Some time ago it was reported that inquiries in reference to the feasibility and profits of various orchard schemes had come in to the Bureau of Plant Industry of the Agricultural Department, at Washington, in such numbers that the officials of that Bureau had considered the advisability of printing a general circular, which they could send to the inquirers, advising them to make due investigation, and giving a few general suggestions about proxy farming and orchard schemes. I was advised by a friend in the middle west that the contemplated issuance of this circular by the Bureau of Plant Industry had aroused a number of protests throughout the country, and that various Senators and Members of the House of Representatives had entered strong protests with the Secretary of Agriculture against it. A number of these protests have come to my notice, and they take various forms of opposition, but are all unanimous against the Department of Agriculture offering to the prospective purchaser any information. Various reasons for their stand were given by the protestants, but how flimsy and ridiculous they are when analyzed. Congress for a number of years has been appropriating money and authorizing certain work by the Department of Agriculture. It is the people's money, and the people's Department, and the information gathered by the experts in this Department ought to be the people's information, and it ought to be possible for any citizen to write the Department a letter about any proposition that he has received from any of these various promoters, and have the advice of those who know most about it.
I suppose the Department of Agriculture has entirely too many duties to perform to undertake a work of this kind, but what an inconsistent position it is for a Member of Congress, who has been voting for appropriations to carry on this work, to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture to suppress such information in order that some exploiter may get somebody's money under false representations. I think if it were possible today to know the list of concerns and companies who registered, directly or through agents, their opposition to this proposed warning circular, you would have a correct index of the concerns good to let alone. For no honest, reputable individual or company need be afraid of the work or suggestions of that great Department. I have the pleasure of knowing many of the officials in the Bureau of Plant Industry, and never anywhere have I seen a body of men so conscientiously engaged in the work of promoting legitimate horticultural and agricultural knowledge. It is the very life of that great Department, and its officers and employees above everyone else are most interested in seeing the land produce the most and best that it can be made to produce, and they are best qualified to pass upon these matters.
Most of the questions in these various schemes are questions of soil and horticulture. One letter in opposition to the Agricultural Department's attitude, that was brought to my attention, stated that crops varied under different conditions, and that no one was able to tell what a certain soil would or would not produce throughout a period of years, and intimated that the Department of Agriculture might mislead the public; and yet the concern that sent it printed columns of figures guaranteeing returns from pecans and Satsuma oranges in a section where orange growing is of very doubtful possibility. Boiling down these objections by the promoters, they come to simply this: That the Agricultural Department, with no motive but to tell the truth, and with its corps of trained experts, might mislead the public, but they (the promoters) could not possibly be mistaken in their fabulous figures compiled for the purpose of getting money from some misinformed victim.
Proxy farming never was a success and I do not think it ever will be. One of my friends told me a short time ago of a very successful young pecan orchard on the gulf coast. Upon inquiry I found that it was of reasonable size, nine years old, and that the owner had lived in it nine years. It was not 500 acres in extent, or 1,000 acres, or 2,000 acres, but about 20 acres. Last summer I went into a beautiful apple orchard in Southern Indiana and saw about forty acres of trees bending to the ground with delicious Grimes Golden apples. On that particular day there were great crowds of people walking among the trees and admiring the fruit. I too walked among the trees a short time, but of greater interest to me than the trees was the old, gray-haired man who had made the orchard. The trees could not talk, but he could, and he told the story of the years of care, and diligence, and work, and thought, and patience, that showed why it is not possible to cover the mountains of a state with orchards bringing almost immediate and fabulous incomes.
Some time ago I stood talking to the old superintendent of the Botanical Garden in Washington—William R. Smith, now deceased—and while discussing with him the requisites for tree culture, he said "Young man, you have left out the most important one of them all," When I asked him what I had left out, he said "above all things it takes the eye of the master." So it does, and the master is he whose vigilance is continual, who watches each tree as if it were a growing child—as indeed it is, a child of the forests—who has the care and the patience, and who is not dazzled by the glitter of the dollar, but who loves trees because they are trees.
Theoretically, one can figure great successes in big horticultural development propositions, but these figures rest upon theory and not fact. It would be difficult to state all the reasons why I have a firm conviction that such big schemes of every kind will fall, but I believe this conviction is shared by the foremost thinkers in the horticultural world. A four-year-old boy was once taken to see the animals in a circus. He was very much interested, but, when shown the tremendous elephant, shook his head and said "he is too big."
A small grove properly handled ought to be an excellent investment. The various uncertainties and vicissitudes involved can, in a degree, be compensated for by great care; and I suppose it would be possible even with some of these big schemes—by placing enough money behind them—to insure a fair degree of success. It must be borne in mind, however, that these promoters, of whom we have been speaking, are not so much concerned in the successful orchard as they are in big salaries and profits, and, if one has money enough to pay big salaries and profits, and still pay for the proper care of the orchard, then he does not need an orchard. Most of these promoters charge too much for a proper and honest development alone, and too little for the proper development plus the profits and salaries of the promoters. I wish it were not so. I wish the old earth could be made to smile bountiful crops without such expensive tickling, but this is one of the checks and balances that nature places upon her great storehouse of wealth.
The Chairman: This is a matter of very great importance and I hope we shall have a good discussion, from a practical point of view, by men who know about fraudulent promotions and their effect. We ought to go on record in this matter right now. I know of numbers of teachers, doctors and other poor people who have put money into nut promotion schemes without knowing anything about the ultimate prospect of profit.
Mr. Hutt: One noticeable thing about the promoter's literature is that he never knows anything about crop failure, and in the agricultural and horticultural world that is a thing that is painfully evident to a man who has been in business a great length of time. In the promoter's literature it is just a matter of multiplication; if one tree will produce so much in a year, a hundred trees will produce a hundred times as much. I got a letter the other day from Mr. S. H. James, of Beaumont, Louisiana, and he said, "I have been very fortunate, I have actually had two good crops in succession," and when you come to compare that with the promoter's literature—why he knows no such thing as crop failure. Anybody who knows anything about agricultural or horticultural work knows that we have winter and floods and everything else to contend with.