702 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
October .'5, 
A. O., page 713, says suppose the dealers are paying 
$1.50, hand-picked basis, and deducting five cents for 
every pound of bad beans; in the case of a lot that 
would pick 31 pounds we would have to pay the 
dealer for taking 02 pounds of beans from us. If the 
dealer was obliged to separate a bushel, half bad and 
half good, lie could not afford to pay anything for 
them. C. A. O. ought to know that a bushel of beans 
Hnt will shrink 31 pounds is nothing but sheep beans, 
and worth about 40 cents per bushel. 
To illustrate, let us assume that a bushel of hand¬ 
picked beans is worth $1.50, and a bushel of bad or 
cull beans has no value. The two bushels are worth 
$1.50 while separated. Now mix tJie two bushels to¬ 
gether and the mixture is valueless, assuming that cull 
beans are valueless. And why? Because there is only 
one bushel of good beans when separated, and it 
would cost three cent* a pound to separate, or $1.80, 
which is 30 cents more than the good beans are worth. 
If 00 pounds of hand-picked beans are worth $1.50, it 
is exactly 2 y 2 cents per pound. If there are fotir 
pounds of bad beans hi a bushel there would be 50 
pounds of good beans at 2Vi cents, worth $1.40, and 
it would cost the dealer 12 cents to pick them out, 
which would make the beans worth $1.28 and the 
dealer would get back a fraction more than two cents 
for the bad beans, so that $1.30 for a four-pound 
shrink is all right. In regard to the number of 
pounds, beans are bought and sold in the country at 
an agreed price for 62 pounds. In shipping the dealer 
has to put the beans in new bags, costing 20 cents 
apiece, and all dealers have to make allowance for 
package, freight, commissions or brokerage and about 
five cents per bushel warehouse expense, together 
with a reasonable profit. The new crop of beans in 
this county, now moving freely, is worth from $1.90 
to $2 per bushel, and only shrinks one pound of bad 
beans. This is because of ideal weather at harvest¬ 
ing. Last year the average shrink was eight pounds, 
owing to wet weather during harvest that discolored 
many of the beans. I refer to small white *beans 
Genesee County, N. Y. j. m. b. 
INFLUENCE OF GRAFTING STOCK. 
T have had a peculiar experience in growing apple 
trees. In my orchard stands a block of thrifty trees 
which make a satisfactory growth year after year; 
contiguous thereto is another block, the trees of which 
are not one-fourth so large as those in the first- 
mentioned block. Both blocks were planted at the 
same time (six years ago) in exactly the same soil 
and have been given the same care. Both blocks 
were bought for Baldwins, but from two different 
nurseries in western New York. What is the cause 
of the difference in growth? Assuming that both 
blocks will prove to be Baldwins, must it not be 
that the difference in vigor is due to the stock on 
which the trees were budded? How else can you 
account for the difference? I have read that the 
method in China and Japan of producing dwarf 
trees—of converting large species into miniature 
copies—is to set the grafts on to stock of slow, 
slight root growth. If such be the method, will it 
not explain the difference in vigor of my two blocks 
of trees, and in buying trees will it not be as neces¬ 
sary, if one wants to be sure that he is getting 
trees that will grow as they ought, to know on what 
stock the trees were budded, as to know that the 
trees are of the variety that he specifies? Judging 
from my experience, it would seem that the stock has 
more influence on the bud (or scion) than the bud 
(or scion) has on the stock; therefore the selection, 
by nurserymen, of the stock on which to bud (or 
graft) is a matter of more importance to orchardists 
than is usually considered. In the nurserymen’s 
catalogues the terms “vigorous,” “free” and “moder¬ 
ate” are used to describe the habits of growth of 
fruit trees. It seems to me that the habit of growth 
of a variety of tree can be very much modified by 
the stock upon which it is budded (or grafted)—so 
much so that those terms of description may be ren¬ 
dered meaningless by the selection of stock which 
counteracts the natural growth-tendency of the bud 
(or graft). As my knowledge on this subject is 
more or less superficial, I hope you can induce some 
of your, scientific horticulturists to give the readers 
of 'fur. *R. N.-Y f the benefit of expert opinion. 
Massachusetts! * l. p. r. 
HOMEMADE BATHROOMS. 
The cuts on this page show how three of our read¬ 
ers have arranged inexpensive bathrooms in country 
houses. In Fig. 357 six vinegar barrels connected 
with pipes give a storage capacity of 300 gallons. 
