1913. 
THE RURAb NEW-YORKER 
309 
A WAIL FROM A COMMISSION MAN. 
A Nice Privilege in Danger. 
Mr. Travis said that a great deal of the 
printed reasons for the bill came from Pub¬ 
lisher Dillon of The Rural New- Yorker, a 
man who had not taken the pains to go into 
the real facts at the receiving end and who 
had no actual experience, but wrote large¬ 
ly from theory. 'rj4Ai>B paper. 
We do. not know what Mr. Travis may 
regard as “facts at the receiving end,” 
but we do know and have records to 
prove that The R. N.-Y. is constantly 
collecting bills from commission men 
for distant shippers after the shippers 
themselves had exhausted efforts to get 
them. We also know that much pro¬ 
duce comes to the New York market 
for which we or our attorneys are un¬ 
able to collect a cent. Perhaps this is 
not the line of facts to which Mr. 
Travis refers. 
It can be safely said that Mr. Travis 
has gone into the facts at the receiver’s 
end, and that he does not talk from 
theory, but for the benefit of his own 
pocket. Mr. Travi-s has a profitable busi¬ 
ness in sorting, grading and repacking 
farm produce. He goes into the whole¬ 
sale produce market and buys up un¬ 
graded produce as it comes in, at bar¬ 
gain prices, and sell's the graded goods 
at high prices after repacking. Natur¬ 
ally the present conditions are good! 
enough for him. He does not want lot 
disturb them. Present arrangements 
could not be improved on—for him. He 
is a typical middleman. He can now 
buy at the lowest price, and by a little 
sorting, sell to fancy trade at highest 
prices. The more liberty and license the 
commission man has, the cheaper Mr. 
Travis can buy. The less the farmer 
gets the less Mr. Travis pays. Any 
regulation of the commission man means 
some show for the producer, and higher 
prices for Mr. Travis. If a commission 
man'favorable to Mr. Travis or anxious 
for his trade, chooses to make him a 
price under the market, as things now 
go, no one is the wiser. The reduction 
comes out of the producer. If the 
farmer complains that the price was too 
low, he gets back the advice that the 
goods were poor or damaged, or that 
the market was glutted, and there it 
ends. How could Mr. Travis be ex¬ 
pected to approve an outrageous law 
that would require a State inspector to 
pass on the quality of the goods, and 
that would compel the commission house 
to keep a record to show that Mr. Travis 
was the buyer and at what price? Mr. 
Travis has by this time a vested interest 
in the purchase of farm produce, cheap, 
if custom and long use has any stand¬ 
ing with legislators. He would be 
lacking in gratitude to his commission 
friends if he did not grow indignant 
and plead for a continuance of their li¬ 
cense to sell farm produce at their own 
figures, and his privilege to buy it at 
bargain prices. The consumers at the 
other end who are compelled to pay 
higher and higher prices are getting just 
about as unreasonable as the farmers. 
They refused to return Mr. Travis to 
the Legislature this year, and now pro¬ 
pose to keep a record of the way his 
official survivors vote on this bill. What 
is the world coming to if county pro¬ 
ducers and city consumers combine in 
a conspiracy to keep middlemen out of 
fancy profits? 
Don’t mistake Mr. Travis. He is 
usually one of the jolliest and most win¬ 
some of men. If the good women of 
the Housewives’ League could only 
know him personally and once come 
under the spell of his winsome personal 
charms he would probably be able to 
persuade them that 65 per cent is not too 
much to pay for the mere handling of 
food stuffs. 
SELLING PRODUCE BY WEIGHT. 
F. A. ■!., Oneida, N. Y .—A grocer in- 
formed me that after June 4. we would 
hare to selL our vegetables by weight under 
State law. I wonder if there is a scale 
manufacturer's trust, or one forming'? Is 
it not an effort of the grocers' union 
to prevent the farmer from retaifing his 
produce? He ean carry his measures very 
handily, hut how about scales? He sells 
fiis grain mostly by weight now, but there 
is little shrinkage in storage. This 
grocer weighed one of ray bushels of pota¬ 
toes consisting of two heaping half bushels 
and made it weigh 57 pounds net. What 
will it weigh next April or May? What is 
lost in the shrinkage? Little more than 
water. The solid matter is all there. It 
will take a few more potatoes to flli the 
measure. Who gains by the shrinkage? 
terhaps the consumer should the farmer 
get hLs crop into tile hands of the middle¬ 
man as soon as dug. he to put them in 
cold storage to keep them from shrinking? 
