Dr. Robert T. Morris, New York
The question of the planting of nut trees along highways and in parks and other public grounds falls into classification under two separate and distinct heads. First, the abstract proposition of planting useful trees upon ground which is not usefully occupied otherwise. Second, the reaction of human nature to the different phases of the proposition. The latter part is the larger part of the question, otherwise the work would already have been done.
Let us take up the smaller part of the question first. Nut trees which are indigenous to any locality, or allied species from other countries having similar soil and climatic conditions, will grow and thrive on public grounds quite as well as upon private property. They will be as beautiful and as useful upon public grounds as they are upon private property, speaking in a large way, although disposal of their products will go along different channels perhaps. Nut trees of various species will be quite as beautiful and distinctly more useful than any of the other trees that are commonly selected for planting upon public grounds. Because of the inclusion of the economic factor the question as to whether nut trees may well supplant the kinds of trees commonly selected is not a debatable question.
Let us leave this part of the subject however and take up question number two, relating to the human nature side. A little examination into this phase of the matter will disclose reasons why nut trees are not already along our highways and in parks and other public grounds. The supplying of trees on a large scale for such a purpose is commonly done by contract with nurserymen. Nurserymen find it more profitable to raise certain kinds of trees instead of other kinds. Nurserymen are prone to raise kinds which are most profitable. Public officials who are making contracts sometimes look for perquisites. These include acceptance from nurserymen of bonuses for letting the contract. Here then we have at the very outset of the problem two large obstacles to the purchase of nut trees for public places. The carrying forward of any large project of this sort means reliance upon someone with legislative resources. In my experience legislators are commonly keen to approve of any project which will render public service when they are fully convinced of that fact. If not fully convinced of that fact and reserving the feeling that private interests are being served they wait until somebody who knows how to see the legislator has seen him. Another phase of the question relates to the attitude of the people toward public property in a so-called free country. People are prone to take anything that they please from anything which is so impersonal as a country. Nut trees planted in public places would have their crops carried off by every passer by to such an extent that revenue for the upkeep of the trees would be difficult to obtain. In some of the European countries this obstacle has not been insurmountable. There are many villages in Europe in which privately owned fields are not even fenced and fruit and nut trees growing for the benefit of the village are left untouched by the passer by in this older civilization. A man would no more think of taking what belonged to the town than he would think of taking property from the storehouse of a neighbor. In this country we have not yet arrived at that point in civilization. The distinction between meum and tuum in a free country is sometimes blurred.
What are we to do about this whole question? That is the practical point. Change human nature and educate the public. In towns belonging to our system of government there is some question if the public would ever allow nut trees to bring revenue sufficient for their upkeep and to yield a profit for the town. On the other hand, by means of education the public may come to desire the planting of nut trees along the highways and in other public places to the extent that it will submit to taxation for the purpose. The public planting of nut trees belongs to progress. If we are to remain boastful of progress in this country the question will gradually be developed in a practical way.
The President: You have heard the reading of Dr. Morris's paper. Are there any remarks thereon or any discussion?
Mr. A. C. Pomeroy: Some years ago there was objection raised at Los Angeles to the use of sewage water for irrigating purposes in raising tomatoes and other vegetables. The city then bought the property and set out orchards of English walnuts. I understand that they are growing and that the revenue goes to the city of Los Angeles.
As to the road-side planting of nut trees in Europe, to which Dr. Morris refers, the very first battle fought in the great world war when the Belgians were resisting the Germans was along where there were thirty miles of English walnut trees on both sides of a highway. I understood that every tree was demolished. I think our secretary or treasurer could find out about the Los Angeles park and the nut trees.
As to monument trees, about twelve or fifteen years ago, at my home, I set out a grove in our cemetery in memory of my father and it is doing fine. It seemed quite appropriate for he took such an interest in nut growing.
The Secretary: I would like to speak a word in defense of our American civilization, as evidenced by something that Mr. Bixby and I saw this summer at Lockport, New York. We observed that one of the main highways leading from the town of Lockport to one of the principal lakeside resorts, was unfenced, lined with fruit trees on both sides—cherry trees which overhung the sidewalk. The sides of the road also were planted with tomatoes and other vegetables apparently unharmed. The trees certainly did not show any evidence of injury from depredations. Whether the products of the trees were taken or not I do not know but they still had fruit on them. Possibly those who live in that neighborhood—Mr. Olcott and Mr. Pomeroy—could tell us more in defense of American civilization as to depredations on road-side property.
