THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
256 
done the error in. the first drafting, at least, would probably have been 
avoided. [President Stark then called especial attention to sections 8 
and 9 of the Simmons Bill which is fully discussed by the committee on 
Legislation and says:] 
This gives one man absolute control of the nursery business directly 
and of fruit growing indirectly, for the orchardists as a body are depend¬ 
ant upon someone to grow trees for them. 
The majority of men in government service are exceptionally broad¬ 
minded and public spirited; they are rendering services to the people 
for less than those services are worth—less than they could demand if 
their energy and ability were directed to private enterprises. But. as 
stated before, all men are not entirely of this stamp, they are not all 
broad enough to realize that ultimate success' depends upon the ability 
W. H. WYMAN 
Vice-President 
of one department to work in the greatest possible harmony with al^ 
others, as well as to attain as great a degree of individual efficiency as 
possible. 
To directly place the control of one large industry and indirectly the 
control of a far greater one in the hands of one man, in an endeavor to 
help those industries, is really placing them in danger of a remedy which 
might prove to be worse than the original trouble. For instance, many 
conservative investigators believed, after careful study and deliberation, 
that San Jose scale would wipe out the fruit growing industry of this 
nation. 
Look Out for the Alarmist 
At the Indianapolis Convention an alarming address was made pre- 
. dieting the devastation of our orchards and forests—everything in the 
tree line. Dr. Bailey, always rising equal to the occasion, cautioned 
against undue alarm and with prophetic vision, or may be it was o ly 
practical sense, said the pest no doubt would be controlled. He advised 
moderation and conservatism. During the scale agitation nursery 
sales were greatly reduced in orchard regions because of unnecessary 
alarm and dread. But this pest is now readily controlled and is pro¬ 
nounced by some to be a benefit in the same sense that Dr. Bailey stated 
that weeds were beneficial, for weeds which force the farmer to addi¬ 
tional cultivation are a blessing in disguise. The San Jose scale has 
made necessary care, and spraying which have been highly profitable to 
the orchardist, but which, perhaps, he would never have done had he not 
been forced to. Suppose during the spread of this insect, which ap¬ 
peared in nearly every state, shortly after its introduction, one man who 
had the power to quarantine had checked off and destroyed the industry 
of raising fruit trees. It would have been years in recovering, and the 
loss to the country of the orchards which would not have been planted 
would have been incalculable. It is true that the scale has destroyed 
many orchards, but the orchardist who will not take the pains to spray 
will seldom give attention to pruning and other necessary phases of 
orchard work. 
Laws may be so drastic as to destroy that which they seek to help. 
Montana, in her legislation has experienced this condition in a mild form 
and is repealing some of the laws which have directly hindered the pro¬ 
duction of nursery stock and indirectly the planting of orchards. 
We, as nurserymen, need national and state inspection. We should 
co-operate with tho^e interested to bring about maximum protection 
with minimum hardship to all concerned. While the nurserymen may 
lose temporarily, it is the ultimate consumer who foots the bills in the 
end, whether it be growing trees or making steel rails. It is as Prof. 
Taylor said at Denver, if the orchardist wants trees free from knots and 
is willing to pay for them, he should have them—and be charged 
accordingly. 
I have talked plainly on this subject, but unless I am misunderstood 
I hope to have avoided giving offense, for many of my personal friends 
are among the nurserymen, professors, experiment station men and 
inspectors, with whom and their work I have been in touch in many 
states. 
Grades and Grading 
There should be uniformity in grades—there should be a recognized 
standard which means something. It sometimes happens that a car of 
trees is bought from a grower who professes to be a wholesaler, the 
specifications are “according to Hoyle,” but the trees on arrival prove to 
be practically worthless, almost rootless and many lifeless. In fact, 
many growers’ grades mean nothing—they are on an elastic standard 
designed to fit that which they have to sell. 
The Western orchardist has set a new mark in packing fancy apples. 
Their high standard has been attained by rigid rules, strictly adhered to 
in every phase of the work. The association of one valley does not even 
allow the orchardist to pack his own fruit. The men in charge realize 
J. M. PITKIN 
Member Executive Committee 
the tendency of human nature, in themselves and others, which often 
works contrary in spite of good intentions. However, the conditions 
affecting grades in our case are largely from a different source. 
The experienced, bonafide grower generally makes very good grades 
and a number have built up a national reputation for the high standard 
of their stock. It is the farmer, real estate man, or others who imagine 
they will suddenly turn nurserymen who are largely responsible for un¬ 
stable grades. They secure grafts or stocks and shortly after planting 
time, begin to calculate the different grades—it looks good to them and 
they wonder that it is so easy. Why?- They can make money at half 
the market price! The result—when digging time comes—they not 
only early disregard specifications, but have helped to demoralize prices 
