4888 
479 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
low perfection in any line yet. This would 
throw the door open for hundreds of operators 
to attempt their best in this line and great 
progress would be the result. 
As to the arrangement of the details: sup¬ 
pose I am a nurseryman, I buy the Budd 
Pear, paying at the rate of three dollars per 
tree. I am not to use cions or buds for 
five years on my own nursery stock; but I 
may top-graft orchard trees for fruit-bearing, 
but the buds must not be sold or given away 
for any use other than as above, except by 
special agreement. 
The same rule might apply to vegetables or 
small fruits with a shorter period. This is 
only according to the “golden rule,” doing 
simple justice to the originator of a valuable 
acquisition. Such a measure would be popu¬ 
lar with fair-minded people. 
Is it on the whole desirable? Yes; because, 
as already suggested, it would enlist more 
talent and labor and a higher order of talent 
in attempting to achieve high and beneficial 
results. The Concord Grape was worth mil¬ 
lions of dollars to the country; so was the 
Bartlett Pear, yet neither of them would stand 
in the way of something vastly better, which 
will surely be coming in the future if origin¬ 
ators are properly encouraged. 
Middlefield, Conn. 
FROM PROF. J. L. BUDD. 
A machine or appliance may have value 
over the whole country and even over the 
whole world, and its manufacture and distri¬ 
bution can be controlled. On the other hand, 
in a country with such a variety of climate and 
soil as our's possesses, fruits, as a rule, succeed 
most perfectly only within limited areas, and 
their propagation and distribution as vested 
property cannot be controlled for any length 
of time. The only plan apparent to the writer 
would be very extended propagation prior to 
distribution, as has been attempted with a 
few new fruits, and this would work injury to 
planters over great areas, as it is well 
known that new fruits of great promise 
when young in certain localities, do not meet 
public expectation over wide areas, especially 
when they have been heralded for months as 
varieties superior to anything yet known. 
Of course, it will be urged that the new 
fruits might first be widely tested by parties 
who would give the usual promise not to 
propagate or distribute; but fruits “stray in a 
mysterious way ” in this country and Europe. 
If it be said that propagators and innocent 
purchasers will be liable to prosecution, it is 
freely admitted, yet I do not like to look for¬ 
ward to systematic litigation like that of the 
drive-well and bee-hive men. 
I like much better the offer of premiums by 
the different States for tested new fruits of 
special value, as has been done in the State of 
Iowa. Our premium list offered to encour¬ 
age the production of new varieties of the 
apple reads as follows, and the lists for the 
pear, cherry, plum, grape, and small fruits, 
are on the same plan, but less in the aggregate 
amount of premiums offered: 
PREMIUM LIST. 
The following lists will be duplicated in the 
Northern and Southern Districts of the State 
THE APPLE. FIRST PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 
The most promising seedling.§ 10.00 
Second premium . 7 50 
Third premium.* 5 00 
On the fifth year, the variety which 
has taken first premium three times 
out of five will receive a premium 
„ of - 100.00 
Second premium (three out of five) ... 75 00 
Third premium (three out of five). 50.00 
SECOND PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 
The prize varieties of the first period 
may receive—if still found worthy 
—an annual premium of. 20.00 
Second premium . 15.00 
Third premium.' * io]oO 
At the end of second period—10 years 
—the variety receiving three out 
of the first premiums will receive.. 200.00 
Three out of five of second awards ... 150 00 
Three out of five of third awards.... . . 100.00 
THIRD PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 
Annual premium. 40.00 
Second premium." 3o!oO 
---- - i-- ~-. .. 
And sweepstakes as before for three 
out of five first premiums. 300.00 
Three out of five second premiums. 225.00 
Three out of five third premiums. 150.00 
FOURTH PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. 
Annual premium. 80.00 
Second premium . 60.00 
Third premium. 4o!oO 
Grand final sweepstakes as before on 
first awards . 500.00 
On second awards. 375.00 
On third awards..... . . 250 00 
Under this plan every propagator in the 
land may secure the variety prior to the ex¬ 
piration of the period of 20 years, yet the 
originator will get an aggregate premium of 
nearly 82,000 if his variety head the list contin¬ 
uously. 
In our State the fund from which these 
premiums will be paid is supplied by a special 
annual appropriation by the State Legislature 
to the Iowa State Horticultural Society for 
such specific uses. 
