204 
AMERICAN P0M0E0GICAT, SOCIETY 
Under the Sulzer law to-day you can take just such apples as ought to 
have gone to the cider mill and label them “Extra Fancy Rome Beauties” and 
send them out on the market, and there is nothing in the law to prevent it. 
Is that the kind of a law that you want? Why not have a scientfically 
prepared law, a law prepared under the approval of legislative committees 
of the Eastern Fruit Growers’ Association and of the American Pomological 
Society? Why not Canada’s law in the United States? Why not a law as 
good as Maine’s to prevent this traffic that thrives by destroying our mar- 
kets; by destroying public confidence in the pack that we have? And I ask 
you, and I believe that if you, as the senior association, asked promptly for 
amendments to this Sulzer act they could be obtained. And I believe you 
to-day are ready to ask amendments to the Sulzer act, so that it may be 
more effective, of value to the fruit grower, — so that our fruit when it gets 
into the English markets may mean something and not be a disgrace to the 
United States of America. (Applause) 
Mr. Phillips: I dislike to take any more of your time, but there are 
certain statements constantly being made which, if allowed to continue un- 
challenged, will in the course of time come to be believed as absolute fact. 
The gentleman has a very plausible way of stating many things which are 
not exactly in accordance with all the facts. For example when it is as- 
serted that the Canadian law under the No. 1 grade provides for no defects, 
contains no limit of tolerance and requires every apple to be perfect, that 
statement is not true. Let me read you the real provisions of the Canadian 
law as found in Bulletin No. 11 issued by the Canadian Department of 
Agriculture : 
“No. 1 quality, unless such fruit includes no culls and consists of 
well grown specimens of one variety, sound, of not less than medium 
size and of good color for the variety, of normal shape and not less than 
ninety per cent free from scab, wormholes, bruises and other defects* 
and properly packed/’ 
You will note that the law reads “not less than ninety per cent free,” 
or in other words it establishes a ten per cent limit of tolerance. 
Now then, here is Mr. Woods’ statement before the Virginia Horti- 
cultural Society, at its last meeting, and taken from the official proceedings 
of that body: 
“Now, what is the result? When our apples go to England — we 
export a great part of our crop — what is the result when they get there 
marked ‘Standard, No. 1,’ and the Canada apples right beside them 
marked the same way? They do not allow a single scabby apple to go 
into their No. 1 barrels. Now, when you stand that barrel up beside 
the Canada barrel and every tenth apple in our barrel is found to be 
scabby or a cider cull, it absolutely can not compete with the Canada 
barrel.” 
It therefore appears that the gentleman, was seriously in error and that 
the Canadian law in the No. 1 grade allows precisely the same leeway as 
does the Sulzer law. 