Mr. Pomeroy: There are some people—what do you call them—dung hills—in this world, and I have had a little trouble with them but not much. They run around in automobiles and get out and take fruit. Dr. Deming and Mr. Olcott know how close the school house is to my home. The fact is the children walk under the nut trees when they take the cut through the private driveway, but I have very little trouble with them. I think the greatest object lesson was given last year, when two young men, who were hunting pheasants, took a half bushel of nuts and were caught at it. They did not think it amounted to anything. They came along up to the house and the nuts were taken and put upon the drying rack. While they were arguing an automobile stopped and the nuts were sold. They came to nine dollars and a few cents by the pound. One of these young men—he was in the retail tobacco business,—threw up his hands and said, "I admit it; I would not want you to walk into my store and grab nine or ten dollars' worth of goods; I admit this is all wrong."
Mr. R. T. Olcott: I have been very much surprised in the discussion of road-side planting, of fruit and nut trees at the prominence given to that feature of it which deals with the public taking the crop. That seems to me to be such a minor part of the proposition as to be almost negligible, and while it continues to arouse discussion I cannot see the vital importance of it. In a great many undertakings there are drawbacks but the undertakings go right on and when the difficulties arise they are met in turn. I think the thing for this association, and all others in favor of road-side tree planting to do is to go ahead with the proposition and forget the question of the crop and what is going to be done with it. As a matter of fact farmers are complaining continually of the depredations on their orchards resulting from the increase of automobile parties—perfectly respectable people going out on the road-side and helping themselves. If fine fruit and nut trees were planted along the road-sides and the crops were being picked, it seems to me that, under a general understanding that the public was to let these trees alone, and that any one caught or seen picking the crops would be reported by the one following, it would automatically police itself. The finger of ridicule would be pointed at a person who was so doing by somebody other than a uniformed officer, in other words by an ordinary citizen. I speak of that because in Rochester during the war when it was deemed necessary not to run automobiles on Sunday it was as much as his life was worth for a man to be out with his car on Sunday, not because of any police officer but because of the other fellow who was staying at home. I think that the other travelers along the road will take care of the fellow that violates the understanding about roadside fruit and nut trees.
The Vice-President: I come from Rochester, New York, and I know that in and around Rochester there are fruit-bearing trees planted along the roadside. Out on the road to Honeoye Falls there are a number of apple trees and out through the Webster section there are a number of cherry trees. I do not know what the results have been in the garnering of crops, but the appearance of the trees indicates that they are well cared for and that they are producing abundant crops of fruit. In Albany, Georgia, planted on the street side in front of the court house, are a number of pecan trees. I have seen them loaded to capacity with splendid seedling nuts. I understand that any one walking along the sidewalk under the trees has the right to pick up any nuts that are on the walk but is not permitted (at least it has been suggested that he do not) to reach up into the trees to take the nuts. I understand that the request has been very faithfully regarded and that it is very rare that the nuts are picked from the trees. Just what is done with the crop of nuts from those trees I do not know but I assume that it is harvested and marketed and the returns made to the town. The trees indicate that they are splendidly cared for and the citizens take a great deal of pride in their splendid appearance. I talked with the man who planted them, an employee of the court house, and he himself was simply delighted that he had been responsible for such a splendid monument. And property owners referred to in my home section, before whose premises these cherry trees and apple trees were planted, I feel very sure would not complain at all bitterly, if at all, about any filching that might be indulged in. So that I think, as Mr. Olcott has suggested, that maybe we are trying to cross the bridge before we get to it; that the thing to do is to urge the planting of nut trees on the roadsides and to stimulate a sense of pride in our American citizenship.
Mr. Olcott: We all agree that trees of this kind planted along the sides of city streets would never be touched. I have been at Miami, Florida, and have seen the bearing coconut trees there. No one would think of knocking off one of those coconuts and thousands of people pass under them.