Ames, Iowa. 
FROM T. T. LYON. 
Possibly the exclusive right to control the 
propagation and sale of a newly originated 
fruit or vegetable might be secured to the 
originator under a law in some respects akin 
to the present copy-right law, if provisions 
could be made for certain conditions peculiar 
to such cases, quite likely, if not certain to 
arise. 
There are numerous classes, and even var¬ 
ieties of fruits which are constantly being re¬ 
produced from seeds with little or no percep¬ 
tible variations from the original. Several 
varieties of peaches are notable examples, and 
yet each of these seedlings is as manifestly a 
new variety as would be true in case of the 
widest variations. I am acquainted with ex¬ 
tensive orchards grown from the seeds of 
varieties which usually vary more or less 
widely in the process of rep. oduction; but 
which show but slight variations when the 
young seedlings of the first year are merely 
selected by the characteristics of the foliage 
and the habit of growth. 
In numberless cases, such variations even in 
the case of actual new originations, are abso¬ 
lutely imperceptible, even by the most critical 
expert, so that the validity of such a patent 
must depend upon proof of such origination, 
which, especially in the case of foundlings, 
would usually be impossible. 
In the case of most vegetables, novelties are 
more commonly originated by the process of 
continuous selection with reference to a spec¬ 
ial type, in which case the question, at what 
point in such process the requisite fixity of 
qualities is reached, would become very es¬ 
sential, if not in fact indispensable to a just 
award. And yet, so widely do results vary 
that nothing short of actual and even length¬ 
ened trial would suffice to determine the suf¬ 
ficiency of the result—a process quite aside 
from the usual duties of an examiner ii the 
Patent Office. 
In the attempt to frame a law of this char¬ 
acter, other and equally serious difficulties 
would surely arise; but enough has been said 
to show the magnitude of the difficulties to be 
met. 
To these should be added the fact that 
neither in fruits nor in vegetables have the 
wisest experts ever succeeded in so accurately 
describing varieties, especially as grown in 
varying soils or climates, or under different 
modes of culture, that they can be surely 
identified from such descriptions. Hence the 
probability is that, with the best possible evi¬ 
dence as to the identity of a variety, examin¬ 
ers, courts and juries must occasionally find 
it an impossibility to determine the very facts 
upon which the correctness of a decision must 
depend. 
A law so framed as to protect the origina¬ 
tor would doubtless be the means of increas¬ 
ing the activity of those engaged in the orig¬ 
ination of novelties, and in as far as they 
shall be really meritorious, the public would 
doubtless be benefited ; but, to be really 
beneficial, the award of a patent should be 
made only upon satisfactory proof that the 
novelty in question, as required by modern 
pomological rules, possesses some quality, or 
combination of qualities, superior in value to 
any already existing variety “of the same 
class and season.” Such requirement, prop¬ 
erly enforced, would doubtless be of incalcul¬ 
able value to the public, since it might be ex¬ 
pected to suppress ninety-nine one-hundredths 
of the novelties now so freely offered and 
purchased, only to prove trash in the hands 
of a too credulous public. 
A law so framed as to accomplish these re¬ 
sults would doubtless be popular, save with 
those who may be engaged in the work of 
bringing out and disseminating such imposi¬ 
tions upon the public as have already been 
referred to, whose operations would thus be 
interfered with, if not broken up. 
Whether such a law would be desirable or 
not would largely depend upon the principle 
underlying its provisions. If to grant protec¬ 
tion to all novelties without regard to their 
real value—No. If to protect only those of 
assured merit— Yes. 
South Haven, Mich. 
FROM J. J. THOMAS. 
I have for many years held the opinion 
that patenting fruits would not be practicable. 
Varieties vary greatly through external influ¬ 
ences, climates, seasons, culture, soil, etc., and 
a specification could not be drawn that would 
be clear and distinct to a judge and jury. 
