Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

If the American people are really suffering for lack of meat the efforts of the Meat Board of Chicago should be regarded as a noble philanthropic effort to correct a national fault and to avert the dire consequences of the physical collapse which must necessarily result from a deficiency diet. But if it is not true that the average American eats less beefsteaks, chops, sausage, etc., than he needs, but as a matter of fact is actually suffering notable injury because of the great consumption of flesh foods of all sorts, then this persistent appeal to the American stomach to render economic service as well as to do its work of digestion, is not only a most extraordinary business anomaly but a grave menace to the health and welfare of the American people.

The discussion of this question is germane to the objects of this convention, since nuts are the vegetable analogues of meats, and hence we cannot reasonably ask nor expect that more nuts will be eaten simultaneously with an increased consumption of meat. And so I shall undertake to give in this paper some of the reasons why we may properly urge the people of this country to eat more nuts and less meat.

Nut meats are the real and original meat. Says Prof. Henry C. Sherman, of Columbia University in his admirable textbook, "Food Products":

"To speak of nuts as 'meat substitute' is natural under the present
conditions and reflects the prominence which has been given to meat
and the casual way in which nuts have been regarded for some
generations. Looking at the matter in evolutionary perspective, it
might be more logical to speak of meats as 'nut substitute'
instead."

Evidently Professor Sherman believes, as do many other eminent scientists, that nuts were a staple in the diet of primitive man. Professor Elliot, of Oxford University, in his work, "Prehistoric Man," calls attention to the fact that in the early ages of his long career, man was not a flesh eater; and the famous Professor Ami, editor of the Ethnological History of North America, and other paleontologists, hold that man began the use of meat only after the glacial period had destroyed the great forests of nut trees on which he had formerly feasted.

This, however, likewise agrees with Holy Writ. We read in Genesis 1:29: "And God said, behold I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." So the real meat grew on trees and herbs. Beefsteak and chops are poor substitutes for the real meat, which still constitutes the food of the human race, for with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon race and a few savage tribes, meat forms no substantial part of the human diet. The teeming millions of India and China, which constitute nearly half of the whole human race, eat practically no meat. The thronging millions of Central Africa thrive on corn, nuts, bananas, peanuts, manioc, sweet potatoes and melons. The same is true at the present time of the natives of Mexico, Central and South America, who find in maize, beans, potatoes and various tropical fruits ample and satisfying sustenance.

The average American consumes 165 pounds of meat a year; the Japanese, four pounds; the people of South China less--practically none at all. Taking the human race as a whole, meat fills only a very insignificant place in the world's bill of fare. Bread is the staff of life, and nuts, the real meat, are gradually recovering their old prestige. It is only in comparatively recent years that meat has entered so largely into the bill of fare of civilized nations. Major J. B. Paget, a writer in the _English Review_, calls attention to the fact that there has been in England a deterioration in stature and otherwise since the Peninsular War, the reason for which he thinks "is not difficult to discover. We are the same race with the same climate and the same water. The only difference is our diet."

According to Wellington's Quartermaster General's Report, the rations of the men who fought the Peninsular War under the Iron Duke, was one pound of wheat per day and a quarter of a pound of goat's flesh. But they had to catch the goats who ran wild in the mountains and so they seldom got that part of their ration.

According to General Sir William Butler these soldiers were "splendid men with figures and faces like Greek gods." And he adds with regret, "Such men have passed away."

Major Paget tells us that the Spaniards were greatly impressed by the fine teeth of these English soldiers and especially of their wives who accompanied them. Of their diet the Major says:

"These men before they enlisted were nearly all agricultural laborers who were brought up on a hard, wholemeal bread, garden produce, and apparently very little meat, as the consumption of meat was then _three pounds per head per annum_."

It is to be remembered also that nuts form a substantial part of the diet of that large and interesting family of vertebrates, the primates, represented by the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the orang-utan and the gibbon, animals that do not eat meat, and that man is also a primate. No authority has ever offered any reason why man's diet should differ from that of other primates.

Man is not naturally a flesh-eater. Infants usually evince a dislike for flesh when it is first given them.

Adults who use flesh foods are attracted by their flavors rather than by the nutritive elements which they supply. As a matter of fact, more and better food material is supplied by plant foods and at a far less cost.

Meats are notably deficient in vitamins, while nuts are rich in vitamin B, some, as the hazel nut, containing one-fifth as much as dry yeast. The precious vitamin A, found in only very meager amounts in meats, is found in the almond, the pine nut, coconuts and peanuts.

The minerals, too, are found in better proportions and in larger amounts in nuts than in meats.

The deficiencies in essential elements in a lean meat diet are so pronounced that when Chalmers Watson fed rats on meat they became deformed and sterile, their mammary and other sex glands degenerated and in three generations they ran out completely. Watson attributes the steady and very pronounced lowering of the birth-rate in Great Britain to the increased consumption of meat in that country, which has risen in a little more than a century from 3 pounds to more than 100 pounds per capita, while the birth-rate has fallen until it closely approximates the mortality rate. The same thing has happened in the older sections of this country, especially the New England states.