They arc filled by a force pump. The other materials 
used were: Bathtub, four faucets, one set bowl and 
connections, 50 feet inch iron pipe, 25 feet half-inch 
pipe, six one-inch unions, 10 couplings, six nipples, six 
lees, four elbows, 40-gallon hot water tank, and red 
lead and oil for joints. The cost, exclusive of lumber 
for partitions, was about $33, the work being done by 
the owner at odd times. 
In the second illustration. Fig. 358, A is the eaves 
trough, leading to tank; B is a galvanized iron tank 
4x6x3 feet; C, overflow from tank; D, bathtub; E, 
overflow from tub; F, outlet of tub; G, kitchen 
range; H, hot water tank; I, hot water pipe, extend¬ 
ing to top of bathtub, on the end of which is a faucet, 
extending beneath kitchen ceiling and into bottom of 
tank, giving circulation in cold weather; J is cold 
water pipe, with faucet at L over tub; K, hot water 
box in range; M, hot water faucet; O, platform under 
tank, raising tank so bottom is above top of bathtub. 
The cost, exclusive of range, was $20. 
Fig. 359 gives another plan inexpensive, but not so 
convenient as the two previously shown. This bath¬ 
room is in the end of a long narrow kitchen. A pump 
directly over the tub supplies cold water from a cis¬ 
tern. Hot water is brought in pails from the stove. 
The tub, pump and fixtures cost $14. 
THE CULTURE OF ORRIS ROOT. 
Echoes of the ginseng excitement of a few years 
ago are constantly coming up. People still believe 
they can get rich raising some sort of drug crop. We 
know of a number of cases where usually sensible 
people have lost their wits entirely over ginseng, 
golden seal or some other alluring crop. Some of 
these people have actually invested their savings—and 
lost them—in the belief that they can make a good 
living growing drug crops in a backyard. Just now 
the questions are about orris root. 
On page 537 I Bee a short article on orris root. I en¬ 
close some circulars from a person in Virginia, In which 
you will see he offers 40 cents a pound for the root. Of 
course I do not know anything as to ills reliability, but 
if his claims are anywhere near correct it must be worth 
a trial. If you know anything concerning it would like 
to hear It. j. w. 
New Jersey. 
The circular was sent by Dr. Charles A. Gitchcll, 
of Virginia, who certainly makes some remarkable 
statements. Here are a few of them: 
I now offer you for potting four of these plants by mail, 
prepaid, for $1.15. It is a most interesting, suitable, and 
hardy flowering plant for Indoor Winter growing. Even if 
the temperature of the room falls many degrees below 
freezing, it will not injure the tieautiful green leaves. 
. . . I will send you one pound, by express, charges 
prepaid, for (it! cents. I offer to do tills not for the profit 
there is in it, but for the purpose of introducing this 
charming powder to the public, and io demonstrate to you 
the permanency of the perfume, which is the natural bou¬ 
quet of the root when dried. ... I recently sent to 
all growers of orris a notice offering 40 cents a pound for 
all the prime American root lh<\v can send me during the 
season of 1907. . . . An acre of orris plants should 
produce al the above price, with value of flowers added, 
$1,000 a year, making il the most profitable root crop ever 
Introduced. I hope you will not let (he opportunity pass, 
ns this proposition will not be renewed, because I cannot 
afford to do so. 
We applied to dealers in drugs and herbs in New 
York. They report a limited demand, wiili prices 
about six cents a pound. Dr. Galloway of the De¬ 
partment of Agriculture at Washington gets down 
to the root of the matter, and rather takes the per¬ 
fume out of the proposition as follows: 
Beware of Orris Root Claims. 
Referring to the very large number of inquiries received 
by the TJ. S. Department of Agriculture in regard to the 
subject of orris root cultivation in the United •States. Prof. 
Rodney II. True, .Jj'hyslolqgtst iu Cluiqge^ pf j)rqg 
Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry, makes the fol¬ 
lowing statement • As ii is well known, (lie orris root of 
commerce Is grown almost exclusively in Italy, (lie chief 
centers of production tielag at Florence and Verona. The 
plants yielding this article are the common species of 
Iris, especially I. Florentina, I. Germanica, and I. pallida, 
cultivated widely as the common fleur-de-lis of many gar¬ 
dens. In many letters, advertisements are cited In which 
the cultivation of orris root is boomed as a quick road 
to wealth, and tiie conditions of tin; market are described 
In glowing but entirely misleading terms. One adver¬ 
tisement states that orris root is worth 40 cents per pound, 
is protected by a duty of 25 per cent, ami meets with 
an annual demand equaling $2,000,000. On tliis basis 
an offer of roots for cultivation is made at an excessive 
price. As a matter of fact, the average price of dried 
orris root of commercial grade varied between 3.8 and 9.fi 
cents per pound during the period from 1897 to 1904, in¬ 
clusive. There is no duty on orris root. The total Im¬ 
portation averages about $20,000 annually. During the 
Inst two years the orris business In Italy has been in a 
somewhat dubious state, due to the low price realized 
and the lack of profit, to the grower. Owing to such 
deceiving statements as nlmve cited, there is a great like¬ 
lihood that many people will tie misled to their finnsiclal 
loss. Some advertisers claim to have the indorsement of 
the Department of Agriculture, whereas the Department 
has in uo way suggested the culture of orris except ou a 
small scale in a purely experimental way. It Is the opin¬ 
ion that the outlook for building lip the orris root indus¬ 
try in the United Stales is at present not good. 