Even eminent pomologists require years, 
after growing varieties side by side, to be sure 
of identity and distinctness. Two distinct 
fruits might through external changes become 
so nearly identical in appearance as to be pro¬ 
nounced the same, and innocent originators or 
cultivators might.be subjected to ..heavy 
penalties. Take, for instance, the Amsden 
and the Alexander peaches—varieties which 
originated in regions remote from each 
other, yet they are so much alike that many 
cultivators pronounce them identical. We 
can easily imagine what kind of work such 
resemblances would make in courts of law, 
and in the hands of scheming'agents. Fruits 
would have none of the definite characters 
belonging to machines, etc. Machines, etc., are 
easily and distinctly described, and well de¬ 
fined specifications are readily drawn; and 
yet we see by the barb-wire, driven well, and 
other inventions, to what great inconvenience 
the community has been subjected. I think 
patented fruits through agents might give 
far more trouble than has resulted from 
lightning-rods. Knowing the character of 
some scheming men,H would be afraid to cul¬ 
tivate fruit if such a law as is proposed ex¬ 
isted. 
I think, however, much protection might be 
afforded originators, by some kind of a copy¬ 
right for the names, which no one else could 
use. Suppose, for instance, that there was 
such a protection in the name of the Niagara 
grape; then no one could raise it largely and 
advertise it under that name, and the sales of 
the claimant would be greatly reduced. 
Union Springs, N. Y. 
FROM E. S. GOFF. 
I do not see how it would be possible to 
have a patent on a series of specifications 
that would cover a variety of fruit as a patent 
covers a new invention. The variations due 
to climate, soil and culture would notjalways 
keep within the bounds of the specifications. 
The only way that occurs to me byiwhich 
the originators of new fruits can hope to 
secure a monopoly of their plants is through 
a system like that adopted by the Niagara 
White Grape Company, i e. by selling all 
plants with a patented trade-mark. I do not 
know that the law would protect a trade¬ 
mark applied to a new variety of fruit or 
vegetable as it protects one applied to a 
manufactured article. But it could cer¬ 
tainly be amended so that it would'do this. 
Then a law that prohibited the sale of a trade- 
marked variety without the authorized use 
of the trade-mark would offer some security 
to the proprietor. 
The ouly way that a monopoly of varieties 
of fruit could benefit the public would be 
through the stimulus that it would give to the 
production,of improved varieties. Such vari¬ 
eties would probably be disseminated less 
rapidly under the monopoly system than they 
are now, as the novelty price could be longer 
maintained. I think "the monopoly system 
would be popular only.with those who have 
new varieties to dispose of. 
On the whole,:a method of protection for 
the originators of new fruits and vegetables 
would tend to horticultural advancement, and 
so is desirable. But I should much prefer to 
gam the end by means of a system of prizes 
offered by the Government than by permitting 
originators to secure their reward by collect¬ 
ing royalties from their fellow-men. 
Geneva, N. Y. 
FROM H. M. ENGLE. 
The patenting of plants might be possible, 
but that it would be practicable is doubtful, 
since fruits of the same variety grown in dif¬ 
ferent localities and soils often vary so much 
that they cannot be identified by the most 
competent judges, and, on the other hand, 
fruits of different varieties often bear such 
close resemblance that they are not to be dis¬ 
tinguished by prominent pomologists. Again, 
suppose a new fruit or vegetable were brought 
out and patented, and another from the same 
parents should appear with no perceptible 
difference, must the latter be suppressed for 
the benefit of the former ? I do not see any 
benefit that could result to the public, since 
there are so many reliable parties who are 
willing to test new fruit, etc., and if necessary 
multiply them to such an extent for the bene¬ 
fit of the introducer, that any reasonable man 
should be satisfied, and the public would re¬ 
ceive the benefit as well as by any other 
method. 
In my opinion, such a plan might be popular 
with the few, but not with the masses. 
For the several reasons mentioned,the patent¬ 
ing of plants is not desirable, and, moreover, it 
would tend to cause endless litigation, which 
horticulturists especially should avoid. 
Marietta, Pa. 
FROM J. H. HALE. 
The patenting of plants is neither possible 
nor practicable. Neither would it benefit the 
public nor be popular except with some nur¬ 
sery firms who might have patented plants for 
sale. Of course ,the originator should have a 
reward, but the workings of our patent laws 
demonstrate that the public suffer under their 
operation. The originator is seldom benefited 
while some monopoly reaps all the benefits. 
So. Glastonbury, Conn. 
LESSONS FROM AN OLD PASTURE. 
Excellent experiment ground, for Nature's 
operations-, far feu-er species of vegeta¬ 
tion on the rich than on the poor land, 
blit the yield ten times heavier-, why this 
is so on wild land-, abundant fertility 
favors the strongest in the struggle for ex¬ 
istence; exemplification of poor and good 
farming; advantages of seeding several 
cognate species of grasses together ; some, 
pertinent ' questions. 
