O LD sayings have a way of startling us into new 
i lines of thought that are sometimes very profit- 
I able; and the old sayings of the soil and plants 
' are no exception. Here is one about pruning, 
for example, that makes us open our eyes, it is 
so revolutionary: — “the wise man pruning his orchard carries 
out the prunings thereof in his pocket.” Imagine such a thing! 
When all the tradition and precept and practice of to-day 
is based on the theory of severe pruning to induce strong 
growth ! 
Yet looking at it from a purely common sense attitude, why 
should it? Why should taking away a portion of a plant make 
the rest of it stronger and better, any more than removing a 
portion of a man would have the same effect on him? Without 
doubt there is usually an exuberant growth in the season follow- 
ing heavy pruning (and in special cases of course, pruning is 
done for just the purpose of stimulating this new wood, for one 
reason or another) but it has been proven by careful observa- 
tions that this growth of shoots is by no means an index of a 
plant's vigor as a whole. As a matter of fact, does it not obvi- 
ously indicate that the portions of which the plant has been 
deprived by pruning were essential to its life, and must therefore 
be replaced at the earliest possible moment before it can go on 
along its line of normal development? 
Further, inasmuch as its normal development has been thus 
violently interrupted, and its strength drawn upon to make up 
the loss of vital members, does not natural inference conclude 
that it never will arrive in all its parts at what it would have 
become if such interruption had not occurred? This is precisely 
the truth according to the conclusions which various experiments 
and observations, made here in both the East and the West, 
in Canada, in Europe, and in England, reach. The less a tree 
is pruned the larger and heavier it becomes at maturity — larger 
in all its parts and heavier by actual weight, which reveals of 
course more definitely than anything else can, its actual con- 
dition. 
All of this is very significant, and the well-being of our shrubs 
and trees generally, as well as our fruit trees, deserves that the 
widest dissemination be given the information— since the meddle- 
some instinct to prune and snip has been so encouraged. Some- 
times indeed it appears that the mass of gardeners believe a 
garden is principally a place in which to exercise the pruning 
saw and shears; and without a doubt on many places the labor 
wasted in pruning things that should have only dead branches 
removed, or not be pruned at all, would amount to 10 per cent, 
of the total. 
Which is not to be interpreted as an arraignment of what may 
be called constructive pruning! For although pruning per se 
is never a necessity, but simply a measure to an end, constructive 
pruning is one of the fine arts of plant growing. It differs, 
though, from the ignorant and energetic use of the pruning in- 
struments as greatly as the restrained work of modern surgery 
differs from the indiscriminate activities of the old-time saw- 
bones; and unless one knows beyond peradventure exactly 
what he is doing, why he is doing it, and just what effect it will 
have, let him withhold his hand! For it is a subject upon which 
even experts are not altogether agreed — albeit it is a practice 
as old as history — and much undoubtedly is yet to be learned 
about it. 
For one thing, there is the sabbatical year stressed in the 
directions given the children of Israel, “ Six years . . . thou 
shalt prune thy vineyard and gather in the fruit thereof; but 
in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest with the land, a 
sabbath for the Lord.” Who in the modern era has ever tried 
following this literally? Yet why not? Apart from any re- 
ligious significance, we know that the commandments and pre- 
cepts given the children of Israel were based upon sound prin- 
ciples of hygiene or physiology; hence it would seem that there 
might be some advantage worth taking a good deal of pains 
to find out in this sabbatical restraint. But for the most of 
us the best part about the whole thing, under general normal 
conditions, is the extreme simplicity of our part — nothing to 
worry about, and nothing to do! 
O NE wonders what would happen to a plant that came to 
our shores in these days showing evidence of actual disease 
or insect pest, when a luckless handful of seeds entering “by 
permit” obtained from the Federal Horticultural Board and 
routed through the channels mapped out by it, are delivered 
to their consignee as dead as doornails after treatment consist- 
ing of 24 hours’ exposure to formaldehyde, followed by a similar 
exposure to hydrocyanic acid, the reason recorded on the slip 
in each case being precautionary! This is strenuous prophylaxis, 
hardly calculated to reassure plantsmen, or induce them to avail 
themselves of the much vaunted permitsthat “ maybeobtained.” 
One wonders further on just what grounds the Federal Horticul- 
tural Board fears for the safety of our temperate region forests 
through the importation of the tender tropical Orchids! Or 
most of all perhaps, why, of things admitted, Lily-of-the-Valley, 
coming wholly from Germany, heads the list. Verily, there are 
not a few things in these days that are past understanding! 
T HE Trustees of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society 
are “of opinion that these drastic regulations of the Fed- 
eral Horticultural Board, imposed under Quarantine 37, should 
be substantially modified. They believe that the restrictions 
enforced by this quarantine are very largely unnecessary and 
detrimental to horticultural progress in the United States.” 
They are of the opinion moreover that it is “a question 
whether the Secretary of Agriculture, in ordering such drastic 
quarantine, may not have exceeded both the intent and the 
scope of the Act of Congress authorizing plant quarantine.” 
Wherefore, “The Trustees of this Society believe that a 
125 
