18 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
the facts, also your readers. We prize too highly our standing 
in the nursery world, prize too highly the fraternal ties existing 
between us and brother nurserymen, to allow misrepresenta¬ 
tions of this character to go unchallenged. It has become a 
fashion in late years in certain quarters to abuse Stark Bros. 
We have been busy and heretofore ignored it simply because 
it was too small, too petty, too contemptible, to notice. We 
have suffered them to do the talking and have kept right on 
growing and selling the trees. They, mistaking our reasons 
for forbearance, have continued their misrepresentations until 
they have acutally impressed the belief upon some fipnest peo¬ 
ple that our methods were questionable, that we were trying 
to obtain a monopoly by reason of our trade-marks, etc. 
Feeling that the public is interested in facts alone, we have in 
this letter endeavored to give you the facts only and avoid 
personalities, although we confess the temptation great. If 
necessary later we shall call names. 
This letter we will ask you to give the same publicity given 
the articles to which it refers. Believe us, 
Yours truly, 
Stark Bro’s Nurser¬ 
ies & Orchards Co. 
Louisiana, Mo., Jan. 
28, 1904. 
Eugene W. Stark, 
Sec’y. 
IN EXPLANATION. 
The above letter of 
Stark Brothers ex¬ 
plains itself; but in 
justice to that firm 
and to ourselves we 
desire to add that the 
publication of but one 
side of the case was 
due to the fact that 
we did not have at 
hand the information 
we now have, which 
puts the matter in a 
different light. The articles appeared to be simple statements 
of fact and not being familiar with the contentions in either 
case we gave them to the nursery world as matters of interest. 
In view of later developments we take pleasure in presenting 
Stark Brothers’ statement and in making this explanation. 
Stark Brothers have been subscribers and patrons of this 
publication since its first issue. The wonderful success they 
have achieved speaks for itself; none stands higher in the 
nursery world; personally we hold them in high regard, 
esteeming them as gentlemen above questionable business 
methods. Hence nothing could have been further from our 
intention than to do them an injustice through our columns. 
We are glad to have brought out a plain statement regard¬ 
ing this trade-mark case which we believe will be of special 
interest to all nurserymen. The suit of Stark Brothers vs 
Schulze Brothers, as we understand, is along new lines, no 
precedent having been established by previous court decis¬ 
ions; consequently the eyes of the nursery world will be upon it. 
As to the merits of the Black Ben Davis and Gano conten¬ 
tion, we do not know and have no opinion to offer, as we see a 
wide difference of opinion exists, not only among horticultur¬ 
ists and pomologists, but even state societies. It seems to be 
a case where each must form his own opinion. The plan 
adopted by Professor L. H. Bailey and others, in volunteer 
testing for orchards, would seem to be a good one to apply in 
these cases—to secure a few trees of each of these varieties, 
have them planted side by side and watch them carefully as 
they grow and mature fruit. In this way one may decide 
for himself whether they are the same or distinct varities. 
ORIGIN OF BLACK BEN DAVIS. 
At the annual meeting of the Arkansas State Horticultural 
Society held at Van Buren, Ark., January 12, 13, 14, 1904, a 
motion was made and carried “ That a committee of three be 
appointed to investigate the origin of the Black Ben' Davis 
and its relation to Gano, and to report to the Association at its 
pleasure.” 
The president appointed Prof. W. G. Vincenheller, director 
of the Arkansas ex¬ 
periment station, Fay¬ 
etteville; A. W. Poole, 
Ozark; J. E. Reynolds, 
Maple. At the morn¬ 
ing session January 14, 
the committee sub¬ 
mitted the following- 
report, together with 
the evidence, all of 
which whs adopted, 
with only one dissent¬ 
ing vote: 
“ Y o u r committee 
appointed to investi¬ 
gate the origin of 
Black Ben Davis apple 
and the claim of some 
horticulturists that the 
apple is identical with 
the Gano, respectfully 
beg leave to report 
as follows: 
“We are thoroughly convinced, after a rigid investigation 
of the facts that the Black Ben Davis originated in Washing¬ 
ton county, Arkansas, on a farm owned by Alexander Black, 
commonly known as the ‘Parson Black Farm;’ that while it 
is of the Ben Davis type and has some of the characteristics 
of the apple known as Gano it, is a separate and distinct variety. 
“ In substantiation of this opinion we herewith submit the 
following testimony, which testimony we feel certain has 
never been presented to any committee or body of horticul¬ 
turists before, and that if this testimony had been secured by 
the Missouri horticultural committee their report would have 
been in accordance with our conclusions. 
“We ask that this testimony be filed with these findings as 
a part of this report. Respectfully submitted, W. G. Vincen¬ 
heller, A. W. Poole, J. E. Reynolds, committee.” 
The committee filed with other evidence an abstract of title 
showing that “Parson” Alexander Black filed his homestead 
entry on September 9, 1899; patent was granted him from 
United States government on November 6, 1874; Alexander 
Black sold to J. S. Eally, December 3, 1877; J. S. Daily sold to 
Scene in W. C. Reed’s Nurseries, Vincennes, Inr. 