The Secretary: I think it is very important to have brought out this optimistic view on the question of depredations on road-side fruit trees. I think it is only a question of time, as Mr. Olcott says, when the public will be educated to respect such products. If they have done it in other countries we can do it in this country. It is a question of the people becoming accustomed to it when we have enough of such products. When the whole country is covered with such products I think there will be no difficulty about maintaining respect for them. You know that sometimes after the loss of a very small amount of property there will be very great reaction. Some people feel that because robins take a few cherries or strawberries all robins ought to be exterminated.
There are two other remarks in Dr. Morris's paper which should have consideration. I refer to those bearing upon nurserymen and public officials.
Mr. Olcott: If there is any question relating to nurserymen, we are very fortunate in having one of the most prominent nurserymen in the United States at our meeting today. I refer to Mr. John Watson, of Princeton, New Jersey.
The President: We certainly would be glad to hear from Mr. Watson. If I may be permitted to make a statement from the chair I agree fully with what Mr. Olcott has had to say as to depredations. Possible depredations in connection with the trees that may be planted along the road-side, either fruit or nut, are hardly worthy of consideration. With my good wife in passing through New York State recently I drove through rows of fruit trees on either side of the roads, as did Dr. Deming and Treasurer Bixby, and we were surprised to see that they were loaded with apples. The fact that the trees were loaded with fruit of course proved that the fruit had not been stolen or taken from the trees. They had not been disturbed in any way. A number of years ago while holding the position of postmaster in Saginaw I planted a black walnut. That walnut has produced a fine walnut tree. I selected a nice place on the post office grounds at a corner where two of our prominent streets meet in the business portion of the city. Last fall for the first time that tree bore walnuts—about a bushel and a half; and the employees of the postoffice gathered those walnuts and sent them in a complimentary way to me. Now that tree being in a public place, you would naturally expect the boys to have taken the nuts from it, but they did not do it. So that I know that that particular phase of this question as Mr. Olcott has said is hardly worthy of consideration. Suppose now and then the boys do get a few fallen walnuts or apples. No harm is done. Just that much more food is produced for their benefit by this way of planting.
I now take pleasure in calling upon Mr. Watson relative to Dr. Morris's reference to the nursery business.
Mr. John Watson: I am afraid that Mr. Olcott's suggestion might possibly have given you the idea that I have something to say on this question or that I wanted to say something on it. I assure you that that is not the case. I am not a member of your association much to my regret. I am just visiting here trying to learn something from your meeting (this is the first one that I have attended) rather than to try to tell you something.
The question is whether I have any objection to make to Dr. Morris's two statements. I can say that they are both very reasonable. As a nurseryman I have no objection. Of course, I cannot speak for any other nurseryman.
I was rather surprised upon looking at the roll of those in attendance at this convention at the absence of nurserymen. I should think that those who produced the things that you people are trying to interest the country in would be the very men who would be the most interested in being here. It seems to me that you are trying to make a market for the goods that they are producing. I am rather surprised not to see at least half the attendance here made up of nurserymen.
It is entirely possible that I have not have understood those two statements made by Dr. Morris and I may be rather careless in saying that I do not object to them. They were, I believe, that nurserymen prefer, naturally, to produce the things that they can produce most easily and at least cost, and, in the second place that they produce the things that they can sell. That is what most manufacturers do. I could not find fault with either statement. The nurseryman as a manufacturer or as a merchant of course produces the things that people want to buy. He may go a certain distance in producing the things that are worth while, that are better than other things; but in the last analysis he must depend upon the buying public and the buying public is always going to get from the nurseryman just exactly what it demands.
The Secretary: In regard to the presence of so few nurserymen at our meetings I would like to say that we have long tried to interest the nurserymen in nut growing. We always have had a few nurserymen with us; but I think without exception they have been those who had either previously become interested in nut growing or had become interested in it through some other influence than that of this association. It has been a great disappointment to us that we have never been able to interest the nurserymen generally. Although we have at times sent special communications to a great many nurserymen I think we have universally failed to get any response except from those who were already interested in nut growing.
