478 
THE RURAL HEW-YORKER. 
JULY 1 \ 
PATENTS FOE PLANTS. 
Wide differences of opinion on all points: 
plans suggested — patenting, copyrighting, 
trade-marking, and bounties by the 
General or State Governments; Iowa's 
example; protectionists say producers of 
valuable new plant varieties should be 
recompensed as well as inventors of useful 
mechanical devices; that proper legal 
'■'■protection" is possible and practicable; 
sugggestions for affording it; that it 
would benefit the public by enlisting more 
and better skilled effort in the production 
of new sorts-, that governmental investiga 
tions into novelties would suppress trash; 
that the period of protection should be 
proportioned to the ease and rapidity of 
propagation; and that while such a 
monopoly might not be popular it would 
be desirable. Opponents say legal protec¬ 
tion icould be impossible owing to variations 
in varieties due to environment; *hat 
different varieties often so closely resemble 
each other that it is next to impossible to 
distinguish them; that the plan would be 
a source of such endless litigation that 
many would be afraid to engage in the 
business; that the monopolists alone would 
be, the gainers to the loss of the public; that 
the plan would be popular only with the 
former; that without '■'■protection" a fair 
profit can be gained by judicious propaga¬ 
tion after the enample of the Niagara 
Grape Company. Conclusions :— Che 
testing of novelties by the Government 
experiment stations strongly advocated-, 
State or National bounties appear to be 
the best form of recompense or reward; 
protection by patents so difficult as to be 
practically impossbile. 
“A man may invent a new boot- jack and 
secure the exclusive right to manufacture it. 
Let a man spend years of patient toil in pro¬ 
ducing a new grain or fruit and he has no 
protection whatever. A year after he puts it 
upon the market hundreds of dealers may sell 
it and leave him without a penny to pay for 
his time and study. Is this right?” 
The above is a fair synopsis of dozens of 
letters that are i eceived every year. There 
are more of them this year than ever before. 
Is it right? Seeking for the right is a part of 
the Rural’s mission. This question is well 
worth discussing. If a man does honest and 
useful work he ought to be paid for it. 
Originating new plants is surely not dishon. 
est, and if the new plants possess strikingly 
distinct and valuable characteristics the labor 
is far from useless. '1 o start this discussion 
we sent the following questions to some of our 
best authorities. The answers speak for them¬ 
selves : 
1. Is the plan possible? 
2. Is it practicable? 
3. Would it benefit the public? 
4. Would it be popular? 
5. Is it on the whole desirable? 
FROM T. V. MUNSON. 
For a number of years I have given this 
subject careful study. I have seen and exam¬ 
ined the various plans and petitions for such a 
patent-law, and am an originator in the true 
sense, where results have been achieved at 
much expense of time and money. I am also 
an inventor and patentee of tools. This should 
prepare one for drawing approximately cor¬ 
rect conclusions in the matter. 
So far as the justice of such a law is con¬ 
cerned, there is no question. If it is just to 
protect an inventor of a machine, it is much 
more proper that the originator of a really 
valuable variety of fruit, vegetable, tree or 
flower should be protected in the sale of his 
product till he can remunerate himself for his 
study and labor. What machine brought 
greater blessings to the masses than did the 
introduction of the Concord grape, the Early 
Rose potato, the Ben Davis or Baldwin apple 
and hundreds of vegetables, grains, trees and 
fruits? 
But ‘‘is the plan possible?” Yes, I believe 
it is. At least the trial might be made. We 
can never tell certainly till the matter has 
been tried. If a law to this effect be care 
fully worded, aud provision is made to deter¬ 
mine what is really new and valuable, I feel 
confident a plan can be worked out that will 
as readily determine and protect a new varie 
ty as a machine can be protected and the no 
velty of its construction determined. 
“Is it practicable?” I would give about the 
same answer to this question as to the first. I 
think it as practicable as the patenting of a 
machine. Disputes and lawsuits, as with 
patents on machines, would doubtless arise, 
and would have to be determined in pretty 
much the same way. 
