FEB. 14 
124 T 
Farm Politics. 
Here it is proposed to discuss with freedom and fairness, ques¬ 
tions of National or State policy that particularly concern farm¬ 
ers. The editors disclaim responsibility for the opinions of cor¬ 
respondents. The object is to develop a true and fair basis for 
organization among farmers. Let us think out just what we want 
and then strive for it. 
THE PROPOSED NURSERY TRUST. 
1. Is Monopoly in the Nursery Business Possible? 
2. What Would be the Effect of such a Mon¬ 
opoly? 3. Can the “Trust” Drive out the 
“ Home Nursery?” 
fAs most of our readers know, an effort is being made to combine all 
the large nurseries of the country into one large "trust” or combina¬ 
tion, The financial backing is to be furnished'by English capitalists. 
The present proprietors are to be paid partly in cash and partly instock 
of the new “ combine’’—most of the present owners to be retained as 
managers or other officials. The larger nurserymen decline to say 
anything about the trust. We herewith present the views of some of 
the smaller nurserymen who, it may be safely inferred, are closer to the 
people than are those who would go into the combination. Eds. R. N.-Y.J 
Its Success Exceedingly Improbable. 
There is in the nursery business such a multitude of 
persons, both small and great, trustworthy and otherwise, 
while both the motives and the opportunities for covert 
dishonesty, and even trickery, are so numerous, that I deem 
the permanent success of an attempted trust exceedingly 
improbable. 
1. I deem it practically impossible to secure anything 
equivalent to a monopoly of the nursery business for the 
reasons above stated; save that, by acquiring and main¬ 
taining a high character for integrity and the reliability 
of its stock, an establishment could, beyond doubt, secure 
and hold the better class of customers. 
2. The effect of such a monopoly, if it were secured, 
would doubtless be to increase the price of nursery pro¬ 
ducts and probably, at the same time, maintain such 
increase by an improvement in its quality. 
3. I think this improbable, under all the circumstances 
of the case. T. T. LYON. 
Van Buren Co., Mich. 
How It Would Work. 
It is just as impracticable to secure a monopoly of 
nursery products as it is of farm products. With govern¬ 
ment protection on improvements of fruits, by means of 
patents like those on improvements in machinery, etc., 
such a “combine” might be feasible; but whether such a 
monopoly would be good for the country at large, is quite 
another and a very dubious question. If backed up by 
immense capital and lobbying, patents on improve¬ 
ments in fruit as strong as the telephone patents could be 
secured. Such patents would be practically monopolistic 
in their nature, and would effectually prevent any one else 
from making any further improvement in any patented 
fruit in the same direction during the term of the patent, 
and often an indefinite extension of the monopoly could, 
no doubt, be purchased or otherwise corruptly effected by 
the vast funds and unscrupulous policy of the trust. Of 
course, as common in similar cases, the means for corrup¬ 
tion would be extorted from the pockets of the public. A 
governmental franchise for the improvement of fruits f 
though quite as reasonable and meritorious as the grant 
of certain patents in other lines, might not be looked upon 
as an unmixed blessing by the people at large. 
But suppose our great nursery “combine” already 
formed. The scope of its work would be as follows: On 
learning that a majority of the smaller nurserymen were 
going to raise peach trees, it would be the policy of the com¬ 
bine to raise an immense quantity of them and to offer them 
at ruinously low rates--far below the cost of production. 
At the same time the trust would hire such periodicals as 
are open to a money consideration to decry the profit of 
peach growing. By following up shrewdly and sharply 
these and similar tactics, the “ generous ” nursery combine 
might be able to break up and ruin many poor nurserymen 
and dishearten generally growers of trees outside of the 
combine. And thus this “ noble” nursery combine—mak¬ 
ing the same steps taken by the others—might take a 
proud and honored place beside the telephone, telegraph, 
Standard Oil and the many other gigantic combinations 
already in existence, the extent of its extortions from the 
people being limited alone by its own arbitrary un¬ 
selfishness. «b JENKINS. 
Columbiana Co., O. 
Will the Public be Benefited? 
