March  30,  1899. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
25  J 
COMMISSIONS. 
But  for  the  revelations-^of  whose  truth  or  otherwise  one  does  not 
venture  to  express  an  opinion — in  a  certain  notorious  case,  it  is  doubtful 
if  the  question  of  conamissions  would  have  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
Legislature,  Now,  however,  that  the  Lord  Chiet  Justice  of  England  has 
taken  up  the  matter,  and  has  prepared  a  Bill  to  deal  with  it,  it  is  probable 
that  some  attemnt  will  be  made  to  strike  a  blow  at  what  are  called  illicit 
commissions.  That  the  attempt  has  not  been  made  too  soon  is  evident 
from  the  statements  in  the  Press  and  from  what  has  come  to  one’s  notice. 
Honr  far  the  system  can  be  coped  with  is  doubtful,  but  one  cannot  but 
hope  that  some  good  may  result.  The  system  rules  everywhere,  and 
many  of  its  forms  are  indefensible.  We  cannot,  for  instance,  defend  a 
system  which  enables,  say  a  solicitor  advising  a  client  over  an  investment, 
pocketing  a  commission  from  the  transaction  in  addition  to  his  tee  for 
advice  and  ordinary  legal  charges.  The  com  nission  system  is  hydra¬ 
headed,  and  not  at  all  easy  of  solution.  It  is,  however,  of  its  application 
to  gardeners  and  gardening  that  one  would  like  to  speak. 
Those  best  acquainted  know  that  the  commission  system  as  it  affects 
employers  and  their  gardeners  is  comparatively  innocent.  It  is  a  matter 
of  notoriety  that  a  small  commission  on  orders  is  generally  given  by 
nur.'erymen  to  gardeners  This  is,  one  knows,  often  with  the  cognisance  of 
employers,  who  look  upon  the  5  per  cent.,  or  sometimes  more,  as  a  small 
addition  to  the  wages — none  too  large — of  their  employes.  Some  nursery¬ 
men  set  themselves  against  this  practice,  and  apparently  carry  on  flourish¬ 
ing  businesses  without  its  aid.  Yet  they  seem  to  be  the  exception  rather 
than  the  rule  ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  nurserymen  generally  would 
bo  glad  to  see  the  commission  system  abolished. 
Looking  at  the  matter  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  employtr,  who  is 
unaware  of  it,  or  who  knows  it  is  practised  yet  is  powerless  to  prevent  it, 
there  is  little  doubt  that  its  prevention  would  be  a  gain.  All  men  are 
not  patterns  of  virtue  and  honesty.  Gardeners,  exemplary  as  they  are 
as  a  class,  have  black  sheep  among  them.  Among  such  even  a  small 
commission  may  lead  to  carelessness  in  many  forms — to  extravagant 
orders  for  seeds,  plants,  or  sundries,  and  to  general  wastefulness  in  their 
use.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  either  that  the  abolition  of  commissions 
-  would  in  the  long  run  tend  to  the  advantage  of  the  purchaser. 
To  the  gardener,  however,  who,  in  accordance  with  long-established 
■custom,  has  had  his  salarj’  supplemented  from  this  source  the  change 
would  be  unprofitable,  and  in  many  cases  unpleasant.  .It  can  hardly  be 
denied  that  gardeners  as  a  body  are  not  over-well  paid,  when  one  takes 
into  consideration  their  experience,  skill,  and  responsibility.  It  would 
thus  seem  that  in  defence  of  the  retention  of  the  system  could  be  urged 
the  plea  that  as  far  as  regards  gardeners  it  is  recognised  by  most  people, 
and  is  a  legitimate  addition  to  their  earnings.  Yet  how  small  it  is  in  the 
average  garden,  and  how  little  an  addition  to  the  salary  would  it  prove 
when  put  down  in  £  s  d.  It  would  be  better  for  all  if  the  employer  in 
making  his  agreement  would  give  a  little  higher  wage,  and  make  the 
bargain  that  no  commissions  were  to  be  taken. 
There  is  in  existence,  one  has  had  too  good  reason  to  believe,  from 
what  has  occasionally  been  seen  from  the  rolumns  of  the  Journal,  a  more 
demoralising  thing  still.  Tiiis  has  been  the  giving  of  testimonials  to  new 
seeds  or  plants  in  return  for  a  consideration.  One  recollects  a  case  in 
which  identically  worded  notes  recommending  a  new  speciality  were 
received  at  the  office.  This  was  properly  condemned  by  the  Editor,  no 
names,  of  course,  being  given.  Such  practices  bring  undeserved  dis¬ 
credit  upon  the  honest  opinions  of  good  men  and  true  in  the  gardening 
ranks  and  among  the  writers  to  the  horticultural  press.  Because  some 
are  dishonourable  those  who  would  scorn  to  give  anything  but  an 
unbiased  opinion  have  suspicion  cast  upon  their  honest  recommendations 
or  criticisms. 