“Would it benefit the public?” Certainly, 
in the same way in which machine patents 
benefit it. If it has proved possible, practic¬ 
able, and profitable to the originators thus to 
reap the reward of their knowledge and labor 
on patents on machines, then if the production 
of new and valuable varieties of plants were 
encouraged in the same way, there would 
grow up a better and more thorough class of 
originators, and they would push advance¬ 
ment in this line much more rapidly. But the 
grave doubt in my mind is whether the paten¬ 
tee would ever obtain more profit under such 
a law than he could get without a patent. 
This arises from a difference in the nature of 
the production of plants and machines. The 
latter require a special factory, but every¬ 
body having soil and knowing anything of 
the art of propagation, can and will propa¬ 
gate young plants on his own ground from his 
own plants, if the products are really desir¬ 
able. Many persons will even steal plants 
from originators, propagate and sell them un¬ 
der other names and in other sections with 
little danger of detection. But the Govern¬ 
ment could obviate this by testing the variety 
speedily in its experiment stations. If found 
valuable, it should pay the originator a fair 
price for it, to be determined by a set of regu¬ 
lations and tests as to its comparative value, 
and then it should be disseminated speedily to 
the entire country through the Department of 
Agriculture. 
“Would it be popular?” This I suppose 
means as a bill before Congress. If so, I doubt 
whether such a bill could ever be made to 
pass, as at present such a measure is not pop¬ 
ular either in or out of Congress. It might in 
time be made so if our ablest agricultural 
journals would numerously advocate it and 
push it persistently. If the inquiry means 
whether a patented variety would be popular 
or not, I would answer that it would depend 
upon its merits and the ability and effort of the 
disseminator to make it known, just as with a 
machine. 
“Is it on the whole desirable?” When we 
note the fact that the simple patenting of a 
device or machine, however good, does not 
make such machine profitable to the inventor, 
unless he is enegetic in making its merits 
known, and either invests his own or other 
people’s capital in it, and that serious difficul¬ 
ties beset the protection of plant offsprings 
possessed by and in the ground of another; 
while identification in many cases would be 
extremely difficult, aud that even without a 
patent an originator can by prudence and en¬ 
ergy make his products widely known, while 
at the same time he protects them in his own 
ground and in the hands of really trusty 
friends for testing, till he has stock large 
enough to control the market for several 
years, and in view of the advantage that since 
all intelligent people prefer to get a new va¬ 
riety from “headquarters,” he can reap a 
handsome reward upon a really meritorious 
(and sometimes upon a worthless) variety, I 
do not think the plant patent on the whole 
is desirable. 
But I do think that if the Government 
through the Commissioner of Agriculture 
would receive and test in its stations, new and 
promising varieties, and upon determination 
of their real value, would pay the originator 
a liberal bounty for the same and then dis¬ 
seminate them speedily, allowing the origi 
nator with others to grow and sell his own 
production, all the ends of justice and pro¬ 
gress would be better served, and no expen¬ 
sive plant patent bureau need be set up chief¬ 
ly to feed an army of greedy patent solicitors 
and employes. 
Then the originator, if equally energetic 
and reliable, would have the preference with 
purchasers of quantities to supply the trade, 
which the Government would not be allowed 
to do; but only to send a ‘ ‘start” to applicants. 
So I would oppose the plant patent scheme, 
but would advocate the plan of paying a libe¬ 
ral bounty to originators for really meritori¬ 
ous originations, at the same time in no way 
preventing them from engaging in the pm 
duction and sale with others, but each origin¬ 
ator should be compelled at the outset to sup¬ 
ply the Government stations with sufficient test 
stock for all its experiments when filing his 
application for a bounty. 
Denison, Texas. 
FROM E. WILLIAMS. 
Patents in horticulture is a subject that has 
engaged the thoughts of many an experimenter 
during the past 25 years or more, and will 
continue to do so for years to come, notwith¬ 
standing the opposition with which the idea is 
regarded by some nurserymen and others who 
ridicule the matter and denounce it as imprac¬ 
tical and selfish. With all due deference to 
the opinions of these intelligent opponents, it 
seems to me that the justice of protection to 
originators of new fruits, etc., is quite as rea¬ 
sonably grounded as justice to those engaged 
in any other department of industry, and 
ought to be readily conceded by everybody- 
New discoveries or inventions, from a hoe to a 
wagon-jack or steam engine, an electric light 
to a phonograph or flying machine, are readily 
patented, thus protecting, by national autho¬ 
rity, the labors and discoveries of the inven¬ 
tors. 
