THE GARDENERS' CHRONICLE OF AMERICA. 
facilities and attractions of the parks, and, by so doing, induce 
the people to make more use of them and benefit themselves. 
This is a service well worth giving, and it should have the entire 
time and attention of a man experienced in publicity work." 
The report is very attractively issued with numerous photo 
illustrations and several park plans inserted. 
WARRENITE CONTROVERSY AT MINNEAPOLIS. 
The Board of Park Commissioners of Minneapolis is at present 
in a controversy over the matter of infringing on the patent rights 
of Warren Pros., in connection with the proposed surfacing of 
several miles of lake shore drives with asphaltic concrete. As this 
type iif payment is coming into general use fur park drives and 
boulevards all over the country, the outcome of this controversy 
will be watched with interest by park men in general. 
Chicago park systems were involved in litigation over this same 
matter several years ago, that city having adopted asphaltic con- 
crete as its standard for park drives, and the Warren Bros. Co. 
was unable to prevent its use. Supt. Theodore Wirth, of Minne- 
apolis, lias recently submitted to his Board a report on the subject 
which is so full of pertinent facts of vital interest to our members 
who are, or may be, constructing asphaltic concrete drives, that 
the secretary has secured a copy of the report and it is published 
in full herewith in lieu of the regular news items which may well 
be dispensed with in order to permit of the publication of this 
most interesting and important report. The report of Mr. Wirth 
is as follows : 
June 7, 1910. 
To the Honorable Board of Park Commissioners, 
City of Minneapolis. 
Gentlemen : 
At the meeting of your Honorable Board, held on April 28. 1916, 
the recommendation of the Improvement Committee to adopt the 
plans and specifications for the improvement of Lake Calhoun 
Boulevards and the Smith Bay Acquisition was adopted. T e 
recommendations of the Improvement Committee are based on my 
reports dated March -'■> ami April 13, 1916. The last named re- 
port referred only to the pavement of the roadways, and my recom- 
mendation miiiaineil the following specifications: 
Base Course — 5-inch concrete. 1 part cement, 3 parts sand. 
G parts broken limestone. 
Wearing surface of pavement to lie asphaltic concrete 2 inches 
thick and composed of 
Trap Rock or Granite %-inch and under.. . 4n% to 50% 
Sand graded to least voids 30% to 40% 
Powdered Limestone 8% to 12% 
Asphaltic Cement 7% to 11% 
The understanding at that meeting was that the Board might 
want to change the specifications regarding the asphaltic concrete 
surfacing. If for one reason or another it seemed advisable to do 
so. The Board, of course, always lias the power to make such 
changes. 
The Warren Brothers Company, through its representative, Mr. 
Frank (1. Cutter, has informed the Board ami me that the formula 
named in my specifications for the asphaltic concrete pavement, if 
carried out. would be an infringement on the pavement construction 
as covered by United States Letters Patent No. 727,505, owned by 
their Company. The Company has also submitted printed copies 
of different court decisions, in which the validity of the above 
named patent has been sustained. 
The claim of The Warren Brothers Company is that the Board 
cannot lay a pavement as per formula adopted without interfering 
with their patent rights, and that the pavement should be con- 
structed under contract, or the bituminous material used in the 
construction be brought from them, or that the Board should pay 
them a royalty per square yard, for which two latter considerations 
they would agree to furnish a certain amount of expert knowledge 
and supervision on the construction work. 
I beg leave to state my personal opinion of and my attitude 
toward the claims of The Warren Brothers Company and their 
patent on their so-called Bitnlithic Pavement. Their patent, even 
if held valid by some of the courts which have rendered decisions 
to that effect, is a gross infringement and affront to the personal 
liberty, intelligence, and efficiency of every road builder and the 
interests he represents. "Inherent stability" is and must be the 
aim of all road construction, and the meaning of that expression is 
almost beyond definite possible description, yet it is used in their 
patent claim as being a specifically defined characteristic feature 
of their pavement. The absence of voids is the other characteristic 
feature for which the patent makes its claim. All mixtures of a 
density showing less voids than twenty-one per cent, it is claimed, 
are covered by the Warren patent. In other words, in laying any 
kind of a bituminous pavement, the builder must be careful not to 
get too compact or dense a mixture (as essential as it is to do so 
for a good pavement), for as soon as his mixture shows less than 
21% of voids he infringes on Patent No. 727.505. 
