io6 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
W. C. REED WINS AN IMPORTANT SUIT 
The long pending suit of W. C. Reed, Vineennes, Indiana, 
against L. Rounsevell, fonner inspeetor in the State of 
Colorado has at last been tried and a verdiet rendered in 
favor of Mr. Reed for $152. 
The suit grew out of the eondemnation and destruetion 
of a lot of approximately 10,000 Apple trees shipped over 
two years ago by Mr. Reed to a customer in Colorado. Mr. 
Rounsevell, then State Inspector, condemned the trees and 
ordered them destroyed, claiming that they were affected 
with Crown Gall and other dangerous diseases. 
The Western Nurserymen’s Association took up the case 
and subscribed a fund of $250 to help fight the case. Other 
individual Western nurserymen added 
$500 more, and at the annual meeting of 
the American Association of Nurserymen, 
held in Boston, last June, the details were 
laid before the Association and an appro¬ 
priation of $1,000 was voted, making a 
total of $1,750 available. 
The claim of the nurserymen was that 
if the inspectors were permitted to con¬ 
demn trees on their own judgment, they 
would lose thousands of dollars. They 
attacked the constitutionality of the law 
and charged Rounsevell with malice. 
Several attempts were made to get the 
suit before the Court, but it was post¬ 
poned from time to time. The State 
authorities evidently being reluctant to 
allow it to come to a head, fearing that if 
Mr. Reed be successful it would tie their 
hands by showing that the law was un¬ 
constitutional. 
While the total value of the trees destroyed was about 
$700, an amount of damage was added sufficient to make a 
total claim of $5,000 so as to make it large enough to get 
the case before the United States Court. 
Arrayed against the Nurserymen’s Association were the 
various Fruit Growers’ Associations and individuals, who 
claimed that the state officers were right in condemning the 
trees; that Crowm Gall made its way through irrigation chan¬ 
nels from orchard to orchard and was a fatal malady even 
though its work was slow. 
Judge Lewis ordered the jury pay no attention to the 
charges of malice charged against Rounsevell and assess 
only the actual damages. 
Judge Lewis in instructing the jury stated that all the 
witnesses and evidence produced by the plaintiff (Reed) 
had shown that root knot on the apple was not a disease, 
was not contagious, was not injurious to the growth of the 
trees and did not affect its fruiting, and that if the jury found 
the evidence to bear this fact out they should render a 
verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. If, on the other hand, they 
found that it was a disease, that it was contagious, and was 
injurious as claimed by the defendant, they should return a 
vcTdict in the defendant’s favor. 
Mr. Reed had witnesses and twelve depositions, while 
the other side had seven witnesses and two depositions. 
The evidence in the case covered 300 typewritten 
pages. 
The case was handled by the firm of Thomas Bryant, 
Nye and Malburn for the plaintiff. Mr. Bryant was in 
charge of the case and he is also attorney for the City of 
Denver. Mr. Thomas, the senior member of the firm is 
ex-Governor of Colorado, recently elected United States 
Senator from Colorado. 
The opposing side was defended by the attorney general 
of Colorado. 
F. L. Rounsevell, the defendant was deputy state entomo¬ 
logist of Colorado and acting under that office when the trees 
were condemned and destroyed. The decision is very im¬ 
portant as it is the first case of the kind 
ever tried out in thecourts. Its effets will 
be of great benefit to the nursery-men as 
it had been a contention of nurser3men 
for years that root knot was not a disease 
and was not contagious or injurious in the 
least. 
Has the work of the State Horticul¬ 
tural Inspectors of Colorado been nullified 
and are they without authority to act 
without subjecting themselves to indi¬ 
vidual liability? 
Archibald Lee, former assistant attorney 
general, answers both questions in the 
affirmative. He adds that it appears as 
if the state law creating the horticultural 
department has been unconstitutional. 
MISNAMING ILLUSTRATIONS IN 
CATALOGUES 
There is no question but what an illustration in a cata¬ 
logue not only assists in increasing the sale of the plant so 
illustrated, but greatly aids the purchaser in making selec¬ 
tions of the tree or shrub he desires for some particular 
location or purpose. 
From this point of view it is unfortunate, if no worse, 
that nurserymen are not more. particular to see that their 
illustrations are correctly named. The most descriptive 
catalogue of a prominent nurseryman is before us, fully 
illustrated and is really good, but a picture of Clematis 
Jackmanni is labelled “Matrimony Vine’’ while a photo¬ 
graph of the latter bears the name of the Clematis. A 
picture of the White Snowberry bears the legion “Almonds” 
and what is evidently a Japanese Snowball is marked “Snow¬ 
ball Hydrangea.” A Platycodon cut passes under the 
name of “Sweet William” and the Sweet William picture 
is called “Platycodon.” A Cut-leaved Birch is tagged 
“White Ash” and a “Lombardy Poplar” looks suspiciously 
like a “Bolleana Poplar.” A “White Pine” bears a great 
resemblance to a Hemlock Spruce. 
From the excellent reputation and standing this firm 
possesses there is no question of their honesty of purpose. 
It is more than likely that proper attention was not given 
to the reading of the proof, or perhaps misplaced confidence 
in the judgment or intelligence of the printer. 
W. C. REED 