According to Newburgh, of the University of Michigan, the large consumption of meat in this country may be responsible for the high death rate from Bright's disease, which is mounting higher every year. And the same is true of diseases of the heart and blood vessels, which now claim more lives annually than any other cause. He finds that when rabbits are fed meat meal mixed with flour in bread, they soon become diseased through changes in the bloodvessels and die of old age before they are a year old.

Hindhede, of Copenhagen, a physiologist of world-wide renown, and food commissioner for Denmark, in a notable paper read before the Race Betterment Conference at Battle Creek, January, 1928, remarked as follows:

"One notices the terrible death toll in America due to Bright's
disease. I can no longer doubt that the high meat diet ruins the
kidneys, especially in view of Dr. Newburgh's experiments, proving
as they do that we may, with mathematical certainty, produce
Bright's disease even in rats by placing them on a high meat diet.

"I feared that you might doubt my statistics, and might consider me
merely another 'crank,' so I placed my figures before Dr.
Sundwall, Professor of Hygiene of the University of Michigan, and
asked him to check their correctness. Dr. Sundwall and Dr. Newburgh
recalculated the data, and authorized the publication."

Hindhede found the number of deaths per 100,000 from six causes--alcoholism, apoplexy, disorders of digestion, cirrhosis or hardening of the liver, nephritis (Bright's disease), and diabetes--to be in this country 255 and in Denmark on a low meat diet, 112. He calculates that the adoption in this country of the Danish diet, which would eliminate more than half our meats, would save the lives of not less than 200,000 of our citizens annually. And yet there are vested interests which continually clamor for the increased consumption of meats. Fortunately the American people are becoming enlightened on the subject of diet and are using less meat and more green vegetables, with less bread and cereal breakfast foods and more milk and potatoes.

Nutrition researches are daily teaching us new lessons in dietetics, some of which are of commanding importance. One of the most significant of these is the necessity for taking account of the nature of the ash left by a foodstuff in the body. There are basic or alkali-ash foods and acid-ash foods. Foods of the latter class when freely used cause acidosis. Meats are high up in the list of acid-ash foods. It is for this reason that such animals as the lion and flesh-eating men have little endurance. The American team made a poor showing at the last International Olympic meet, in the writer's opinion because of their excessive meat-eating. According to Roosevelt, a vegetarian horse, with a heavy man on his back (Teddy), was able to run down a lion in a mile and a half.

Thousands of short-winded, asthmatic people who are tired all the time and take cold at every change of the wind and think they are overworked because they find it so hard to work, are victims of acidosis from a heavy meat diet. If such persons will eliminate meat from their diet and add a pint of milk or buttermilk, they will experience an immediate physical uplift which, in some cases, will seem almost incredible.

Meat contains poisons, the natural wastes of the body. By its use, the labor of the kidneys is more than doubled.

Besides, fresh meats are always swarming with bacteria, and not the harmless sort that are found in buttermilk but the pernicious germs which have their headquarters in the colons of animals. Meats always become infected with these filthy colon germs in the process of slaughtering and the longer it is kept the more numerous the colon germs become, for they multiply amazingly fast, and this is the reason the meat becomes more tender when "hung" for a long time.

I was consulted not long ago by the manager of a large popular hotel who wanted suggestions about feeding his guests. I recommended special care in the selection of meats and the choosing of that which had been most recently killed.

"Oh!" said the manager, "my chef is on to that. He is very particular. You know our hotel meat usually has a beard of green mold on it an inch long. My chef is very careful. He never allows the beard to be more than a quarter of an inch long."

Another hotel manager told me they often had to cut away nearly half of the meat because it was so green and rotten.

This is not pleasant information but it is simply commonplace, every-day fact. Sausage, hamburger steak and "game" with a high flavor, are little if any better than carrion, and the poisons which such foods introduce into the body must all be detoxicated by the liver and eliminated by the kidneys, and thus they are worn out prematurely by overwork.

"As sweet as a nut," is an old bon mot which hides no such repulsive picture. The nut, inside its germ-proof shell, is solid nutriment of the purest sort, the very quintessence of nutrient value, sunlight in cold storage. The nut represents food energy in its most delectable and concentrated form.

From an economic standpoint, the nut leaves flesh foods so far behind that they are almost out of sight.

Experiments to determine the digestibility and nutritive value of nuts were conducted several years ago by the eminent Professor Jaffa of the University of California. His researches conducted over many months, using human volunteers as subjects, showed that nuts were well digested and created no intestinal disturbances. Later experiments confirmed and extended the observations of Professor Jaffa. These experiments, conducted by Professor Cajori of Yale University in the Yale laboratory and in the laboratory of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, have finally definitely settled the question.