Will the law hrlp the farmer? Personally 
I retail my crop in small quantities di¬ 
rectly to the consumer at one-half of the 
difference between the grocer's buying and 
selling price, largely to regular customers, 
beginning at digging time and continuing 
until Spring—last year the middle of May. 
I am disposing of my third crop iu this 
way. I also sell a small quantity of apples 
and Winter turnips in the same way. 
Ans. —If you are informed by a 
grocery man that after June I, 1913, it 
will be necessary to sell potatoes ’ by 
weight, he is not correct. Chapter 81 
of the laws of 1912 provides that: “All 
meat, meat products and butter, shall 
he sold or offered for sale by weight. 
All other commodities not in containers 
shall be sold or offered for sale by 
standard weight, standard measure or 
numerical count, and such weight, meas¬ 
ure or count shall be marked on a label 
or a tag attached thereto; provided, 
however, that vegetables may be sold 
by the head or bunch.” Of course, in 
a way one would be selling by weight, 
as the law specifies that “Whenever "any 
commodity specified in this section is 
sold by the bushel, and no special agree¬ 
ment is made by the parties as to the 
mode of measuring the bushel shalL 
consist of . . . sixty pounds of po¬ 
tatoes.” However, I understand from 
Mr. Reichmann, State Superintendent of 
Weights and Measures, that it is not the 
intention to construe this unreasonably 
and hold a man liable for a slight vari¬ 
ation in weight, say of a pound or two 
due to shrinkage of potatoes, provided 
they are sold in a measure of standard 
capacity. It should be noted that it re¬ 
quires a heaped standard bushel of pota¬ 
toes to weigh 60 pounds. 
The law further provides that fruits,, 
vegetables and produce may be sold in 
other size containers if the net capacity 
in terms of standard dry measure is 
plainly and conspicuously marked, 
branded or otherwise indicated in the 
English language on the outside or top 
thereof. The simplest and safest plan 
would seem to be to purchase measures 
guaranteed to be standard as to capa¬ 
city. The intent of the law is good; 
to give the consumer a square deal. This 
of course includes the farmer in his 
buying operations, and the short-weight 
and short-measure gentry are folding 
their tents hke the Arab and silently 
stealing—much less. In the case of 
grocers, the sale slip will answer for 
the tag or label referred to. It will not 
be required in ordinary dealings, as 
between farmers, unless called for by 
the buyer, although the failure to tender 
it would be a technical violation. 
Here are the standard weights of 
produce as regulated in New York: 
Lime . 
70 pounds 
per bushel 
Coarse suit . 
70 
“ ** 
Wheat . 
60 
“ ** 
Peas . 
GO “ 
*te M 
Potatoes . 
60 
U tl 
Clover seed . 
60 
H G 
Ileans . 
60 
it 11 
Onions . 
it it 
Indian corn . 
56 
1 i It 
Bye . 
56 
it II 
Flaxseel . 
55 
It it 
Sweet potatoes . .. 
54 
it n 
Corn meal . 
50 
tt it 
Rye meal . 
50 
it it 
Carrots . 
50 
It tt 
Barley . 
48 
It. ti 
Apples . 
If II 
Buckwheat . 
48 
if it 
Herdsgrass .- 
45 “ 
It ft 
Tiinothv seed . 
45 “ - 
It tt 
Rough rice . 
45 
»i It 
Sea Is. cotton seed 
44 
11 II 
Dried poaches . 
33 
it tt 
** 
tt tt 
Upland cotton, seed. 
30 “ 
It it 
Dried apples . 
25 
Bran . 
20 “ 
• t 14 
Shorts . 
