The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1908-08-15


the size of the apple box.
l am in favor of uniform box and
stated so in nay article under re-
view. The fruitgrowers in the North
west have been working to that end
and have largely succeeded in bring
ing about uniformity. l am in favor
of an honest pack, hence all that Mr..
White says in this letter about "stove-
piping" potatoes and onions, about put
ting one-sized apples in the top and
bottom layers and smaller ones in the
middle, about cutting off the ends and
sides of boxes to make them fit the
apples, has nothing to do with our
differences. Besides, Mr.. White knows
that tricks, whether in the grower or
handler cannot be remedied by chang
ing the size of the box. In fact, fully
three-fourths of this letter has moth
ing to do with the size of the apple
box, and | am somewhat afraid that
I have done Mr.. White harm by pub
fishing his entire letter, for some peO-
pie may think that all this irrelevant
matter is furnished by our correspond
ent for the purpose of obscuring the
real issue. I think Mr.. White in his
zeal to make his case as strong as
possible has done himself injustice
by Juggling in these irrelevant mat
ters.
l am in favor of rigid inspection of
all fruit packages. The chief objec-
ton l have to the Porter bill, aside
from it's changing the size of the ap-
pie box, is that the standard for mo.
1" apples is too low. What is that
standard? 1t is that mot less than
80 per centum must be free from scab,
worm holes, bruises and other de-
fects." l would have SO per cent free
of defects. AS to the size of the apple
barrel required in the Porter bill,
have nothing to say-let the men who
use the barrel settle that-but we ask
that we who use the box be allowed
to settle it's size and we want it uni
form throughout the United States.
Now am very much mistaken if there
is any difference between Mr.. White
and myself on any of the matters he
discusses in his letter except on the
one point-the size of the apple box.
Now let us consider this difference.
Mr. White is in favor Of Congress
adopting the Porter bill, which would
make the apple box contain 1854 cub.
ic inches and then call that bushel.
But so far as the cubic contents Of
bushel is concerned the government
has never had but one standard, and
that is the Winchester bushel, which
contains 2,1504 cubic inches. Now
this bill becoming a law, the govern
ment would have two standards for
the cubic contents of bushel. How
much would this new regulation add
to the contents of bushel? Almost
one-fifth, or 20%. Why should the
grower be required to add 20% to
the legal contents of a bushel? The
only reason that can be assigned is
that the custom has prevailed in many
parts of the United States and in
England to heap up the bushel meas
ure somewhat in selling apples in
bulk. Has there ever been any law
defining how much the cubic contents
must be for this heaped up condition?
None whatever. Will any sane man
claim that this underlined addition is
equal to 20% of the bushel? No; in
fact, it would be stretching the mat
ter very much to claim that it would
be 10 per cent. Apples thus sold by
measure are not in closed packages,
but are sold in bulk. Now the apples
sold in boxes are IN closed packages
and are not poured into the boxes,
but are packed in tiers, and as con-
sequence do not occupy as much space
as when poured into the boxes. If
anyone doubts this let him empty
box of we'll packed apples and then
pour them into the box and see if
he will not have about all the box
will hold as heaped up measure.
Mr.. White does not claim that there
is any legal standard for the cubic
contents of a bushel except the Win