I find both good and evil in this new economic invention 
of trusts. It is designed to remedy, and when fully carried 
out, it does effectively remedy the evils of unrestrained 
competition; and at the same time it secures a great econ¬ 
omy of production and distribution. If the public can be 
assured of receiving a fair share of these advantages, then 
the trust has come to stay. But if its effects are to be the 
ruthless ruin of all the smaller competitors in each great 
industry, and the seizure to itself alone of all the gains 
naturally accruing from such powerful combinations, 
then society, as represented by law, must put its stamp of 
condemnation upon the trust, and exterminate it, as it has 
exterminated, or is exterminating, other great abuses. 
The trust is a movement in the direction of social and 
business reform, inasmuch as it prevents the waste of 
effort and capital, which is so evident under the com¬ 
petitive system. But it puts immense power into a few 
hands—setting up, as it were, a kingdom within a king¬ 
dom, very likely to use its power exclusively for selfish 
ends. Perhaps we have among us some great statesman 
who, perceiving the danger, can devise a method of secur¬ 
ing this good, while escaping this evil. So far, our public 
men seem to be dazed, and are doing nothing effectual in 
the way of making the trust a benefit, yet not a danger; 
legislation, so far, looks only to forbidding such combina¬ 
tions. This does not satisfy the public, the more intel- 
HE RURAL NEW-YORKE 
ligent among whom can see the great gain to all the people 
which the true idea of the trust involves. It seems to me 
that the great instructor of the people, the press, is in 
almost as dazed a state as the lawmakers in regard to this 
question. 
All nurserymen know that there is an immense amount 
of waste in the present method of conducting the business. 
An effective trust will greatly reduce the amount of such 
waste. But is all the gain to go into the pockets of the 
members of the trust ? What do its projectors say ? The 
public are ready to favor anything tending to cheapen 
production; but it fears such cheapening without any 
recognizable advantages to itself. I should like to see how 
the promoters of the trust propose to satisfy the public in 
this particular. 
Replying categorically to The Rural’s questions, I 
should say : 1. It is possible, by means of a well-organized 
trust, embracing all the great nursery firms, to practically 
monopolize the nursery business, by putting an end to 
competition. They can freeze out the smaller firms seek¬ 
ing the same class of trade, but they would hardly be able 
to destroy all the little neighborhood nurseries, unless 
they could sell much more cheaply than now, and make a 
closer adaptation of their stock to local needs. 2. The 
effect of such a monopoly, if successful, can hardly be 
foreseen. It would depend very much upon the ability 
and integrity of its managers. But in the nature of 
things it could not be so powerful as if it handled material 
that could not be as well produced by men of small means. 
It would be impossible for it to kill all competition. 3. I 
think not. A local nursery, if well conducted, supplies 
many local wants which no great combination could as 
well meet. Of course it could, if mean enough, kill the 
local trade by direct attack in the way of reducing prices 
below the cost of production ; but it is so easy to drop a 
little nursery business, and take it up again, nearly every 
large fruit grower producing stock for himself, that I 
think such a contest would be like fighting mosquitos in a 
swamp. T. H. HOSKINS. 
Orleans County, Vt. 
The People Wiil Object To It. 
What does the proposed Nursery Trust propose to do ? 
1. If it proposes to form a combine among all the nurseries 
of the country under one central head to control produc¬ 
tion and maintain a uniform list of prices, I think it pro¬ 
poses an impossibility. I think there is too much native 
independence in the American people to secure their con¬ 
sent to such a combine. I further believe that if it were 
possible to approach such a consummation,there would be 
here and there a bolter. 2. If such a monopoly were to 
succeed to any great extent in raising prices much above 
a fair profit over actual cost, new enterprises would start in 
to occupy the field in competition. 3. I do not believe the 
small home nursery could be driven out of the business if 
prices were advanced as above, because they exist at the 
present low prices, which are already too low for large 
profits. If such a trust should be able to secure a uniform 
grading in quality of stock to correspond with the price, 
it would accomplish a desirable object. E. williams. 
Essex Co., N. J. 