20 « 
it ti 
(Section ft. Chapter 376, I/iws 1 S96. i 
*'*■ * * AM commodities sold by heap 
measure shall be duly heaped up in the 
form of a cone,* * * as high as the com¬ 
modities will admit. 
(Section 6, Chapter 376, Laws 1896.) 
“* * * When pot a toes an? sold by 
weight, the quantity constituting a barrel 
shaft' bo 174 pounds. * * *” 
(Section- 9, Chapter 376, Laws ISiXk) 
FRUIT OR VEGETABLE TRADE MARKS. 
is it possible for the originator of a new 
variety of vegetables or fruit to patent or 
trade-mark or copyright it in any way so 
that no oue hut himself can sell the seed 
of it? For instance, a man has a new 
melon. Ft is fairly good, but nothing extra, 
lie writes me that he has had the melon 
copyrighted and that no one has the l'ig'ht 
to sell seed of this variety of watermelon 
without permission from him. which means, 
of course, that yon must buy your entire 
supply of seed from him. He states that 
he has- sold, the exclusive right for the sale 
of this seed for the next live years to a 
certain seed house and that no one else can 
sell seed of this variety of melon. Now. 
of r worse, anyone by buying a supply of 
the? seed from this seed house can grow a 
crop of tile melons and save the seed from 
them, aivd it seems to me there is nothing 
in the world to prevent the sale of this 
seed under its proper mime. What is the 
straight of all this? If I am any judge 
of the patent Isiws- or the copyright laws, 
it is impossible for an originator to restrict 
the sale of the seed after it once gets into 
general circulation. seeds max. 
An originator of a new fruit or vege¬ 
table cannot patent aor copyright it but 
he may give it a name and register the 
name in the patent office under the trade 
mark law. A patent is a government grant 
to an inventor securing to him for a 
limited time the exclusive privilege of mak¬ 
ing, using and selling, and authorizing 
others to make, use and sell any new and 
useful machine, manufacture, process, or 
composition of matter, or any new or use¬ 
ful improvement of the same. The monop¬ 
oly is granted for 17 years in the United 
States without renewable term except by 
Congress. 
V copyright is a government grant of 
tbe exclusive right to authors and artists 
to publish and dispose of their productions 
(Hooks, writings, photographs, or other 
works of art) for a limited period of time. 
In the United States this monopoly is for 
28 years, with a right to renew for 14 
years more. 
A trade mark is any symbol, mark, name, 
or other characteristic o-r arbitrary indica¬ 
tion, securing the user by legal registra¬ 
tion to the exclusive right to distinguish 
his goods in the nurleot by his trade mark. 
Under the common law there is no limit to 
time, but by United States statute law the 
trade mark is good for 30 years and may 
be renewed for 30 years more. 
Trade mark law. There has been con¬ 
siderable controversy over what rights are 
given under trade mark laws. There have 
been hundreds of cases in our courts but 
none of them have ever been taken to our 
Supreme Court for final judgment. The 
case bearing most directly on the facts 
presented by Seedsman is that of Hoyt vs. 
Lovett by the Federal Circuit Court of the 
District of New Jersey in 1895. and known 
as the “Green Mountain drape" case, and 
found in VoL 71 of Federal Reporter. The 
discoverer of a grape in the Green Moun¬ 
tains sold cuttings from his discovery to 
one of tl»e two nursery firms of Iloyt Bros, 
and Lovett & Sons. One iirm bought the 
exclusive right to propagate the variety 
from tile discoverer and the other firm 
bought cuttings from another party who 
had been given cuttings by the orglnator. 
In this case tbe Court held that the name 
"Green Mountain" could not be trade 
marked- Geographical na rites cannot be 
used exclusively by anyone. There are 
many other classes of names that cannot 
be appropriated and around these and other 
points have center the suits at law. 