Says Professor Cajori, with reference to his results: "A few years ago a rather extensive series of digestion experiments were inaugurated at Yale University in an effort to settle the question of the indigestibility of nuts and also to test out some of the commercial nut products to find what effect roasting, boiling, and other processes that nuts are subjected to had on their digestibility. Through the courtesy of Dr. Kellogg of Battle Creek, it was possible to follow up these experiments with a series at Battle Creek. It is of the result of these tests that I wish to speak."

* * * * *

"Our digestion experiments show the following results: For protein digestion of nuts--almond 89%, pecan 84%, pine nut 89%, English walnut 83%, Brazil nut 88%, and coconut 88%."

"How, then, explain the undoubted discomfort that many people experience after eating nuts? I believe the explanation rests on the fact that our common American way of eating nuts is not the rational way. We would not consider topping off a heavy meal with eggs, meat, or cereals, or eating these in large quantities between meals without realizing that we were exposing ourselves to possible digestive discomfort. No more, then, can we expect to eat nuts, which are even more concentrated or "heavy" than meats or eggs, merely as an adjunct, without occasional discomfort. Unpleasant results from so eating does not condemn the nut as indigestible; rather it condemns our mode of using that nut. Further, we must recognize that a nut is a hard compact substance, and that unless completely masticated is not readily penetrated by the digestive juices of the alimentary canal. This was very well brought out in our experiments with dogs. The dog bolts his food and where there were large fragments of the nuts in the food they appear unchanged in the feces, while if the nut was ground fine before feeding it was readily digested. Comparisons of nut butters and nut pastes with the whole nut also brought out this point. The completely comminuted nut butters showed consistently higher degrees of digestion than the whole nut."

Nuts should be used as a food staple, a major element in the bill of fare, rather than as a dessert, and special care must be taken as to thorough mastication, which is almost equally true of apples, bananas and numerous other fruits which possess a firm flesh.

To overcome the objection that some people are unable to masticate nuts properly on account of defective teeth, and to insure the proper assimilation even if not properly chewed, the writer some forty years ago conceived the idea of converting the nuts by crushing and grinding into a paste, in other words, chewing the nuts by machinery. The peanut was first utilized in this way and rapidly won its way to public favor. Now, many scores of carloads of that nut are eaten under the name of "peanut butter."

Almonds were next used, and were found to make a delicious nut paste, or butter, which by the addition of water and a little salt, became a most delicious cream. In the form of almond cream or milk nothing could be conceived in the way of nourishment which the body can more easily appropriate and more fully utilize.

As regards the necessity for eating meat, this question was definitely settled by the Inter-allied Scientific Food Commission which met during the war, without doubt the most authoritative body on the subject of food and nutrition that was ever brought together.

The question of a minimum meat ration was discussed by the Commission, and it was decided to be unnecessary to fix a minimum meat ration, since, in the words of the commissioners in their report, "no absolute physiological need exists for meat, since the proteins of meat can be replaced by other proteins, such as those contained in milk, cheese and eggs, as well as those of vegetable origin."

Quite in line with this official action was an editorial in the _Journal of the American Medical Association_, which states that "man's health and strength are not dependent on the assumed superior virtues of animal flesh as a dietary constituent."

A supreme advantage of nuts over meats is that they are absolutely free from any possible taint of disease. Those delectable foods, the walnut, the pecan, the hickory nut and the almond, are never the vehicle for parasites or other infections. Nuts are not subject to tuberculosis or any other disease which may be communicated to human beings.

Speaking of his childhood diet, Professor Stephen Mizwa says: "We had chicken, too, but I rarely tasted one unless I was sick and the chicken was sick." The voluntary eating of sick animals may be less common in this country than in Poland, but the eating of the flesh of diseased animals may nevertheless be much more extensive.

Within the year 1918 there were slaughtered in the United States a hundred million beeves, sheep, pigs and goats, one whole beast for every man, woman and child in the United States. Of this vast multitude of animals the Federal inspectors examined nearly two-thirds (60,000,000) and found one and a half per cent so badly diseased that the whole or part of the carcass was condemned. In other words, nearly a million (900,000) carcasses were found seriously diseased. But there were 40,000,000 other beasts killed and eaten which were not inspected; and they were without doubt much more badly diseased, a fact which was in many cases, most likely, the reason why no inspection was made. Allowing that three per cent of these were diseased, which is a low estimate, the total number of diseased animals found in the 100,000,000 slaughtered was not less than 2,000,000, or one in fifty of the total number. And most of these were eaten by human beings either wholly or in part.

If we should abandon meat eating in favor of nuts we would not have to worry about what our victuals died of.

By the substitution of nuts for meats all dangers associated with flesh eating may be avoided; hence their use should be encouraged in every practical way. National and state legislators should make liberal appropriations for the study of the soil and climatic conditions best suited to nut culture, and otherwise encourage this infant but most important industry.

* * * * *

MR. BRICKER: Have any of you come in contact with a black walnut, seemingly deformed, in which there is only one lobe in the shell?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Deming, what is your observation of the Stabler with one lobe?