To deny to another class of students labor¬ 
ing in another direction, who, after spending 
years of labor in crossing, hybridizing, and 
experimenting in the production of a new 
fruit, vegetable, or cereal, the same or similar 
protection, is nothing short of favoring class 
legislation, an idea abhorrent to the minds of 
many people. 
If protection is right for mechanical contri¬ 
vances, inventions and authors, why should 
farmers and horticultural experimenters be 
content with“free trade” for their productions? 
Is one any the less a public benefactor than 
the other? 
This question of protection for horticultural 
products came up some years ago before the 
Farmers’ Club of the'American Institute while 
Horace Greeley was president, and he charac¬ 
terized the proposition as unjust and preposter¬ 
ous to assert that a man should not have a per¬ 
fect right to propagate and sell the product of a 
new potato or fruit which he had purchased 
and paid for, without interference from any 
source. 
To this I replied that the statement, though 
seemiogly true, did not alter the fact that a 
person after spending his time aud labor in 
the origination and production of a new and 
perhaps valuable fruit, was as justly entitled 
to protection in the results of his labors as the 
one who wrote a book. The latter might be 
more easily and cheaply accomplished and be 
of much less value, but the National Govern¬ 
ment readily steps in and protects the author 
and his publisher by granting a copyright, de¬ 
nying to other purchasers any right to repro¬ 
duce or sell it. I have yet to learn why the 
products of “brawn and brain” in the one case 
are any more deserving of national protection 
and encouragement than in the other. This 
leads to the consideration of the first question. 
Is the plan possible? Certainly, for 
it is less difficult and intricate than 
many other things that have been made 
operative; but it must be sustained by public 
sentiment as well as law to be effectual. 
“But,” says one, “it would be difficult, if not 
impossible, so to describe the article that it 
would be readily identified. Is this essential?” 
The protection, be it called patent, copy-right 
or by any name you choose, is not designed to 
prevent the sale or production of the plants or 
fruits, but to restrict and secure to the owner 
or originator the control aud direction of their 
propagation and sale. The purchaser of a 
patent acquires the right to manufacture and 
sell the article in a certain district or territory, 
as the case may be, under certain restrictions, 
and the laws protect him in these rights. The 
purchaser of the article acquires only the 
right to use it. Could not the purchaser of 
the right to propagate and sell the plants, 
trees or vines of anew fruit or other horticul¬ 
tural product be guaranteed similar rights 
just as easily? 
Is it practicable? I see no reason why it is not. 
It may not seem so to some because it would 
be a new departure, and we have become so 
accustomed to the prevailing methods by long 
practice that imaginary difficulties in the way 
would seem at first insurmountable, but other 
things equally insurmountable or more so have 
been overcome or rendered possible. “Where 
there’s a will there’s a way,” but it is not al¬ 
ways found in perfection at the start. Prac¬ 
tical operation of any new laws, systems, or 
machines, develops the weak points and sug¬ 
gests improvements. 
Would it benefit the public? In reply I might 
ask, would it be a public injury? And an an 
swer to either query would be merely theoret¬ 
ic without a practical demoustration, and even 
then perhaps there would be grounds for af¬ 
firmative and negative views. It is not to be 
presumed that all products of this kind would 
be patented. If the expense attending it 
were at all commensurate with those at pres¬ 
ent prevailing, a person would feel pretty 
confident of the merits of his article before 
he would incur the expense and trouble. 
Such laws might operate as a check to un¬ 
scrupulous dealers in offering novelties to 
which they have no right; but all the laws we 
have or are likely to have, have never availed 
to make men honest, and they never will. 
The object sought is to secure to the originator 
or owner some voice and direction in the sale 
and dissemination of his own products,which 
is certainly not unreasonable. If he fixes 
the values too high to meet the views of the 
public, they are under no obligation to patron¬ 
ize him, and he alone will be the sufferer. The 
inducement to unload these novelties on a 
credulous public before they were thoroughly 
tested would be diminished, and in this respect 
the public would be benefited. Under the pro¬ 
posed system it ought to be much safer for a 
person to let out his products to be tested with¬ 
out being in constant fear that they would be 
distributed to his injury. Certainly no one 
will deny that the true character and merits 
of these new candidates thus ascertained 
would be of public benefit. 