In handing down its decision the Court 
used these words: "Protection of a trade 
mark cannot be obtained for an organic 
article which by tin? laws of its nature is 
repro ductive and derives its chief value 
from its innate vital powers, Independently 
of the care, management, or ingenuity of 
man. Tested by the general “principles 
regulating the sales of personal property, 
there is no doubt that a sale of seeds, 
plants, or vines, when detached from the 
soil in which thdy grew, carries with it. 
on delivery, the right of property in the 
buyer, not only in the article so bought, 
but also in the natural increase or products 
of the same when sown o-r replanted. 
Neither the common law nor the statutes 
relating to trade marks extends the pro¬ 
tection of trade names to things which 
are valued more for their natural powers 
of reproduction and increase than for any 
other qualities. In the absence of a spe¬ 
cial contract what is to prevent the buyer 
from cultivating the vine ami selling ‘its 
products under the name of the parent 
stock? A trade mark confers no exclu¬ 
sive rights in the goods to which the mark 
has been applied. Such a right can be ac¬ 
quired only under the patent or copyright 
laws. Neither does a trade mark confer a 
rig-ht to dictate the terms on which the trade 
mark goods may be sold to purchasers." 
It is very evident that the original trade 
mark laws were not intended to apply to 
animal and vegetable life. Their applica¬ 
tion in this field is limited, as shown by 
tbe trend of our court decisions. Even 
when there is a contract it is doubtful if it 
could be held valid beyond certain limits. 
Take for example the sale of a new variety 
of apple from a nurseryman to an orchard- 
ist. the latter signing a contract not to 
propagate and sell trees of the variety. The 
tret- is planted and becomes part of the 
real estate. Later the real estate changes 
owners. The new owner could not be held 
to any contract given by the farmer owner. 
This situation has never been presented to 
our courts of last resort and probably will 
not be carried that far. Til. -lv is much talk 
of prosecution for use of trade mark names 
and denial of the right to propagate new 
varieties of fruits and vegetables, but no 
one yet has had the matter carried up for 
a final decision. The law of trade marks 
is useful and aims to advance commercial 
prosperity. An originator of a new variety 
in the vegetable or animal kingdom is en- 
titTed to fair treatment and this the law 
allows, but it does not provide for a mo¬ 
nopoly for any term of years. f. x. c. 
COME TO BERLIN 
SEE FOR YOURSELF 
Know What You Plant 
"VX7'E want you to visit Harrison’s Nurseries. 
* Y The trip will be an interesting! one and if 
you need trees you ean better satisfy yourself by select¬ 
ing them in the Nursery. Twenty-five hundred acres 
planted to nursery stock. Write us when you can 
come and how long you can stay. Distance from 
Baltimore, 124 miles via B. C. & A. From Philadel¬ 
phia, 143 miles via P. B. & W. 
Your Hotel Bill while visiting here will be paid by us 
HARRISON’S NURSERIES 
TRAPPE AVENUE,.BERLIN, Md. 
w LITTLE 
5L. . 
CA Eight Spray Rigs With Lots of Power 
Jy/mf We have developed a complete line o i light spray rigs with lots 
°f power. All LITTLE GIANTS ” built to stand up under 
fJr hard work, and so constructed that they put the spray where you 
Jr want it, and combine maximum power and strength with minimum 
draft weight, so that they won’t kill horses in rough, heavy ground. 
Before you buy send for a catalogue on 
teie Line oi Little uiant sprayers 
>rayers Vineyard Sprayers Potato Sprayer, etc. 
, No. 31, Power Barrel Sprayer, $75.00 Complete 
The best one-man outfit ever offered 
it, Jr., No. 22, Orchard Power Sprayer, $135.00 
led, 1,500 lbs., 100 gallon tank 
Find Out About Our 
Little Giant No. 26 
Potato Sprayer 
Designed esixjciaUy for applying 
Bordeaux, Paris Green and other ’X 
solutions to potatoes, celery. \ 
beans, tobacco, cabbage and all ^ 
field crops. 50 gallon oak barrel fBrAJ -jsSf fx 
tank. tia. 75 ami 100 gallon cypress 
tank. Write for new catalog WcTWCStMI 
today /A IJMJj 
W. C. AKINS MACHINE CO. 
964 Insurance Building 
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 
LITTLE ClANT SPRAVER 
