86 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
actionaries,” “Moss-Backs,” “Sinister Motives,” “Intem¬ 
perate Criticism,” “The old gang who sit with their fin¬ 
gers crossed and knock” and “Methods of the vintages of 
I lie 70’s and 80’s” are not conducive to that “close har¬ 
mony” so vital to the success and welfare of our Asso¬ 
ciation. 
Mr. Mayhew says that at Detroit in 1916, “There was 
no thinking man among us but who realized that there 
was something radically wrong with the nursery bus¬ 
iness and while leaders in the organization were endea¬ 
voring to work out some plan which would better the 
condition of the nurserymen, another group had met 
prior to I he opening of the convention and for several 
days had wrestled with the same problem.” 
My remembrance is that the troubles then under con¬ 
sideration related more to the dollar—the profit and loss 
account of the business—than to any ethical questions; 
to the condition of the individual member and not the con¬ 
dition of the Association and that the plans under con¬ 
sideration were practical and had to do with the regula¬ 
tion of plantings and production, and the control of 
prices,—plans extremely unethical in the minds of many. 
If I recognize Mr. Mayhew’s reference to “another 
group meeting prior to the convention,” I was one of 
that group meeting to consider solely whether the em¬ 
ployment of Mr. Smith as counsel would be an additional 
safeguard to the interests of the Association in matters 
of federal and state legislation and with no thought of 
matters “radically wrong in the nursery business.” 
Let me say that at Detroit in 1916, the apparent undiv¬ 
ided sentiment in favor of “a launching out into the deep” 
was not that we all thought alike, but because those who 
had formerly been active in the Association affairs felt 
that it was fair to give the “Progressives” an opportunity 
to produce the results which they so glowingly and en¬ 
thusiastically promised would come if they were per¬ 
mitted direction; and while that feeling has continued 
up to this time, we reserve our constitutional right as 
members to “be shown” and our right to criticize such 
methods as in our judgment do not tend to the welfare 
and prosperity of the Association. Have our officers and 
committees reached that Wilsonian altitude where it is 
considered “lese majeste” ’to pass judgment on their 
plans and methods? I accord to every member the right 
of opinion, and if I cannot agree with him, why should 
my opinion be classed as “dishonest and selfish?” 
What are the wonderful “progressive strides” that we 
have made and what have they accomplished? What are 
we getting for our money that we did not get in the old 
days “of the simple life under the methods of the 70’s 
and 80’s?” Let’s do away with generalities and get 
down to concrete facts, for these are perfectly proper 
questions for any member to propound when he is asked 
to contribute steadily increasing dues. 
The Association’s income for the last two years has 
been about $26,000 per annum. What are we getting for 
it? The one bright spot is the work of the traffic man¬ 
ager and that office is largely self-sustaining. It is the 
one “progressive step” that has shown results and I am 
heartily in favor of its continuance. What else? Ad¬ 
ministration expenses last year were $16,000 to $17,000 
and this year are running at about the same rate. What 
do we get for it? Since the June convention, members 
have received from the Secretary’s office two bulletins 
and the Secretary’s letter of resignation, but the annual 
report of the last convention has not yet been issued. 
The Legislative Committee has received a resume of the 
legislative program adopted at Chicago and a record of 
the Secretary’s correspondence with the United States 
Tariff Commission. What the Secretary’s office has done 
with the other committees, I am unable to say. Has it 
been worth the cost? 
Was there anything more accomplished last year of 
actual tangible worth? It is true that the president and 
secretary traveled near and far interviewing editors, ad¬ 
dressing various gatherings, mainly taking the defensive 
—admitting the sins of the nurserymen and promising re¬ 
form—but did that get us anywhere? To my mind, it 
was mighty poor publicity and I am thoroughly in accord 
with the article in the National Nurseryman of February 
entitled “Trustworthy Trees;” for I do not believe that 
as a class, nurserymen and nursery methods are any 
more rotten than any other line of business. 
If publicity and market development are divorced from 
Association activities—and I think they should be—it is 
my opinion that no man can show results as Secretary 
that will justify the present expense. There is not suf¬ 
ficient opportunity. I am speaking frankly and with due 
respect to Mr. Watson who has labored earnestly and 
faithfully. 
That brings us to the subject of market development 
to which the activities of the Secretary have evidently 
been largely directed. I think the original proposition 
was to raise outside of the Association a fund of $60,000 
per year for five years to be devoted to the broadening of 
the market for nursery stock by creating an appetite and 
desire for fruits and flowers in the minds of the reading 
public. That plan appealed to many nurserymen who 
became liberal subscribers—as was their privilege and 
right. Many of us who dispose of our goods through 
salesmen felt that we could secure better results for our 
money through other channels and declined to subscribe 
—that was equally our privilege and right. 
Later, the plan was unloaded on the Association, dues 
were largely increased to provide funds for market de¬ 
velopment and publicity; and the agency nurseryman was 
asked to pay dues, computed on the basis of retail prices, 
to support a proposition in which he did not believe, as 
a condition precedent to continued membership in the 
Association which he had for many years fostered, sus¬ 
tained and labored for. 
Where is the original market development idea now? 
What has become of the plan that was to excite and stim¬ 
ulate the appetite of the buying public so that it would 
consume more fruit and flowers and thus increase the 
business of the nurserymen of the United States? It 
seems to have been abandoned for the new scheme of 
advertising our Association and its members; their trust¬ 
worthiness and reliability to be guaranteed by our Asso¬ 
ciation, even though our Association has taken no prac¬ 
tical steps to standardize quality, grades, prices, methods 
and service, which I have always understood was the 
first step precedent to any such action by any trade asso¬ 
ciation. If that becomes necessary, how is it proposed 