The President: I do not think there is a movement in the country today that will amount to as much for the nurserymen of America as this particular movement that we have been promoting for a few years back. I know that it is becoming universal. During my short experience as your president I have found that inquiries have come from all over the United States asking how they may procure these trees and especially asking how they may procure the finest varieties. It is along that particular line that the nurserymen certainly could extend their business greatly; because as this movement of road-side planting goes along the man who has a good farm, the general farmer in his business, or any man with a small piece of ground that he can call his own, will want to plant a good nut tree thereon of a most improved variety. Now so many of these trees will be called for in the next few years (I do not think I am over-optimistic in the matter at all) that it will be impossible to supply the demand. So I am sure that any man who is regularly engaged in the nursery business will find that he will be called upon to supply a demand for the better class of trees that really cannot be filled for years to come. In this way his business will be largely benefited. Are there any further remarks on this particular phase of the question?
Mr. Olcott: As editor of the American Nurseryman I am especially interested in this discussion. There is scarcely a catalogue of a southern nurseryman of any consequence but lists nut trees; and yet we have the Northern Nut Growers' Association convention here now, and we will have a National convention in Mobile next week right in the heart of the pecan growing section at neither of which will there be a half dozen nurserymen. I think both of these associations should have more nurserymen members. They list nut trees but do it in a perfunctory way. I do not believe nurserymen know what this northern association is doing nor how near they are to the demand for the trees which will be wanted in the very near future. I think it is up to this association to make special efforts to acquaint them with the facts, and then I think they will come in and be active members. All persons connected with nut culture and all nurserymen ought to be most active members of such an organization as this. The subject should go before the membership committee.
Mr. Samuel L. Smedley: I have had a little experience with black walnuts and have found that they do not mix at all with farm crops nor with fruit. Possibly you folks from Michigan can solve the problem but I would not thank anybody for planting black walnuts along the road in front of my place. I am in favor of road-side planting but I do not think black walnuts would be acceptable in this part of the country, from what my experience has been.
The Treasurer: Let me ask why it is you think they would not be acceptable.
Mr. Smedley: I had a grand big walnut tree on my place at one side of the road. I tried to get apple trees to grow on the opposite side of the road but could not and it could not be accounted for by any other reason. I know other people have come to the some conclusion that certain things would not grow near a walnut tree. Some grasses will. If you go down through Lancaster County along the Lincoln Highway you will find a quantity of locust trees thriving there. Wheat and things will grow right up to the roots of those trees, but I do not think you will find that they will grow up to a black walnut.
The Treasurer: I had a chance to observe, last summer, a black walnut tree out in the field with a crop planted right under it. It seems to me it is a question of shade. With this walnut tree with branches low down the corn seemed to be stunted where it grew a little way under the branches. On the other hand I saw another one where the branches were high up and cabbages growing almost up to the tree and about as luxuriantly as outside of its branches. It seems to me that it is a matter of shade rather than the tree getting the fertility in the ground. It may be that if the fertility in the ground is not sufficient for both tree and crop the tree will take it and let the crop suffer. But I imagine if there is enough for both, and the crop is not shaded, the crop can be grown much nearer the tree than we have any idea of.
Mr. J. G. Rush: I want to say a word about this way-side planting in our neighborhood. I do not think it is the general practice in Lancaster County where land is valued at two or three hundred dollars an acre. If you plant a walnut tree on a public thoroughfare there is temptation for children to go there to gather walnuts, endangering their lives on account of the automobiles.
One gentleman said something about a walnut tree damaging the crops. In my experience with black walnut nursery trees some have what is called a very strong top root while others have a deep root. It is the first kind, the surface rooted, that will do your crop damage but not the deep-rooted kind.
Now another thing. Suppose one plants a cherry tree. To whom do the cherries belong? To the man who planted the tree practically on his premises. But the limbs extend out on the public highway. If I, the owner, take a ladder out there and pick cherries and an automobile comes running past and throws me down I am practically a trespasser on the public highway. I believe I would not plant along the public highway with the idea of getting any fruit from the trees. I think however when you have a railroad going through your premises it is entirely practicable to plant your nut trees alongside the railroad, especially where there is a fill. Where the roots will grow under it and thrive luxuriantly. Nearly every farmer has a small stream running through his premises. You plant your walnut trees or your filbert trees along that stream, and you will have magnificent results. I do not want to be understood as disparaging nut tree planting.