It is my belief that the intent of the patent laws have been 
grossly misapplied in granting a patent on such broad and un- 
tenable claims of first knowdedge, experience and discovery, and 
that all the technical and legal language with which those claims 
are clothed and defended is not able to cover the fact that the 
purpose and intent of the patent and its enforcement is to collect 
remuneration for service not required, and for charging prices Ear 
above value where service is rendered. 
The fact remains, however, that The Warren Brothers Company 
seems to intend to try to enforce their patent rights if the Board 
should decide to carry out the specifications adopted. It seems to 
me unwise to enter into litigation with the Company, especially 
so since their patent expires in March, 1920. 
I have given this matter very careful consideration, and I have 
had friendly consultations with Mr. Frank C. Cutter, representing 
The Warren Brothers Company. There are to my mind four dif- 
ferent propositions which the Board can consider in connection 
with this matter, and I wish to present them in the order of their 
value as they appear to be to me : 
Proposition 1 : Construct the concrete base for the present in 
such a manner as to make same serviceable for traffic and postpone 
the construction of the asphalt concrete surface until the base 
shows sufficient wear to call for surfacing. This plan I consider 
to be epiite feasible, and may result in economy, as the wear on 
the base will not affect its stability, while the saving of the wear 
on the surfacing during that period is a distinct saving. 
Proposition 2 : Adopt for the present the City specifications as 
used at the present time. The City Engineer, Mr. Cappelen, and 
the Assistant Engineer. Mr. Dutton. seem to be satisfied that their 
specifications and method of construction are entirely satisfactory, 
and their experience and knowledge, which is of recognized high 
standing, is worthy of our consideration. 
Proposition 3: Make, if possible, satisfactory arrangements with 
The Warren Brothers Company and adhere to our present specifi- 
cations. 
Proposition 4: Carry out our present specifications and meet 
such litigation as may result therefrom. 
The entire question can be given all the time necessary for care- 
ful consideration without interfering with the timely execution of 
the two projects now under consideration. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Theodore Wirth, Superintendent. 
PRUNING BUSH FRUITS. 
T3LSH fruits may be divided into two groups as re- 
gards their pruning requirements. Gooseberries 
and currants produce their fruit on wood that is more 
than one year old. In pruning it is the object to secure 
all lateral branches on wood that is older than one year. 
Since the fruit is borne on large buds or short spurs, care 
must be taken to retain these in any pruning. Many 
times these plants are unproductive because they make 
such a heavy growth of new wood each season that the 
fruit buds or spurs do not form on the older wood. Dur- 
ing the summer they should be pinched back as indicated. 
In the case of brambles, including the raspberry, red 
raspberry, black berry and dew berry, the fruit is borne 
on one-year-old wood. As soon as the cane has borne its 
crop of fruit its usefulness is ended and it may be re- 
moved at any lime. 
The number of stems should be regulated at this time 
and from five to six of the strongest shoots should be se- 
lected. The other shoots should be removed, so that the 
selected canes may develop properly. 
The winter or late spring pruning should consist of 
heading back all of the laterals that have formed on the 
selected canes. These are cut back to 1- to 20-inch spurs, 
depending on the growth of the plant. This removes the 
weakest and poorest buds and is the cheapest and most 
effective method of thinning. 
The time for doing this work varies with different 
growers, but it is a good practice to wait until the most 
severe winter weather is passed. 
If the old canes were not removed in the summer they 
should be removed in the spring. For this work, either 
long handled shears or a grape hook will be necessary, 
for the work is made less disagreeable in this way. For 
the summer and spring pruning the pruning shears ad- 
vised for use in orchards will also be found best adapted 
for this work. — Southern Fruit Grower. 