DR. DEMING: 50% are one lobe.

MR. HERSHEY: Mr. Bixby found, I think, 60%. We don't know why there should be nuts with one lobe.

DR. SMITH: In my observation of the Stabler, the percentage of one lobe nuts is very small, not more than 5%.

MR. BRICKER: Also there is a large black walnut at Atalissa, with a very thin shell. I have seen some of them, however, that were not very well filled last year.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that a little town in Iowa?

MR. BRICKER: Yes. Below Iowa City, east of West Liberty.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wilkinson has something interesting to tell us about the discovery of a black walnut valued for its lumber.

MR. WILKINSON: Possibly Professor Smith knows more about that than I do. The first I knew of it Mr. Lamb wrote that he had found an unusual figured walnut. He had already sent scions to Dr. Morris and Mr. Bixby, and Dr. Morris suggested he send me some. When the log came Mr. Lamb found it unusually highly figured. He traced it to where it was loaded. They went to the fields and chopped into the tops until they found the tree by the figure of the wood. It had been cut two months and the wood was entirely dry. Mr. Bixby sent me two very tiny grafts. The tree sawed out something over 60,000 feet of veneer that sold from 16 to 18 cents per square foot; quite a large tree. It sawed out five logs and the stump sawed out 500 feet. Several thousand dollars for the tree. I saw several pieces of the tree last year. The most beautiful thing I ever saw. Most highly figured log that ever came into the mill at Chicago.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: Prof. Lake sent me scions named the Lion.

DR. DEMING: The figure is not in the scion wood.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: The scion wood I put on was quite curly.

DR. SMITH: Does the curly character show in the sap wood or the heart?

THE PRESIDENT: You have to go away from home to know what is going on there. It is the first I have known about that very interesting tree. I would like to get some trees of that curly type. Mr. W. K. Kellogg is very much interested in having us propagate that type.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: Mr. Link told me Mr. Linton had some.

MR. HARRINGTON: It seems to me very strange that the stump didn't sprout.

MR. WILKINSON: The stump was used.

DR. DEMING: There must have been roots.

THE PRESIDENT: Sometimes it is difficult to get them to grow.

MR. WEBER: Three miles northwest of Blufftown there is a natural hybrid between the white and chinquapin oaks. There are some samples out on the table. We picked up some of the nuts and found them edible. No trace of any bitterness whatever. You come out of Blufftown on No. 30. About a half mile above the town you turn to the left and go about a mile or more. It is at the intersection of the Erie Quarry road. It has a wire fence around it.

DR. SMITH: How do you know it is a hybrid?

MR. WEBER: From Richard Leber. It was discovered by a man by the name of Williamson, and he suggested that the state acquire the land in order to preserve the tree.

DR. SMITH: It will be another source of carbo-hydrate food.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Zimmerman is a specialist on chestnut blight, and particularly on inducing immunity.

INDUCED IMMUNITY TO CHESTNUT BLIGHT

_Dr. G. A. Zimmerman, Piketown, Pa._

Several years ago I started out to get rid of the chestnut blight. On several occasions before this notable body I told of the successes and failures I had encountered, still believing that I was on the right road and insisting that an antigen would be absorbed in sufficient amount to stimulate immunity. Science has since vindicated that assertion and men are now injecting all sorts of chemicals, and even dyes to stain the grain of the wood.

I have been very cautious in the past and perhaps should be more so now, in view of the fact that only a comparatively few years have elapsed since I began my work on plants. Still, after having used vaccines on human beings and animals for twenty-one years, and observing that plant life reacts to an antigen in a similar manner, I am at least entitled to the same conclusions. This gives me an opportunity of knowing years in advance just what to expect.

While my work is still going on as an experiment I have no hesitancy in saying that I can and have put as much active immunity to the blight into the chestnut in five years as nature has been able to place in perhaps four or five thousand years by her usual method. However it is only fair to state that such results cannot be accomplished by mere oratory. Injections must be made and the antigen must go into the plants, not in single doses, if you please, but by the thousands.

In recent years there has been considerable discussion relative to the chestnut coming back. This simply means further delay. The chestnut will come back but not before from 25 to 150 years yet. There are few roots that will stand mutilation for that period, and the few plants that do survive will have taken the shrub form like the chinquapin, and the nuts will likely be as insignificant. I have plants from a tree that holds as much immunity in the natural way as any I know, being rated at 2X, and these plants have inherited an immunity equal to the parent, no more and no less. I have, however, a lot of seedlings from Paragon and Champion trees rated at from 6X to 7X. These seedlings may confidently be expected to perform as their parents and produce many plants of equal resistance.