Would it be popular? Not among nursery¬ 
men and dealers, unless they become convert¬ 
ed after a trial of the plan. 
Is it on the whole desirable? If patents and 
copyrights are desirable in other things, why 
should they not be in this matter. * If the mea¬ 
sure should operate to secure to the originator 
a just compensation for his time and labor, it 
certainly ought to be desirable. The laborer 
and experimenter in this field is none the less 
a public benefactor than any otb*r, and is as 
justly entitled to similar protection. 
It was the lack of any protection of this 
kind that led the originator of the Niagara 
grape to join with his friends in forming a 
company to secure to him the profits accruing 
from that grape, to which he was justly en¬ 
titled, and which he could get in no other 
way. This course aroused the jealousy, con¬ 
tempt, and unmanly opposition of sundry 
nurserymen and others; but the benefits to the 
general public resulting from this course are 
beyond question. The grape was thoroughly 
and widely tested before the general public 
were importuned to buy it, and when it was 
offered them, there was no ambiguity or un¬ 
certainty about it: its reputation was made, 
and the evidence was public everywhere, and 
if the originator and his friends made money 
or a fortune out of it (aud I hope they did), is 
there anyone so ungenerous as to envy them? 
They have accomplished just what those fav¬ 
oring patents in horticulture hope to secure 
through this channel—viz, protection in the 
right to secure a just and fair remuneration to 
the originator for his enterprise and labor. 
Call it chimerical and absurd, if you please; 
but it is exalted wisdom and justice in com 
parison with a case recently coming to my no¬ 
tice. A teacher, a public educator of high 
standing, conceived the idea of taking a class 
of his pupils off for a day now and then during 
vacation.—one day in the country botanizing 
or studying object-lessons in geology, an¬ 
other at the Mint or Assay Office, the expense 
of the outings to be[ assessed pro-rata on the 
pupils with a sufficient per cent, added to put 
$5 or 810 a trip in the teacher’s pocket for 
services rendered. Well, this wise and astute 
pedagogue conceived idea No. 2, which was 
nothing less than getting idea No. 1 patented, 
and forthwith sought legal advice to this end, 
and at last accounts he was advised that the 
“idee” was not paten table,but he could get it 
copyrighted. The absurdity of this “idee” is 
lost in its sublimity. 
FROM P. M. AUGUR. 
I see no reason why the best horticultural 
and pomological talent in the country should 
not be heartily encouraged in producing new 
fruits and vegetables, flowers and plants, as 
well as other classes are encouraged to produce 
improved implements. And, while there are 
in the very nature of the case more difficulties 
in doing the one than the other, yet these diffi¬ 
culties are not insurmountable. Therefore, I 
answer question one in the affirmative. You 
ask, how? Suppose Professor Budd, of the Iowa 
Agricultural College, after years of laborious 
study and hybridization, should originate a 
new pear 10 times the value of any now known. 
It is plain that there ought to be a money 
value in it for him. We should all want it> 
and should desire to see him prospered in its 
dissemination.. 
Well be must have photographs, electrotypes, 
lithographs, and spend several hundred dollars 
in advertising. In the mean time, several 
nurserymen get hold of it in a small way, 
multiply it rapidly, as they so well can, and 
by the time the public are fairly waked up 
about it, it can be seen in every nursery cata¬ 
logue in the country at ordinary rates, and if 
the Budd Pear should realize enough to cover 
all the Professor’s bills, we should feel glad it 
was no worse. Such things ought not so to be. 
Is the plan practicable? Yes, under certain 
limitations. The period of protection should 
be proportioned to the ease and rapidity of 
propagation. Thus, for instance, the straw¬ 
berry, pea, tomato and potato can be multi¬ 
plied very rapidly. Let the period of protection 
be short, say three yearsl while the period 
of protection for fruits, trees and vines which 
are less rapidly propagated, should be five 
years. I would not advocate long terms. 
Would such a measure benefit the public? 
Yes; because a larger and better amount of 
talent would be enlisted under the encourage¬ 
ment thus given to the development of new 
fruits and vegetables. We are very far be- 