The Department knows about Dr. Gitchcll. It has 
compelled him to modify his circular once, and has 
notified the Post Office Department about bis ex¬ 
travagant claims. Our advice is to put orris root, 
ginseng, etc., by themselves—and then let them alone. 
REPLANTING ASPARAGUS.—For the benefit of 
C. E. T., page 746, 1 would advise as follows: As¬ 
paragus plants always work up. New buds are 
formed and seem to come nearer the surface. Then 
again the soil is carried away by the wind. To avoid 
this loss of soil I would let the tops stay on all Win¬ 
ter and wheel-harrow in the Spring; also sow oat*, 
or as some advise, Crimson clover in the early Fall. 
Coarse manure can be spread on the side hill in the 
Fall and will help keep the soil in place. If the bed 
was mine I should not replant the missed places, but 
would set another bed with good one-year-old roots. 
The missed places while of course an eye-sore, can 
be set to cabbage or planted to beans or turnips. As¬ 
paragus plants set in missed places very seldom do 
well, as they are generally covered too deeply and are 
smothered. Never set roots older than one year. 
Chickens do well on asparagus beds and keep the 
weeds and beetles in check. I should not disturb the 
outside row. c. w. prescott. 
Massachusetts. 
NEW LIABILITY LAW IN ENGLAND. 
Tim New York Sun reports a singular east* In an English 
court, growing out of the employer’s liability bill. A 
woman was hired by a housekeeper to come to the house 
every week and do general housework or chorea. While 
engaged in (Ills way, and (scrubbing a stairway, tills 
woman pricked her thumb with a pin, which was lying on 
a step. The result was blood poison, with the lh’inl loss 
of the wounded hand. The recent English law makes the 
employer liable for injuries to the hired help, while under 
a regular contract. This woman therefore brought suit 
for damages. The defence was that this service once a 
week at odd jobs did not constitute a regular employ¬ 
ment. The Court of Appeals over-ruled tills defence and 
decided that the woman under her contract was a regular 
servant. In this country the damages in such a case. 
If any, would mean a lump sum of money. Under the new 
English law, however, the court may award a pension. 
Instead of a lump sum. In this particular ease, the court 
ordered that the defendants must pay the plaintiff seven 
shillings, or $1.75 a week as long as she lives. The 
Illustrated London News comments on this case, as fol¬ 
lows: 
“The thousands of casual male laborers who formerly 
got a living as window cleaners. Jobbing gardeners and 
the like have been painfully affected by the act; em¬ 
ployers now seek the services of men engaged by re¬ 
sponsible companies or firms who can give a guarantee 
against claims for accident, and this means that only 
young, strong men can get work at all. Now the char¬ 
woman will have to he engaged under similar conditions, 
nnd great misery will result to poor old women, for the 
Gotirt of Appeals has decided that if any person Is en¬ 
gaged to work at a house one day in each week she is 
not a 'casual,’ but a ‘regular’ worker; and the conse¬ 
quence Is that the person employing her must give her 
an annuity for life if any accident happens. In the 
case just decided the charwoman pricked her thumb with 
a pin while scrubbing some stops, with the result that 
blood poisoning set In and she has lost the use of her 
hand. The married couple in whose house tills happened 
are ordered to pay Ibis casual worker seven shillings a 
week us long as slie lives! It is therefore quite necessary 
for even the hard-pressed tradesman’s wife or the poorest 
housekeeper, if site employs any help in the rough work 
of the household, to take out a policy of insurance for the 
charwoman." 
If we had such a law In tills country a large proportion 
of the housekeepers In our towns and cities and a large 
number of farmers would he liable to he ordered to pay 
weekly damages for life to men or women wlm hurt them¬ 
selves'in any why while at work, unless It could he proved 
that it was entirely their own fault. 