I shall not discuss the antigen or its method of administration. That has been covered rather carefully in former papers. I do want to say a word, however, about root stock. In a blight region it is preferable to have chestnuts on their own roots. The nearest to own-rooted plants is a graft on their own seedlings. The Chinese and Japanese chestnut in my hands has made a very poor root stock for the American chestnut or its hybrids. The European chestnut is only fair, with the chinquapin somewhat better, but having the disadvantage of being troublesome to get from the seed. The American chestnut, or its American hybrids, is by far the best, providing we can get one with immunity. I think the Rochester will shortly fill this need.

The chestnut oak has made a rather interesting stock for a few varieties, notably a Chinese and 20 No. 3, a native American chestnut sent to me from Bloomsburg, Pa. I now have a few of these double grafted with other varieties.

I might say that I am no longer interested in any chestnut, no matter how resistant it may be, unless the nut is of large size and fine quality, because I can immunize a plant bearing a good size, fine quality chestnut much easier and in a shorter time than one can be developed through hybridization from an inferior nut. I am usually, like most folks, looking for the path of least resistance.

My work has been a good deal divided during the past few years because, while I started out with the chestnut alone, now I am carrying a dozen other fruits, nuts and berries.

In closing let me state that my principle of induced immunity is sound and the procedure feasible and practical.

* * * * *

THE PRESIDENT: About the result of grafting the chestnut on a species of oak. How long have these scions been growing?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: About three years.

MR. HERSHEY: How long?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: This is not the oak that I had reference to when you were up there. These are about three years old. I think they grow a little better than on the chestnut. Many of them died. I have another scheme now; that is grafting the scions as high as I can. Get them united and then bend them over and get them to root. Some are doing nicely, others have died.

DR. SMITH. I think you complimented us by thinking we could follow you. Do you intend to vaccinate the chestnut and make it immune and then expect it to transmit that immunity in its seed? Have you checked up in the second generation?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I haven't had time yet.

DR. SMITH: Thus far you have established immunity in the living tree?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, and I have a bunch of seedlings now from nuts from immunized trees that I planted last spring. I have 200 of those. I expect them to inherit immunization from their parents.

DR. SMITH: We vaccinate each generation of youngsters.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I was speaking of the experiments with guinea pigs.

DR. SMITH: Isn't smallpox vaccination against your theory?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I don't think so. They are doing it with other things. I found a human being giving the reaction for typhoid for seventeen years after he had been immunized.

DR. SMITH: Have you any evidence for or against the decline of immunity in the tree?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I think it will decline.

DR. SMITH: Then we have got to keep on immunizing like spraying. I didn't mean necessarily annually. I mean perhaps it is not a permanent achievement.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I imagine that the tree will be sufficiently attacked by blight to keep the immunity up. It is wise to have it attacked once in a while.

MR. HERSHEY: Isn't this only carried on until you get natural resistance?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I know that it will be a long time before I can have chestnut trees to produce like Mr. Harrington's. But I am going ahead. I can't wait 17 years. All I need is some time and I will produce chestnuts of the finest varieties, as Mr. Harrington has.

DR. SMITH: How long will it take?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: They will hold their immunity as well as the Chinese. The ones I have are worth planting right now. I have trees that are standing up better than any Chinese chestnuts are. It takes a long time before the immunizing principle is so disseminated that every part of the tree will have an equal resistance. I can easily see that by cutting off a scion and grafting it I may get hold of one that has not had its immunization distributed as it should be.

DR. SMITH: A fairly ignorant man can take machinery and spray an orchard. Can he do the same with immunizing?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: No sir, he can not.

DR. SMITH: Perhaps I should not have used the word ignorant. A farm hand can spray and make a pretty good crop of apples.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: No, he can't do it. It hasn't been easy. I have run into all kinds of obstacles. As soon as I injure the stock a little bit the blight takes it. As soon as I can raise them on their own roots it will be all right. That will come.

DR. SMITH: Have you seen chestnut grafts root as the apple does?

DR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, right below the surface. A couple of them were that long. They will send out roots. Then I have noticed on some, that at the place where I grafted the callus got quite large. It got too dry and died off. I have never rooted American chestnut cuttings. I have rooted some Chinese chestnuts.

THE PRESIDENT: Some of the Chinese chestnuts root quite readily from those small shoots that come up from the ground. I conducted a little experiment in trying to propagate the Chinese chestnuts by cuttings. I made 144 cuttings. They all dutifully and beautifully died. I don't mean to say that the Chinese chestnut cannot be rooted by cuttings.

DR. ZIMMERMAN: I noticed one chestnut that was toppling over and the leaves were withering. The rats had taken it off just below the ground. I couldn't find a root anywhere, but it was callused. I cut it back and planted it again. It must have roots now for it is still green. Otherwise it wouldn't live this long.

THE PRESIDENT: Your experiments are of very great interest. If you are successful you will deserve the gratitude of this and future generations.

MR. HARRINGTON: Do you remember when we were down at the Riehl nursery that we ran into a chestnut that produces 7 to 9 in a burr?

THE PRESIDENT: I remember one tree that had a great many nuts.