The Nursery Business Cannot Be Monopolized. 
1. We believe it would be impossible to secure a mon¬ 
opoly of the nursery business. 2. We think that if such a 
trust were formed not only would nursery stock advance 
in price to planters, but by the use of highly colored pic¬ 
tures and overdrawn descriptions, varieties entirely 
unsuited to many localities would be disposed of to the 
injury of the trade and the disgust of the planters. 3. The 
home nurseries would still continue, as local nurserymen 
have the confidence of their customers and know the wants 
of the communities where they are located, and are thus 
able to advise planters what varieties are best adapted to 
their special needs. david baird & son. 
Monmouth County, N. J. 
As Well Talk of a Farming Trust. 
1. It is impossible to fully monopolize the nursery busi¬ 
ness—about as well talk of a trust monopolizing the busi¬ 
ness of farming. The selling and buying of “futures” 
in the grain markets comes nearer monopolizing the 
profits in grain farming than can be done in the nursery 
business. The character of nursery products does not 
permit dealing in futures in them. There are over 10,000 
nurseries, big and little, in the United States, and prob¬ 
ably 50,000 persons, more or less, are engaged in them. 
There are many large nurseries; but the multitude of all 
sorts of nurseries prevents any effective monopoly, as the 
proposed combination would be unwieldy. 2. Admitting 
it to be possible to make an effective trust of all existing 
nurseries of any considerable importance (which I believe 
impossible), the effect would be to increase or change the 
prices of all nurseries implicated to a uniform standard, 
for one or two seasons, when numerous other large nur¬ 
series would start, if the prices were put up, and eventu¬ 
ally the “ trust” would collapse. 3. The “home nursery ” 
will never be killed by a nursery trust if the proprietor is 
well up in his business and has any degree of business 
enterprise. There is among the people generally a grow¬ 
ing tendency to ally themselves against monopoly, as there 
is a spirit among the wealthy to form syndicates and 
trusts, which wiil cause the people more and more to 
favor home enterprises in preference to outside trusts. 
This will be a perpetual protection to all worthy home 
nurseries. The “ Nursery Trust” is an impotent bubble. 
There is but one law that ever holds commerce in perma¬ 
nent channels—the law of natural supply and demand,— 
but trusts, syndicates and tariffs, like driftwood, may 
somewhat impede the current for a time, till they are cast 
upon the willows of bankruptcy, and buried in the sands 
stirred up by the fierce eddies they produce. Unfortu¬ 
nately most of the sand is lodged upon innocent persons, 
R. 
Hence it should be made a criminal offense to engage in 
such trusts, syndicates and dealing in “futures,” which 
are inimical alike to the independence of trade and com¬ 
merce and the public welfare, the security of which should 
be the prime and ultimate objects of all legislation. 
Grayson Co., Tex. T. V. MUNSON. 
Trusts and Monopolies not Popular. 
I do not think a trust or monopoly in the nursery busi¬ 
ness would succeed at this time. There are so many ex¬ 
acting details in propagating and growing the stock; also 
in selecting and packing it, that a large company would 
not have any advantage over a small practical operator. 
Trusts and monopolies are not popular at this time, and 
buyers of plants and nursery stock would in many cases 
discriminate against them. JOHN s. collins. 
Burlington Co., N. J. 
The Farmers Club. 
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. 
[Every query must be accompanied by the name and address 
of the writer to insure attention. Before asking a question, please 
see if it is not answered in our advertising columns. Ask only 
a few questions at one time. Put questions on a separate piece 
of paper.] 
Seeding to Grass. 
J. A. H., Weedsport, N. Y. —Will a mixture of Orchard 
Grass and Tall Oat Grass grow on wet ground ? If these 
are sown alone in spring, can tney be cut the first year ? Is 
it better to sow the grass seed with some kind of grain ? 
ANS.—Tall Oat Grass (Arrhenatherum avenaceum) and 
Orchard Grass thrive well together. For pasture, they are 
of high value, but neither is as valuable for hay as Tim¬ 
othy. In so far as we are informed, neither will do well 
on wet ground. The Oat Grass, if sown alone on rich soil, 
will give a splendid crop the first season ; Orchard Grass 
would serve only as pasture the first year. It is a matter 
of choice and experience whether you sow with grain or 
not. 
