114 
AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION. 
Attention was called by tlie Secretary to the necessity of a change in the 
wording of Section 8 of the By-Laws, requiring the appointment by the Presi- 
dent, immediately after his election, of “a standing committee on native fruits, 
consisting of eleven members,” ( * * * ) “to report biennially on native 
fruits,” etc. He said: The point of uncertainty is the meaning of the word 
“native;” as here v used. One member who was appointed on the committee 
very naturally interpreted it to mean “indigenous” and declined to serve, on 
the ground that in his section of the country (California) little attention was 
paid to “native” fruits. A verbal change is necessary to make the By-laws 
conform to our present use of these terms. When the Constitution w T as 
framed there were so few indigenous fruits in cultivation that “native” meant 
simply that the thing was of seedling origin in this country, regardless of its 
specific origin; but now we use the word “native” solely to designate varieties 
of our indigenous species. I therefore move to amend Section 8 of the By- 
laws by striking out, wherever they occur, the words “native fruits” and 
substituting in lieu thereof the words “new fruits of American origin.” 
The motion was carried without objection, and the amendment ordered to- 
be made. 
FRUIT SCHEDULES IN CENSUS OF 1900. 
The Secretary called attention to the fact that the fruit schedules for the 
Census of 1900 would soon be prepared, and urged the importance of securing 
fuller information in respect to the acreage, yield and value of product of the 
common orchard fruits in the several states that have been secured in former 
censuses. 
These schedules are in preparation, and proofs of them will be submitted 
for criticism within the next few days. They will furnish the basis of 
enumeration for the general census, independently of the special investiga- 
tions that may be made on special topics. Mr. L. G. Powers of Minnesota, in 
charge of Agriculture (including Horticulture) for the Census, has 
recently consulted several times with the Division of Pomology in regard to 
-what should be included in the fruit schedules of the census. I think he 
is willing to do for fruit culture .all that he can without encroaching upon 
other lines of agricultural investigation which he considers of more im- 
portance; perhaps an expression of the desire of this Society in the matter 
would serve to strengthen the standing of commercial fruit culture in the 
census. The fruit schedule is being framed upon the lines of that in the census 
of 1890, which covered the common orchard fruits under the following heads: 
“Acreage,” “Crop of 1889.” “Bushels sold in 1889,” “Number of bearing trees,” 
“Number of young trees not bearing.” Those five items are duplicated for 
apples, apricots, plums, cherries and pears. “Other orchard fruits” are put in 
one column and no value of product is given until you get the value of “all 
orchard products.” So that, while you can determine by computation the 
average yield per tree of the bearing trees, you cannot from the census figures 
determine the yield per acre nor get any idea of the value per bushel of the 
several fruits, the only statement of value being the summing up of “all 
orchard products.” We feel the need of more exact statistics on value and 
yield per acre of the several fruits in the several commercial fruit producing 
districts, so that we may, for example, be able to determine the value of 