MR. HARRINGTON: I had one with 7 nuts and they said there were some with 9. Was that the one named Gibbons?

DR. COLBY: That has three nuts to the burr.

DR. DEMING: Dr. Colby, there have been two instances of blight infection in Illinois. Could you tell us how the eradication was done?

DR. COLBY: In each case the tree was burned and the disease entirely eradicated by fire on the spot.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Colby has a paper from Mr. Littlepage on the plant patent law.

"PLANT PATENT ACT"

_By Thomas P. Littlepage, District of Columbia Bar, Washington, D. C._

The plant patent act is an effort by Congress, as stated in the Committee reports on this bill, "to afford agriculture, so far as practicable, the same opportunity to participate in the benefits of the patent system as has been given industry, and thus assist in placing agriculture on a basis of economic equality with industry." The act is rather short and is set forth below:

[PUBLIC--NO. 245--71ST CONGRESS]

[S. 4015]

An Act To provide for plant patents.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled._ That sections 4884 and 4886 of the Revised Statutes, as amended. (U. S. C., title 35, secs. 40 and 31), are amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 4884. Every patent shall contain a short title or description of the invention or discovery, correctly indicating its nature and design, and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery (including in the case of a plant patent the exclusive right to asexually reproduce the plant) throughout the United States and the Territories thereof, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. A copy of the specification and drawings shall be annexed to the patent and be a part thereof.

"SEC. 4886. Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, or who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced any distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber-propagated plant, not known or used by others in this country, before his invention or discovery thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof, or more than two years prior to his application, and not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned, may, upon payment of the fees required by law, and other due proceeding had, obtain a patent therefor."

SEC. 2, Section 4888 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (U. S. C., title 35, sec. 33), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sentence: "No plant patent shall be declared invalid on the ground of noncompliance with this section if the description is made as complete as is reasonably possible."

SEC. 3. The first sentence of section 4892 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (U. S. C., title 35, sec. 35), is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 4892. The applicant shall make oath that he does verily believe himself to be the original and first inventor or discoverer of the art, machine, manufacture, composition, or improvement, or of the variety of plant, for which he solicits a patent; that he does not know and does not believe that the same was ever before known or used; and shall state of what country he is a citizen."

SEC. 4. The President may by Executive order direct the Secretary of Agriculture (1) to furnish the Commissioner of Patents such available information of the Department of Agriculture, or (2) to conduct through the appropriate bureau or division of the department such research upon special problems, or (3) to detail to the Commissioner of Patents such officers and employees of the department, as the commissioner may request for the purposes of carrying this Act into effect.

SEC. 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act, no variety of plant which has been introduced to the public prior to the approval of this Act shall be subject to patent.

SEC. 6. If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Approved, May 23, 1930.

* * * * *

It is admitted by all who understand anything about horticulture that this act is intended to meet a long-felt want. The world owes much to many hard working scientists who have developed many valuable plants, both ornamental and edible, and up to the date of this act such producer had no way of reaping any very material financial benefit from his labors. The man who might invent some new and useful gadget for an automobile or other machinery was protected under the patent law, if he availed himself of it, but the man who developed a beautiful flower, a fine apple or a fine nut was wholly without protection.

The term "asexually" as used in the act, is generally understood by horticulturists to mean any method of producing a plant except from seed. It will be observed, in referring again to the act, that the man who discovers some new plant and propagates it by any of the methods covered by the term "asexually" can have such plant patented under the terms of this law, but the patent law is one that is always construed strictly and obviously the application for patent would have to be made in the name of the man who actually discovered the plant. Of course, after securing such patent, he could assign it the same as any other patent is assigned, but the question would constantly arise in this connection as to who actually was the first discoverer. Most of the sporadic fine plants, especially fruit and nut bearing trees, were matters of neighborhood knowledge many years before they actually attracted the attention of some one who recognized their full value and knew how to propagate them, and the question would arise immediately as to who was the real discoverer. Undoubtedly the man who tramped constantly around in the neighborhood of a fine nut or fruit tree and actually saw the tree but did not recognize its value, is like the man the poet describes when he said:

"A primrose by the river's brim,
A primrose only was to him,
And nothing more."

This man could not be said to be a discoverer under the terms of this law; but on the other hand the plowman who might be plodding his weary way homeward and see a fruit or nut tree bearing something unusual and who would recognize its unusual and distinct differences would be the real discoverer, but unless he could prove the fact that he had called it to the attention of others in some manner he would have difficulty in complying with the patent law and making a proper showing of originality as required by that law. But he would also, in addition to being the discoverer, have to asexually reproduce it and this he might not be able to do on account of his lack of knowledge of propagating methods.