We are breaking up an old self-seeded pas¬ 
ture that has lain for probably 25 years at 
least. So far as known, it has never experi¬ 
enced any of the advantages of civilization 
except that of fencing. Nature has seeded it 
down and evidently attended to the whole 
matter in a style to suit her fickle fancy. It is 
needless to say that she has tried many sorts 
of plants, and instituted various experiments, 
most of which, like those of man, have been 
failures. So we have taken the matter in hand 
and propose trying a new set of experiments 
for our respected Uncle Samuel. Before, 
however, the old pasture is destroyed it has 
some facts worth studying. 
The soil ranges from a’light'sand to a stiff 
clay, from the moderately dry to the immod¬ 
erately wet. On the highest ground which is 
the poorest soil, I counted 24 species of plants, 
all worthless for pasture except four, and only 
one of them is present in any considerable 
quantity. The total herbage is very scanty 
and in some places lichens and mosses predom¬ 
inate. On the better portions of the field, near 
the foot of a slope, the soil is moderately 
good, and neither too wet nor too dry. Far¬ 
ther down it is quite wet, and is of no present 
interest. 
On the best land at least 13 of the species 
found on the poorer soil are entirely absent, 
and I notice but two that were not found on 
the higher, poorer ground. One species—June 
Grass—flourishes to the practical exclusion of 
all else, and the total herbage *is at least 10 
times that of the poorer soil. These facts ac¬ 
cord with some well-known principles of plant 
growth, whose importance is not always suffi¬ 
ciently appreciated. 
On first thought it mifeht'seem that of two 
soils, the more fertile would produce the more 
herbage, both as to number of species and to¬ 
tal weight of product. While it is true in gen¬ 
eral that good soils produce a greater weight 
of herbage than do poor ones, it is also true 
that they do not produce at one time so many 
different kinds. An actual count will, I think, 
satisfy the most skeptical. 
On careful thought, however, we would not 
expect it otherwise. Let us look at both con¬ 
ditions: On a poor soil no plant flourishes 
well; no plant reaches perfection. There is 
plenty of unoccupied ground, and sprouting 
room and a home, such as it is, are furnished to 
every seed that may chance to come that way. 
Anything and everything obtain some sort of 
foot-hold. The struggle for existence is pro¬ 
longed, but not fierce. Each plant contends- 
not against its neighbor, but, against natural 
conditions. The struggle is not for supremacy, 
but for plant-food enough for a bare’existence. 
Apply fertilizers to such a placejandj imme¬ 
diately the nature of the contest changes. 
The struggle for life becomes a fierce battle 
for supremacy. A few of the incumbents 
will appropriate the lion’s share"of the new 
plant-food, flourish like the green bay tree 
and completely crowd out many, if not most, 
of their competitors, which give up the con¬ 
test not so much from lack of food as from 
lack of room. “To him that hath shall more 
be given, and from him that hath not shall 
be taken even that he hath.” In this manner 
the number of species is diminished by com¬ 
petition, but the total yield is greatly in¬ 
creased. In place of many sorts contending 
weakly for a bare existence, there are a few 
vigorous, healthy, growing species that reach 
perfect maturity, and a product of some im¬ 
portance is the result. 
This is nature’s method. Pertinent here is 
the question—how do good and bad farming 
operate under this law ? Poor farming imi¬ 
tates the poor soil under.nature. Little fer¬ 
tilizer is used ; weeds are not eradicated; and 
the best and most vigorous seeds are not al¬ 
ways sown. The good, bad, and indifferent 
sprout and maintain a sickly living in an im¬ 
poverished soil. The result is a sorry crop, 
and “ farming^does not pay.” 
Good farming produces as fertile land as 
possible, and allows no seeds in the ground 
but those purposely sowed, which shall be the 
most vigorous of their kinds. Thus is com¬ 
petition reduced to that betweenjindividuals of 
the crop only, and the best of chances are 
secured for a good yield—“farming.pays.” 
It is not to be understood.that, thej.greatest 
yield in weight would^result Jrom a species 
growing alone, but rather .from a mix¬ 
ture of a very limited^number—two or^three— 
of such as are not too closely related, as the 
grasses and clovers. This, instead of increas- 
