THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
9 
OPPOSING VIEWS. 
It is important that while the subject of the tariff is under 
discussion the views of all who seek to influence the result 
should be studied. The press reports state that at the hearing 
before the ways and means committee Frederick W. Kelsey, 
chairman of a committee of the Florists Club of New York, 
presented a resolution asking for a duty of lo per cent, ad 
valorem on plants, bulbs, cut flowers and clippings. 
In another column we present Mr. Kelsey’s views on the 
tariff question. In several of his statements we cordially ac¬ 
quiesce. His first paragraph is just as we would state it. And 
there is great variation in value of trees and plants and seed¬ 
lings. It is because of this variation that an ad valorem duty 
would undoubtedly fail to be effective and would open up a 
whole field of possibilities of fraud and incorrect classification; 
for the customs officer would not be likely to detect in many 
cases stock billed as second or third quality, which was really 
first quality. In other words, there is a possibility of fraud 
under either a specific or an ad valorem duty. And it seems 
to us that the schedule prepared by the American Association 
committee, combining as it does both the specific and the ad 
valorem form of duty, is so adjusted as to conduce to the in¬ 
terests of the American nurseryman. 
It was prepared by gentlemen who are eminently qualified 
for the work, having long been among the largest growers of 
nursery stock in this country, and at the same time heavy im¬ 
porters. One member of the committee has been for years 
the heaviest importer of pear seedlings in this country. An¬ 
other member of the committee was long a grower in this coun¬ 
try of plum, cherry and quince seedlings, his stock amounting to 
5,000,000 annually at one time. But the entire seedling in¬ 
dustry in America, with the exception of the apple seedlings 
now grown in the West, has been wiped out by foreign com¬ 
petition under free trade. 
These facts ought to have great weight in a consideration of 
the subject. 
Renewal Notice. 
Subscriptions to The National Nurseryman for 1897 
begin with this issue. Renew at once and secure the com¬ 
plete volume for the year—to February 1898 ! Volume 
V will be of unusual interest. 
VIEWS OF AN IMPORTER. 
Editor National Nurseryman : 
“ Replying to your inquiry as to my views on the tariff, I am 
in favor of conservative, consistent action that will give per¬ 
manency and stability to the nursery and plant industry of 
the country, but am radically opposed to any haphazard 
method of extreme measures that can only result in continued 
controversy, alike injurious and unsatisfactoiy to all interests. 
“ I do not believe in a specific duty on anything, owing to 
the enormous variation in values of all trees and plants. A 
specific rate of $2.00 per 1000, as has been suggested for fruit 
stocks, seedlings, etc.,—the raw material in this business—is 
equivalent to about 200 per cent, on the average price, say 
$1.00 per rooo ; while trained fruit trees, that are worth from 
$1.00 to $2.00 each, would under the same clause be subject 
to a duty of one-fifth to one-tenth of one per cent.. Three cents 
each on roses is equivalent to 600 per cent on Manetti, Multi¬ 
flora and Dog rose stocks, at $5.00 per icoo ; while roses 
worth $25 per 100 would pay 12 per cent, under the same 
classification. 
“ This enormous variation in value of trees and plants, 
according to size, age and other conditions, applies to all 
nursery and plant materials ; and such a variation in rates of 
duty would be so unjust and inequitable, as to make a travesty 
of the whole question of tariff revision. 
“ Under any specific duty that can be named, this inequita¬ 
ble per centage of tariff would exist ; and under any specifi¬ 
cation as to age of plants would open up a whole field of 
possibilities of fraud and incorrect classification. The lack 
of correct and uniform classification has caused more trouble 
and injustice at the various custom houses of the country the 
past seven years than probably any one feature of the last two 
tariff acts. 
“For these reasons, a tariff law based upon a simple uni¬ 
form ad valorem rate, applying to all classes of nursery and 
plant material, is in my judgment the only possible solution 
of the question either for securing equity, permanency or 
proper classification. 
“ As to the rate of duty, I do not believe the mass of pro¬ 
ducers and consumers of the country will tolerate a return to 
the high rates imposed as a war measure at the time of the 
Rebellion, or even the rate that was considered by many 
excessive under the tariff act of 1890. The McKinley tariff 
law has once been before the country, and a return to the 
extreme measures of this act will, I believe, produce a similar 
reaction of the future. 
“ The depressed condition of the nursery and plant indus¬ 
try, as with other coftimercial and industrial interests, is not, 
in my judgment, owing in any material measure to the present 
tariff law, but to the unsuitable financial and monetary con¬ 
ditions that have prevailed since the panic of 1893. And the 
tariff remedy proposed is, I believe, one that will tend to 
aggravate rather than ameliorate the conditions. 
“ The freight alone on most nursery material is of itself 
equivalent to a high duty, and when it comes to a rate of 100 
per cent, to 200 per cent or 500 per cent, from ten to twenty 
times higher than was ever favored even in times of war or the 
high rates of the McKinley bill, I do not believe any such 
measure can be sustained. 
“ Personally I have no objection to these rates, but as a 
question of public policy I believe their enactment would be a 
vital mistake and the question arises : Who would be benefited ? 
Will the small producers that make up the mass of people 
engage in the industry all over this country, who do not 
attempt to produce this material, favor such rates ; such an 
enormous tax ? Would it benefit the mass of people, the 
consumers, all over the country? Or can it be justly claimed 
that such a measure would restrict production, drive out of 
business the smaller producers and benefit the comparatively 
few at the expense alike of the many small producers and the 
people generally ? ’’ 
Fredk. W. Kelsey. 
New' York City, Jan. 18. 
Subscriptions for 1897 begin with this issue. Send $i 
and secure the entire volume. 