Abandoned New England Farms. 
G. R. C., Warsaw, Oat.— The Rural frequently alludes 
to the abandoned hill farms of New England; in what 
States are these lands located, and where can I get full 
and reliable information regarding them ? Does the State 
Commissioner of Immigration furnish it ? 
Ans. —Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Western 
Massachusetts contain many farms from which the orig¬ 
inal owners have moved for one cause or another. Ver¬ 
mont has foolishly discontinued the office of Immigration 
Commissioner. N, R. Batchelor, Concord, N. H., is Com¬ 
missioner for his State. The Secretaries of the other 
States will probably give information, or, at least, tell 
how to reach the owners of the farms. 
“ Boston Ivy.” 
T. J. H., Wheeling, W. Va.— Would it be advisable to 
plant Boston Ivy to run up on the weather-boarding of a 
frame dwelling-house ? Would it adhere to the siding and 
injure it ? How should the ground be prepared, and how 
many plants would it take to cover a wall 18 feet wide ? 
Ans.— This vine (Ampelopsis Veitchii) is best adapted to 
run up stone or brick buildings. It is not well to allow 
such vines to cover the dwelling, because they Induce 
decay and dampness. Any good soil will answer. Dig 
ample holes and keep the surface mellow and free of weeds. 
It is a magnificent vine for stone structures. 
Some Choice Fruits. 
J. D. H., Stanton, Va. —What are three or four of the 
best pears and plums that will live here ? I want some 
Green Gages, and 12 kinds of grapes and four of cherries. 
Some Green Gages rot here, while others thrive. 
Ans. —Does our friend want a selection for his own fam¬ 
ily use ? In such a case quality would be the main con¬ 
sideration rather than quantity, while, of course, the cer¬ 
tainty of crop and of its ripening properly would be as de¬ 
sirable for the family as for the market supply. As to 
pears, those universally admired and well-behaving kinds, 
the Sheldon, Bartlett, Seckel and Aujou, ripening in suc¬ 
cession as named, are sure to do well in the soil and air of 
the great valley of Virginia. If an earlier sort is wanted 
for August use, Clapp’s Favorite is fine. If one of the hy¬ 
brid Japan sorts, which have peculiar merits for latitudes 
below New Y r ork—Le Conte, or Shalee, or Kieffer will 
please greatly. Of plums, the rich and luscious Gages, 
and especially the green ones are so increasingly liable to 
rot, besides being especially set upon by the curculio, that 
only the most vexatious disappointment usually follows 
their planting. The Lombard, a particularly hardy pur¬ 
ple plum of this class, is the last to succumb. For culin¬ 
ary use and largely for dessert—being very handsome and 
having a sweet, agreeable juice—native sorts are coming 
into general use. They carry and keep well, are almost or 
quite curculio and rot-proof, and bear profusely ; and the 
fruit makes the best of “ butter ” or marmalade. Sorts of 
the Southern or Chicasaw type are preferred, and Wild 
Goose, Miner and Wayland make a choice selection, ripen¬ 
ing in succession from early August on. Of grapes, 
Moore’s, Worden, Brighton, Jefferson, Concord and Ni¬ 
agara are proved sorts. Diamond, Ulster, Pocklington 
and Eaton are very promising. Rogers’s Agawam, Salem 
and Wilder are noble sorts, but rather more capricious. 
They have large berries well sealed with thick skins which 
inclose a rich, syrupy juice, and so they excel as keepers. 
It is doubtful if any of the Heart Cherries can be relied on 
to bear sound fruit for many years in the Valley. They 
do better on thin, slaty or shaly ridges, sheltered from 
dry, wintry winds. The Dukes are something hardier, but 
the acid sorts—the kinds that make those cherry pies so 
especially appetizing in June—will bear well almost every¬ 
where in ground not too wet. There are different varie¬ 
ties of tbs Kentish, the Morellos and the Montm.oreacys, 
