THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
193 
The National Nurseryman 
Established 1893 by C. L. YATES. Incorporated 1902 
Published monthly by 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN PUBLISHING CO. ( Inc. 
Hatboro, Pa. 
Editor .ERNEST HEMMING, Flourtown, Pa. 
The leading trade journal issued for Growers and Dealers in 
Nursery Stocks of all kinds. It circulates throughout the 
United States, Canada and Europe. 
AWARDED THE GRAND PRIZE AT PARIS EXPOSITION, 1900 
SUBSCRIPTION RATES 
One Year in Advance .$1.50 
Foreign Subscriptions, in advance .$2.00 
Six Months .$1.00 
Advertising rates will he sent upon application. Advertisements 
should reach this office by the 20th of the month previous to the 
date of issue. 
Payment in advance required for foreign advertisements. Drafts 
on New York or postal orders, instead of checks, are requested by 
the Business Manager, Hatboro, Pa. 
Correspondence from all points and articles of interest to nursery¬ 
men and horticulturists are cordially solicited. 
Photographs and news notes of interest to nurserymen should be 
addressed, Editor, Plourtown, Fa., and should be mailed to arrive 
not later than the 25th of the month. 
Entered as second-class matter June 22, 1916, at the post office at 
Hatboro, Pennsylvania, under the Act of March 3, 1879. 
Hatboro, Pa., August 1921 
The less we know about a subject the 
OUR CRITICS more readily we are to form snap judg¬ 
ments and freely express ourselves. 
This perhaps explains the editorial in the Florists’ Ex¬ 
change of July 2nd on the Chicago Convention. While 
couched in the most guarded phrase the criticism was 
made from insufficient data with the result that the Amer¬ 
ican Association of Nurserymen is charged with being 
ultra-conservative and retrogressive. 
We would like to suggest that our brothers in the 
allied trade stick to their slogan and only “Say it with 
Flowers” by so doing they are not so likely to spread in¬ 
formation that is likely to misrepresent us. 
In the first place it is a nurserymen’s association which 
is trying to elevate the business. They tried out some¬ 
thing, but after two years test proved to be inadvisable 
and not productive of the results expected, and it may he 
added the results were not measured by dollars and cents. 
True the Chicago Convention repudiated the adopted 
trademark—Trustworthy Trees and Plants. The Florists’ 
Exchange intimates this was bad business because the 
public would place a wrong construction on the action, 
and that it should have been retained even though the 
* trademark meant nothing and even gave an unscrupulous 
nurseryman the opportunity to trade on the reputation of 
others. 
Our critic forgot to mention that while the trade mark 
was dropped, the Vigilance Committee, which was the 
only guarantee of the Trustworthy Trees and Plants 
apart from the responsibility of the individual firms form¬ 
ing the A. A. of N. has been retained and strengthened to 
carry on the good work. 
In other words the nurserymen had courage enough to 
retrace their steps after a false start and prefer acting 
honesty to advertising honesty even though their action 
may be misunderstood. 
The Florists’ Exchange denies either curiosity or re¬ 
sentment at being shut out of the “sacred confines of the 
executive sessions.” It perhaps would have been more 
politic to have avoided any semblance of secrecy on the 
deliberations. 
Yet one would think it was quite within the province 
of any trade association to hold executive sessions con¬ 
sisting exclusively of voting members without criticism 
or question from those not in the trade. 
As to the seeming change of policy which to the Flor¬ 
ists’ Exchange means retrogression it should he borne in 
mind the change was made by approximately ninety per 
cent of the nurserymen at the convention. These men 
have the same ambitions, the same energy and the same 
ideals with perhaps a little more experience than they had 
several years ago. 
The best minds of the day are advising conservation, to 
quote Herbert Hoover: 
“It is in the booms that we speculate, overextend our 
liabilities, slacken down effort, lower our efficiency, 
waste our surplus in riotous living instead of creation of 
new capital, drive our prices to vicious levels, and lose 
our moral and business balance. We must suffer a period 
of duress from the war and punishment for the boom un¬ 
til we rebuild our virtues of hard work, frugal living, 
more saving, sober conduct and higher honesty. These 
things are trite enough, hut they are as immutable as his¬ 
tory, and this is the only way out.” 
Perhaps the nurserymen have seen the light. 
HAS NURSERY The above question may appear 
STOCK ANY VALUE? ridiculous especially to the nur¬ 
seryman who figures out what 
it has cost him in labor to produce, and to pay out in ac¬ 
tual cash for such a portion as he had to buy to say noth¬ 
ing of his equipment organization and technical know¬ 
ledge that should have an appreciable value. 
Rut let him go to his banker or one of those men who 
make it a business of loaning money where collateral is 
required. He would find almost anything would pass 
muster as collateral in preference to nursery stock. 
The nurseryman may have expended in labor for prop¬ 
agation and cultivation say $10,000 for the past year, he 
may have invested $5,000 more in actual purchase for 
which he has paid cash, his stock may be in excellent 
condition and every prospect of good business yet it is 
safe to say the average financial man will not extend his 
credit to any appreciable extent in spite of his $15,000 
investment. In what other legitimate business does 
such a condition exist? 
The nurseryman is largely to blame for the attitude of 
the financial men. They have been too ready to adopt 
the foolish theory that nursery stock has no value until it 
is sold and for this reason have no inventory value to 
their business, or if their system of bookkeeping demands 
it is purely a nominal one with little regard to actual 
value is given. 
In what other line of production is there such a lack of 
ordinary business sense? 
Bring all (he reasons possible why nursery products 
are not a good risk and those reasons will he found to 
apply with equal force on products that are considered 
good security. 
There should at least be a per acre value of what it has 
