210 
AMERICAN POMOEOGlCAIy SOCIETY 
Mr. Dickinson: I have enjoyed this immensely, and as I size it up 
after listening as attentively as I could, I do not believe that these two 
men are far apart. We have had these two presentations from the two 
ends of the business; one man who has been urging on his neighbors to get 
them to pack as well as he does, and the other explaining how it all appears 
to the shippers’ association he represents. Now, if you can get them to- 
gether at dinner today they might draft a resolution to be presented to the 
American Pomological Society — directing what a fancy pack should be, so 
that every man could brand his package for just what there is in it. 
Whether or not we need a “Fancy” grade; or whether that ten per 
cent is too much for the men to go against all at once, it is doubtless true 
that we are trying to do the best possible thing for the apple business. 
Let those two men, and three or four others, get together and have amend- 
ments to the bill suggested and drafted. 
Mr. Lupton: This question of a national standard for apple packing and 
packages is a very serious one to the fruit grower. In my opinioin the bus- 
iness of growing apples for market has progressed to 1 that extent that the 
principal concern of the fruit grower now is the marketing of his fruit 
rather than the growing of more fruit. I assume that we all want to gro*w 
the best fruit we can; but the great objective of the modern progressive fruit 
grower is, proper marketing. Therefore, it seems to me the most important 
question we can discuss at this joint meeting of the American Pomological 
Society and the Eastern Fruit Growers’ Association. 
The Sulzer law is a business proposition, not a personal one. The 
mere fact that the name of an unfortunate politician is connected with the 
bill has no significance whatever. For many years the International Apple 
Shippers’ Association whose members handle perhaps 80% of the apples grown 
in this country, had made effort after effort to secure legislation, standard- 
izing apple packing and packages. The necessity for such legislation will 
be apparent when I tell you that on one occasion I visited a cold storage 
warehouse where I counted 17 different sizes of barrels in which apples were 
held in store, — sugar barrels, cracker barrels, cranberry barrels, lime bar- 
rels, crockery barrels, every kind of container made that went by the name 
of barrel. That condition of affairs was bad, because the purchaser could 
not know whether he were going to get two and one-half or five bushels of 
apples when he bought a barrel. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, 
in order to put the apple business on anything like a fair business basis to 
secure first a standard barrel. 
Standard Barrel a Necessity. 
The International Apple Shippers’ Association realized this necessity, 
but its repeated efforts to secure congressional action were in vain until 
it united with the fruit growers associations to secure a standard barrel 
satisfactory to both grower and dealer. The one finally selected was what 
is commonly known as the New York standard. This was selected first be- 
cause it was in almost universal use throughout the country, and second 
because it was in size equal to three heaping bushels. In fact, so generally 