The language of the law presents some very interesting problems to those of us who have tramped the fields and valleys in search of nut trees producing better nuts than those already propagated, and it incidently brings into the patent practice a brand new requirement. The ablest patent lawyer in America might not know the difference between a bud and a graft, a layer or cross-pollination. I have frequently had some very able lawyers who visited my farm and had their attention called to a pecan tree grafted onto a hickory, ask what kind of nuts it would bear. Of course when they ask such questions as that I promptly change the subject and begin to talk about the weather or something else; I certainly do not try to educate them in the fundamentals of tree propagation. It will also require specialists in the patent office who likewise know something of horticulture and reproduction methods of plants.

It will also be noted that the law excludes tuber-propagated plants. The Committee report states that:

"The bill excepts from the right to a patent the invention or
discovery of a distinct and new variety of a tuber-propagated
plant. The term "tuber" is used in its narrow horticultural sense
as meaning a short, thickened portion of an underground branch. It
does not cover, for instance, bulbs, corms, stolons, and rhizomes.
Substantially, the only plants covered by the term
"tuber-propagated" would be the Irish potato and the Jerusalem
artichoke. This exception is made because this group alone, among
asexually reproduced plants, is propagated by the same part of the
plant that is sold as food."

It will be noted that there is quite a spread, however, between the exact language of the law and the Committee report, for example: under the law it would appear that a dahlia might be excluded, and it also raises the question, under the language of the law, as to many of the root plants, such as peonies and others. Obviously, Congress did not intend to exclude plants such as the dahlia, peony and others, as evidenced from the excerpt in the Committee report above quoted, and whether the matter of the production of a new dahlia by cross-pollination and tested out through the growth of the bulbs, can be made to harmonize with the language of the law is the question. The Committee report says that tubers mean only "Irish potatoes and Jerusalem artichokes." It always occurred to me that the sweet-potato is also a tuber, but the Committee report apparently attempts to exclude it.

There are any number of interesting questions that occur to those of us who are fortunate enough to have some knowledge of the law as well as a few fundamental principles of horticulture, but in spite of whatever weakness the law may or may not have, it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, and meets a long-felt want.

The Secretary of Agriculture said in his letter to the Committee:

"The proposed legislation would appear to be desirable and to lend
far-reaching encouragement to agriculture and benefit to the
general public."

Thomas A. Edison, who is also quoted in the Committee report, said:

"Nothing that Congress could do to help farming would be of greater
value and permanence than to give to the plant breeder the same
status as the mechanical and chemical inventors now have through
the patent law. There are but few plant breeders. This (the bill)
will, I feel sure, give us many Burbanks."

It is certainly to be hoped that many of those interested in northern nut culture, as well as in fruits and ornamentals, will avail themselves of the privileges of this bill to give us something better. We are not satisfied with our varieties today and should not be. The greatest problem in nut culture, as well as fruit and ornamentals, is the question of variety. It will also be the most important question a hundred years from now, but the man who produces these better varieties should do so with the knowledge that under this law the fruits of his labor will be protected and he will at least have the same opportunity to receive remuneration therefrom as the inventor of a gadget.

* * * * *

DR. COLBY: I have talked with a number of men interested in the law. While they agree that it is a step in the right direction they feel that it will be a rather difficult thing to administer it. Plants differ from other objects or things or "gadgets" and considerable experience will be necessary on the part of the administration before the law will be made workable.

* * * * *

A banquet was held at the Hotel Montrose on the evening of September 17 at which about forty members and guests were present. The menu follows, and it will be noted that nuts were featured:

Canape, Montrose
(Dates stuffed with Nuts)
Iced Celery
Mixed Nuts
Queen Olives
Soup, Rothschild
(Garnished with Chestnuts)
Roast Young Capon Stuffed, Hickory Nut Dressing, Jelly
Au Gratin Potatoes
Puree of Chestnuts, Baked
Frozen Fruit & Nut Salad, Cream Nut Dressing
Wafers
Hot Parkerhouse Rolls
Black Walnut Ice Cream
Nut Layer Cake
Coffee

After the banquet the President spoke as follows:

Once upon a time I read a poem, which unfortunately I do not have here but in effect it was this: In our progress through life a great deal of injury is wrought by not showing our appreciation of people while they are with us. Let us give them our flowers now. We do want now to say a few things about the founder of our organization. In my history of this association Dr. Deming was the person who first proposed an association of this kind. I believe this was about 21 or 22 years ago, perhaps longer than that. At any rate the association has been going for some time and it was brought into existence through the thought of Dr. Deming. We should be very glad to hear from Dr. Deming.

DR. DEMING: Thank you. It is very gratifying indeed but I wish you hadn't. It is very difficult to express gratitude properly. I cannot make a speech like our friend Dr. Smith here, who I hope will make one. I can't tell a good story like our President. In fact, I feel like that man who said, "How happy is the moron, he does not give a damn. I wish I were a moron. My God! perhaps I am."

David Fairchild says that it takes the energies, the fortunes and the lives of pioneers, the best people of our country, to build up a new plant industry. I congratulate you all in being included in that class of pioneers, the best people of this country. But we haven't yet built up the great nut industry that we would like to build.