Mr. D. F. Clark: I would like to know if the planting of black walnut trees is discriminated against because of the difficulty of getting the meat out of the nut. I have made a great many experiments and have not been able to get the meat out of the nut in large pieces. Is there some kind of a machine made for that purpose? Black walnut kernels bring a splendid price and if we could get them open right it would be fine.
The Secretary: That difficulty is being taken care of by the improved varieties which are being raised and which you can get on grafted trees.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Bixby in regard to its being the shade of black walnut trees that affects the crops growing near them rather than the roots of the trees. I have seen the same thing that Mr. Bixby describes, a high-pruned black walnut tree with wheat growing clear up to the trunk. I have photographs of a number of fields in Europe where the English walnut is grown. The trees are pruned high and the wheat grows up close to the trunks of the trees.
I would like to say also that I think it is the purpose of those who advocate the road-side planting of trees not to do it forcibly nor to compel anybody to have trees planted in front of his premises if he does not want them, but to give him a voice in the selection of the kind of trees that should be planted in front of his property. I think that is a necessary thing for the success of the movement, that the co-operation of the property owners should be invited by giving them a voice in the selection of the trees that are planted in their location.
Dr. Rittenhouse: I feel that this matter of the injury caused by a black walnut to surrounding vegetation should be more thoroughly thrashed out. It is doubtful to my mind whether the injury that a black walnut produces on surrounding vegetation is solely due to shade. Seven years ago I planted an apple orchard and some of the young trees began to be injured by a large walnut tree possibly seventy five feet away. The walnut tree happened to be on the line and I got the permission of my neighbor to cut the walnut tree down. The apple trees immediately began to thrive. I thought perhaps it was due to the roots demanding too much moisture from the soil because it was impossible for the shade to do any harm to those young apple trees. There is a superstitious idea among the people of our locality that the black walnut root is injurious to growing vegetation.
Mr. Smedley: In my case the walnut tree was on the opposite side of a public road thirty feet wide and the influence was shown to the second row of apple trees on the other side. I do not think it was the shade in that case. The limbs were pretty high too. It was a public road. I do not think there were any roots that reached the apple trees at all.
Mr. McGlennon: Mr. Rush's reference to the ownership of the crop on trees planted on the road-side is a thought that has occupied my mind, and I have found some consolation in the belief that the ownership of land applies from the center of the roadway. I am not sure about that and I think it is a point that ought to be clarified.
Mr. Smedley: I think in Pennsylvania the public just have the right-of-way there; they have no claim to anything that grows.
The President: In Michigan, the law applies that the ownership goes to the middle of the highway. The recent act of the legislature of our state causes the state highway commissioner to plant trees for the maintenance of the roadway. The planting of the trees he claims benefits the roadway, so that under that application he plants the trees for the maintenance of the road. The distance from the fence line varies. The state highway department of Michigan has a department for the planting of trees since the law introduced by Senator Penney some two or three years ago came into effect. The commissioner varies his planting, sometimes in groups and sometimes in a formal way, according to the stretch of road; but the basis of it all, perhaps, would be thirteen feet from the lot line on each side of the road. Our roads, or at least ninety per cent of them, are sixty-six feet in width. Thirteen feet from the lot line on each side would take twenty-six feet, and planting them forty feet apart in the other direction makes those trees forty feet apart each way. A great majority of the trees being planted in Michigan follow that particular plan, so they are thirteen feet from the property holder's fence line.
I might say that occasionally the highway commissioner would run across an obstinate individual who would not plant trees in front of his place nor permit such trees to be planted as would conform to the other plantings. But the law passed at the last session of our legislature leaves it entirely in the control of the planting department of the highway department. The law reads that the owner of the adjacent property shall have the privilege of gathering the fruit or nuts or whatever may come from that tree. He has no better right, perhaps, than any other citizen of the State of Michigan, but he is there and can get the first ripe fruit or nuts which come from the tree. The President: Are there any further remarks upon this subject? If not, I have a paper prepared by Prof. A. K. Chittendon, Professor of Forestry in the Michigan Agricultural College, which I will ask the secretary to read.