74 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
ries to keep a certain amount of the more common 
native sorts. The general public, however, still plant 
far too largely of European sorts and too few of Ameri¬ 
can varieties, and -I believe the nurserymen are mainly 
responsible for this condition of things. We see Eng¬ 
lish and Scotch elms, where that most perfect of street 
trees, the American elm should be planted ; Norway 
maple in place of Sugar maple, European mountain 
ash in place of American ; thousands of horse chestnuts 
and Spanish chestnuts, both comparatively worthless in 
fruit and wood, while our American sweet chestnut is 
neglected ; English walnuts which succeed only in Cali¬ 
fornia and warmer parts of our country are found all 
over the North and East in almost every cross-road nur¬ 
sery, while not one concern in twenty grows our shell- 
bark hickory, and the list might be indefinitely ex¬ 
tended. With shrubs it is not quite so bad, but such 
native plants as the White Fringe—to my mind the very 
finest of flowering plants—is scarce, more scarce in our 
home nurseries than it is in Europe where it is appar¬ 
ently better appreciated. In evergreens until recently 
scarcely anything was planted but European sorts. 
Scotch and Austrian pine, Norway spruce, Irish Juniper 
and the like, and Norway spruce especially, seems to 
have the call, a tree that, so far as my experience 
goes, dies at the top and is worthless after twenty or 
twenty-five years. These trees have been planted to 
the exclusion of our native American sorts, such as the 
beautiful and stately White pine and graceful hemlock, 
the sequoias and Blue spruce. The sequoia or Califor¬ 
nia big tree is common in almost every French or 
English nursery, while our average American nursery¬ 
man has never even seen a specimen. 
“ Years ago when the nursery business was in its in¬ 
fancy in this country, the men conducting the business 
were European by birth and education. Naturally they 
applied to their friends and acquaintances in Europe and 
to the nurseries long established there for their stock, 
and so was started in this country the cultivation and 
propagation of European sorts rather than American. 
There was also undoubtedly a much stronger demand 
at that time than there now is for foreign sorts. I may 
be mistaken, but I think that the public is now more 
ready to buy native sorts than nurserymen are to fur¬ 
nish them. The ease with which European sorts can be 
obtained and the small cost of importing induces the 
average nurseryman to plant year after year foreign sorts 
that should he superceded by American. 
“ Speaking from an extended experience in the im¬ 
porting business, I believe that the ratio of foreign 
sorts to American in stocks planted is more than lOO to 
one. This condition is certain to be remedied in time 
and I believe that the best opening offered in the nur¬ 
sery business to-day is the establishment of a seedling 
nursery, conducted on the lines of some of the larger 
French nurseries, for the purpose of supplying a full 
line of native American sorts in trees, shrubs and 
evergreens. ’ ’ 
THE TARIFF DISCUSSION. 
George A. Sweet, of Dansville, N. Y., read a paper 
entitled “ Our Foreign Relations,” which caused a lively 
discussion. He had just returned from Washington, and 
spoke as the result of some experience with the senate com¬ 
mittee. He advocated absolute free trade in nursery stock 
between the United States and all foreign countries. The 
present rate is twenty per cent, ad valorem, and under the 
proposed senate bill it is ten per cent. 
Mr. Sweet said he did not care to touch on the subject 
of the domestic trade, as it was affected by the foreign trade, 
and that simply meant the effect of the tariff on the nursery 
interest. Four years ago he would not have cared to have 
raised this question in such a convention, but it seemed that 
now they had reached a point where protectionists and free 
traders could meet on common ground, and had reached 
common conclusion, viz ; that it would be better if nursery 
stock was placed on the free list. To-day it was possible to 
make comparisons. From 1862 to 1882 they were sub¬ 
jected to a twenty per cent, duty; from 1882 to 1890 nur¬ 
sery stock was placed on the free list; from 1890 to 1894 
it was again subjected to a twenty per cent, duty, and now, 
in 1894, it is proposed to reduce that duty to ten per cent. 
A comparison of those epochs would show that from the 
time of the panic of 1873 to the revision of the tariff in 1882, 
when they were put on the free list, nursery products 
declined to a point where they were absolutely unremuner- 
ative and many large concerns had to go to the wall. After 
1882, while on the free list, for a period of eight years, 
nursery products were in good demand at high prices, and 
more money was made during that period than in any other 
eight years the .speaker had been in the business. From 
1890, when the McKinley bill passed, nursery products had 
steadily declined, until to-day many articles were being 
offered at rates below the actual cost of production, so that 
the people who favored the restoration of the duty have 
lived to see their prophesies falsified, because the result has 
not been to decrease the plantage and increase the price, 
but has had exactly the opposite effect. So far as the pro¬ 
tectionists were concerned their theory does not, rightly 
considered, enter into this question at all. Owing to cli¬ 
matic conditions and the multiplicity of leaf diseases, rust 
and mildews, it had become practically impossible suc¬ 
cessfully to grow seedlings in this country, the result being 
that they were compelled to pay a tariff tax upon articles 
which it is absolutely essential they must import in order to 
make their plantings. It was no more possible ^success- 
fully to grow seedlings in a general way over the United 
States than it was to grow tea or coffee ; therefore, so far 
Continued on t'Atac 77. 
