42 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
Then as to Mahaleb and Myrobolan stocks some are advo¬ 
cating the idea of putting a certain amount per M on these 
stocks, regardless of their grades or the invoiced price. This 
surely does not look like the right thing to do. Some parts 
of the country demand a large Mahaleb stock, while 
others, a small grade for the reason that they will take 
hold and make more of a growth the first season in some 
parts than in others. The purchasers of the Mahaleb stock in 
the North Western States, generally secure a No. 2 ora No. 3 
plant, as those grades planted here, will be plenty large, 
when budding season comes and consequently are better 
than to plant the No. 1 grade. The invoice price on them, 
of course, is smaller, the bulk smaller, hence the freight less 
and it stands to reason that the duty should be lower; 
for if the duty is to be only specific, there ought to be a 
sliding scale put on the different grades. In such case we 
imagine they should about settle on the $1.00 per M for 
No. 1; 75c per M. on the No. 2; 50c per M. for No. 3. 
Now this general reform of the tariff, as we understand by 
the requests of the people in general favors lowering it than 
otherwise, hence our suggestions especially regarding roses. 
As to stocks as above mentioned, if you want to donate 
this revenue to the Government, it is all right but as far as 
protecting our home grower is concerned we cannot see 
why there is any duty on Mahaleb or Myrobolan on that ac¬ 
count. With all the protection we have had, we do not 
believe that there are as many of these stocks raised in the 
United States today as there were 15 or 20 years ago. The 
fact of it is, we can not bank on them being a success here. 
Some years they have been handled in what you might call a 
profitable manner in some parts of the country, and in other 
years again, there would be none and we have then to de¬ 
pend on Europe altogether for them. We can not see why 
there should be any duty on these stocks any more than 
there should be on bulbs: As we understand it the duty is 
taken off bulbs altogether, the idea being that we can not 
grow bulbs any way, hence no need to burden ourselves 
with duty as long as we have to depend on Europe for 
them. The case appears to us to be parallel. 
Now, of course, the above is simply our individual 
opinion about what is just as regards this question, but we 
naturally suppose that some duty will be left on the stocks, 
hence we would recommend the sliding scale mentioned 
above. 
Yours very respectfully, 
Marshall Bros. 
Arlington, Neb. 
THE IMPORTER’S VIEWS. 
We think it a capital idea that you address the Ameri¬ 
can Nurseryman on the tariff subject for his individual 
views. Let all the 4,000, or more, nurserymen send their 
replies, publish them, and send your paper to the Ways and 
Means Committee, that will influence such committee 
more than the briefs submitted by a few members of the 
tariff committee of the A. N. A. The individuals, as, 
mere importers, hare no views, but merely charge back our 
outlays. Specific duties are the best; but in the form as 
proposed, they will force rigid inspection of contents, con¬ 
sequent delays, and loss of contents. 
August Roelker & Sons. 
31 Barclay St., New York City. 
I am not in a position to give you much information, 
but would say in regard to the new tariff rates, that I con¬ 
sider four cents duty on each rose, as entirely too high, 
and that the proposed specific rates on Evergreens and large 
Ornamental Trees, will cause much confusion, and will 
eventually revert back to the old law, requesting that a 
certain number of cases from each importation be sent to 
the Appraiser’s Stores for examination. 
Neither am I in favor of putting bulbs and Belgian 
plants on the free list, as I think that the present rate of 
duty, 25% ad valorem , is not too high. 
H. Frank Harrow, 
26 Barclay St., New York City. 
INTERESTING VIEWS OF AN IMPORTER AND FOREIGN 
GROWER. 
I did not have any intention before of saying anything 
in relation to tariff revision. Being an importer and foreign 
grower people might think that I was too much interested 
in this matter, but as you wish my opinion, you can have it, 
even if it is contrary to the opinion of many nurserymen. 
Born and brought up in Free Holland where the people 
scoff at the few protectionists who ask for duties on im¬ 
ported goods, it took me some time to understand that con¬ 
ditions were not exactly the same here. There, tariff 
matters are discussed between Free Traders and those who 
for some reason ask for a duty levied on imported goods, 
while here everybody is for levying duty, but they do not 
want it on the same line of goods, and all consider it as a 
kind of taxation to maintain the government. Taken from 
this point of view, there must be a tariff, and the proper 
question is, to what extent must the nursery trade bear this 
tax ? How much must we pay for the goods which we have 
to import for our business compared with other branches 
of the trade ? 
Taxes for Revenue. 
Of course taxes must be paid under one or other form, 
but I can not see how the paying of high taxes or duties 
can protect anybody, so I think our trade ought to strive 
for low rates and not for high rates as the protectionist seems 
to think, especially in our trade where the stock imported 
is needed for further propagation, or for direct orders when 
the stock cannot be gotten at the moment wanted, but 
would have to grow first and that would be too late to fill 
the orders. Nursery stock is not sold directly by the 
foreigner to the consumer but is only sold to the dealer in 
the trade. The nurseryman who wants to stock his nursery 
with young stock must import his material which he has not 
got, or can not conveniently grow on his land and has to pay 
an additional 25 or 30% by this taxation. The dealer who 
needs full grown stock, trees and shrubs to fill his orders 
and cannot get them in neighboring nurseries has to im- 