I might tell you how the idea of the nut growers association arose. In 1907 I got a little farm of forty acres in Connecticut. In 1908 I read an article by Dr. Morris, "Nut Culture as a Side Line for Physicians." I immediately wrote the doctor and he said in fifteen years I could have an income of $100.00 an acre from nuts alone. That seemed to me exactly what I wanted, $4,000 a year and live very comfortably. So I bought all the nut trees I could find. I bought nut trees from every nursery in this country that offered them in the North. I got pecans from the South. I sent to California and got filberts and English walnuts. I sent to Europe for English walnut seeds. I bought twenty acres of chestnut sprout land and grafted the sprouts. Just as the chestnuts were beginning to bear the blight came along. That ended them. The English walnuts I set around in fence corners and they grew a little smaller every year and, finally disappeared. That was the end of the English walnuts. At that time I couldn't graft hickories. With great labor I collected hickory scions and sent them to nurseries in the South and had them grafted. They arrived in the North after the ground had frozen. I told the hired man to heel them in. He heeled them in but left the top of the roots out. In the spring they were all dead. By that time my dander was up a little. I thought there must be other men who were having the same trouble. If we could have a little organization we could tell each other our troubles and perhaps work them out together. I wrote Dr. Morris, John Craig, Professor Close, Mr. Hales, and one or two others, and we met together in the Botanical Museum in Bronx Park and organized the Northern Nut Growers Association. That is all I had to do with it. Whether we will ever come to the place where they will have bands out and ticker tape flying, when we come to town--that is the thing I used to dream about a little when we first started. But I don't think we are destined to burst wide the gates of fame yet. We may after we have achieved our objects. As Dr. Fairchild has said, all our money, lives and energies must be devoted to them. We then may achieve post-mortem fame.

I want to say one thing, however, before I stop. We can't advocate the planting of nut trees if there are no nut trees to be had. Therefore, I think the Northern Nut Growers Association should do all that is possible to encourage the nursery men who are propagating nut trees. We should consider the propagating nursery men as a vital and essential part of the work we are trying to do.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Deming made some reference to stories. Once in a while a story does flit across my mental horizon. I want to tell you how the word "nut" may have a very humorous interpretation. Once upon a time in Michigan a man died. After he died the local minister went around to console the widow. When he came of course the lady was grieving. This clergyman was a very young man and he attempted to console her thus: "Now, my dear Mrs. Smith; that which you see is just the husk, the nut has gone to heaven." Another time I addressed the Women's Canadian Club. I was invited to address this group on nut culture and the President in introducing me told a story about a minister too. In this case the minister got up in his pulpit and made an announcement: "My dear friends, my sermon is on liars. I am glad to see so many present." This lady said, "Of course, Mr. Neilson cannot say 'I am going to talk today on nuts, I am glad to see so many present'." I would like to give you an outline of the progress made during the past year. In writing this I had to inject into it a great deal of my own activities. I simply couldn't get out of it. I ask you to overlook the frequent references of a personal nature.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

_Prof. J. A. Neilson, East Lansing, Mich._

This is our twenty-first meeting and the first one to be held in the state of Iowa where tall corn grows, where good nuts thrive and good people live. We are glad to come to the midwest and meet some of its people, and see what our friends the Snyder Brothers and others are doing to extend the culture of nut trees in Iowa and other midwest states.

In looking over the records of the past year we find the usual experiences common to the lot of man. We find loss and gain, sorrow and joy. Our sense of loss and sorrow is heightened when we think of the passing of our good friend and efficient secretary Mr. Henry D. Spencer of Decatur, Ill. His sudden death was a shock to us all and we feel that his passing is a distinct loss not only to our association but to his city and state. It is also a loss to us as individuals in the severance of those helpful friendships which do so much to cheer us on our way and make life worth while.

In association matters, Mr. Spencer was most active and efficient. He was zealous, original and energetic, and did a lot to create interest in nut culture in his state and other midwest areas. Of him, as of others who have labored faithfully for an ideal and passed to their reward, may it be truly said, "The just die in their turn, but falling as the flowers, they leave on earth their fruit that outlives them."

While we have lost a capable secretary and good friend we have been fortunate in securing the services of Dr. A. S. Colby as a successor to Mr. Spencer. The news of Mr. Spencer's passing came just before your president left Lansing to address the Illinois State Horticulture Society on nut culture. In casting about for a new secretary, it occurred to me that Dr. Colby was the logical man for the position. While at Urbana where the Horticultural Society met I broached the matter to Dr. Colby. At first he was unwilling but after some discussion he finally consented to take the position provided the university authorities at Urbana would agree to his taking on new duties. Dr. Blair, head of the Horticultural Department at Urbana, was then approached on the matter and graciously consented to allow Dr. Colby to assume the secretaryship for the balance of the year. Dr. Colby has fulfilled his position in a very capable manner and I am sure the other executives and members are grateful to Dr. Colby and Dr. Blair for their cordial cooperation and help in our time of need.