The  writer  has  had  not  a  little  experience  in  writing  for  the  Journal, 
and  It  IS  due  to  the  great  body  of  those  with  whose  products  he  has  had 
to  deal  to  say  that  he  has  not  been  approached  corruptly  to  speak  favour¬ 
ably  of  what  was  offered  for  sale.  Yet  offers  have  been  made  which 
would  have  been  to  his  advantage,  and  would  have  tied  his  freedom  to 
write  without  regard  to  personal  considerations.  He  may  thus  be  excused 
for  writing  at  length  upon  a  question  now  before  the  minds  of  many,  and  of 
much  importance  to  gardeners  and  to  the  horticultural  trade. — BenmaN. 
P.S. —  Since  writing  the  foregoing  I  have  had  an  opi  oriumty  of 
perusing  the  report  from  the  Special  Committee  of  the  London  Chamber 
■of  Commerce  on  this  question.  If  anyone  thinks  my  studiously  carefully 
written  letter  goes  too  far,  they  will  discover  ample  justification  for  it  in  the 
report.  I  believe  the  abolition  ot  commissions  would  eventually  be  to  the 
advantage  of  all  concerned — employer,  gardener,  and  nurseryman. — P. 
THE  TEMPLE  FLOWER  SHOW. 
1  NOTICE  with  regret  that  the  Council  of  the  Royal  Horticultural 
Society  have  resolved  to  eliminate  from  the  next  great  flower  show  in  the 
Temple  Gardens  all  floral  decorations,  whether  i^ses,  stands,  bouquets, 
sprays,  or  others.  I  think  that  is  a  mistaken  iiiierdict,  because  it  helps 
to  reduce  the  show  more  than  it  previf]usly  was  to  one  dead  level  of 
monotony  in  the  material  and  m  the  arrangements.  Admittedly 
some  Of  the  floral  decorations  did  show  the  art  of  preparing  them  some¬ 
times  rather  run  mad,  a  few  simple  regulations  iniKht  have  soon  brought 
the  exhibitors  into  a  sane  frame  of  mind.  But  without  doubt  exhibits  of 
this  nature  are  remarkably  popular  and  attractive,  especially  with  ladies, 
and  the  lair  sex  invariably  comprises  the  larger  half  of  the  visitors. 
The  art  of  floral  decoration  is  one  of  great  importance  in  connection 
with  horticulture,  because  it  presents  waj-s  and  uses  for  flowers  commonly 
both  beautiful  und  domestic,  which  is  not  only  to  be  greatly  commended, 
but  gives  wonderful  encouragement  to  production.  There  is  not  a  flower 
show  in  the  provinces,  or  indeed  anywhere  else,  whereat  floral  decorations 
are  not  made  prominent  features.  There  are  usually  meny  exhibits  ot 
the  Temple  Show  that  could  bear  great  reduction  with  benefit,  and  thus 
make  ample  room  for  the  decorators’  and  bouquetisis'  di8pla)s.  It  is  true 
the  Council  have  this  year  very  rigidly  limited  spaces  for  certain  things, 
and  some  good  should  result,  for  the  great  evil  of  the  show  hitherto  has 
been  too  much  liberty  to  make  big  exhibits,  rather  than  calling  for  the 
very  best  products  only. 
There  is  one  regulation  which  a  little  bothers  me  to  comprehend,  and 
that  is  the  requirement  that  the  backs  of  rockeries,  whilst  not  over  feet 
in  height  from  the  ground  level,  must,  if  on  the  central  stage,  have^  the 
backs  of  such  erections  neatly  covered  with  green  baize  on  both  sides. 
Whenever  did  a  back  have  more  than  one  side  ?  Evidently  something 
is  meant  that  is  not  conveyed.  Perhaps  it  means  that  if  there  are 
two  backs  both  must  be  covered,  but  then  the  front  side  is 
invariably  covered  with  the  rockery  and  plants  upon  it.  Really  such 
erections  should  not  be  permitted  at  all  on  the  centre  stage.  The  side 
tables,  or  on  the  ground,  are  the  proper  places  for  them.  I  regret  to 
see  so  much  as  400  feet  of  ground  space  allotted  to  such  monotonous 
plants  as  Caladiums  in  single  groups.  Were  they  used  to  furnish  a 
carpet  to  pleasing  tall  or  standard  plants  each  would  enhance  the  beauty 
of  the  other. — A.  D. 
NORTHERN  SPY  APPLE  FOR  STOCKS. 
The  Maeianna  Stock  for  Stone  Fruits. 
I  HAVE  been  much  interested  by  the  controversy  that  has  lately  been 
carried  on  in  your  Journal  on  the  subject  of  fruit  culture,  more  especially 
that  of  Apples  cultivated  on  the  dwarfing  system,  of  which  I  greatly 
approve.  I  have  been  a  grower  of  fruit,  and  interested  in  fruit  culture 
all  my  life,  and  in  this  country  for  over  forty  years,  so  that  perhaps  I 
have  some  little  claim  to  make  the  following  statements. 
Owing  to  the  mildness  of  this  climate,  one  of  the  worst,  if  not  the 
worst,  enemies  to  the  cultivation  of  the  Apple  is  the  woolly  aphis,  which 
attacks  both  roots  and  branches  to  such  an  extent  that  until  the  resistant 
stocks — viz,  the  Winter  Majetin  and  Northern  Spy' — were  introduced 
only  a  few  varieties  of  Apples  could «be  grown,  and  those  were  generally 
only  short-lived.  Of  the  two  stocks  mentioned,  the  Spy  is  decidedly  the 
better— in  fact,  I  believe  it  is  the  best  stock  in  the  world,  apart  from  its 
resistant  qualities. 
I  have  grown  over  500  varieties  on  it,  and  from  the  strong-growing 
Blenheim  Pippin  to  the  weakly  Siberian  Crab  have  found  the  union 
perfect — no  throttling  between  stock  and  graft,  but  a  perfect  smooth 
uni  >n,  which  cannot  be  said  of  any  of  the  Paradise  stocks  used.  Mr. 
Sharp,  owner  of  a  large  experimental  orchard  at  Waikomete,  near  Auck¬ 
land,  tells  me  he  has  fruited  upwards  of  1500  varieties  of  Apples  grown 
on  the  Spv  stock,  and  has  never  met  with  any  variety  in  which  the  union 
was  not  perfect,  I  have  found,  too,  that  they  bear  heavily,  and  produce 
extra  fine  fruit,  also  by  judicious  pruning  of  top  and  roots  dwarf  trees 
can  be  obtained.  In  one  of  our  Government  Experimental  orchards  there 
are  numbers  of  trees  not  more  than  3  feet  high  bearing  Apples,  which  for 
size  and  general  appearance  cannot  be  surpassed  by  those  produced  in 
any  other  part  ot  tne  worM.  I  feel  certain  that  if  some  of  the  English 
nurserymen  would  experiment  with  the  Northern  Spy  as  a  stock  it  would 
prove  a  success.  It  is  easily  grown,  either  from  layers,  root  grafting,  or 
from  root  cuttings. 
I  would  like  also  to  recommend  a  stock  we  have  been  using  lately  for 
stone  fruits,  called  the  Marianna.  I  believe  it  came  originally  from 
California.  Plums,  Peaches,  and  Apricots  thrive  on  it,  growing  well  and 
fruit  ng  freely.  It  does  not  sucker,  and  grows  here  as  freely  from 
cuttings  as  a  Willow. 
I  mav  add  in  conclusion  that  few  people  take  more  interest  in  horti¬ 
culture  than  myself,  and  it  I  can  interest  others  I  take  a  pleasure  in  so 
doing. — W.  J,  Palmer,  Government  Pomolocjist,  North  Island,  New  Zealand 
[Though  we  have  seen  trees  of  Northern  Spy  Apple  entirely  free 
from  the  woolly  aphis,  or  American  blight,  while  the  branches  ot  other 
varieties  of  Apple  trees  adjoining  were  infested,  it  still  appears  singular 
that  the  roots  of  the  “Spy”  stock  should  render  the  branches  ot  the 
Margil,  or  other  varieties  of  Apples  that  might  be  establi?hed  on  the 
“  Spy  ”  proof  against  the  attacks  of  the  enemy.  The  characteristic 
essences  of  Apples— at  least  that  prevail  in  the  fruit — seem  to  bo  the 
same  on  whatever  stock  the  trees  are  grown,  as  is  apparent  in  the  case  of 
several  varieties  being  established  on  the  same  stock  by  grafting.  This 
goes  to  show  that  the  leaves  are  the  agents  in  providing  those  essences  that 
give  to  varieties  of  fruits  their  particular  flavour,  and  not  the  roots,  which 
gather  the  crude  materials  that  the  stems  convey  to  the  leaves  for  elabora¬ 
tion  and  assimilation.  We  could  understand  a  branch  of  the  Northern 
Spy  growing,  as  the  result  of  grafting,  on  a  tree  of  the  Margil.  or  any 
other  Apple,  being  free  from  the  aphis,  while  the  other  branches  of  the 
tree  were  infested,  but  cannot  so  clearly  see  how  and  in  what  way  the 
roots  of  a  stock  should  have  the  potent  influence  suggested.  We  do  not 
for  a  moment  question  the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Palmer  s  statement.  We 
have  heard  of  the  same  freedom  from  the  aphis  of  trees  on  the  Spy^ 
before,  and  shall  be  obliged  if  our  Antipodean  correspondent  can  explain 
the  reason  of  the  immunity  in  question — a  matter  which  can  scarcely 
have  escaped  the  attention  of  Government  scientists.  We  have  no  doubt 
whatever  that  Apole  trees  can  be  made  abundantly  productive  on  the 
“  Spy  ”  stock,  and  ‘it  seems  to  be  worth  try  ing  in  this  country.  Ot  the 
“  Marianna’’  stock  for  stone  fruits  we  have  no  knowledge,  at  least  under 
that  name.  We  are  obliged  to  Mr.  Palmer  for  his  interesting  communi- 
cat  on.] 
