NOVEMBER, 1911. MONTHLY WEATKER REVIEW. 1776
PAPERS ON CLIMATOLOGY IN RELATION TO AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORTATION, WA!J!EB
RESOURCES, ETC.
A CARELEEIS
Under the above heading there appeared in tho Monthly Weather Review for hiarch, 1911, ptge 363,
certain notes by J. Warren Smith, professor of meteor- ology, Columbus, Ohio, in regard to the growing of peaches in Michigan ancl northern Kansas, extracted from a book on “Climate ancl Meteorology of Australia” by Commonwealth Meteorologist H. A. Hunt, Melbourne, Australia. The correspondence resulting from the publication of
these notes is herewith reproduced in order that no reflec- tion shall be cast upon the scientific reputation of A h .
Hunt, the author of the last mentioned publication.
Letterfiom Xr. Hunt to the Chitf, UjiiLed Stcrler Weather Bureau.
MELBOURNE, September 28, 1911.
DEAR COLLEAQUE: In your Uonthly Weather Review, March num- ber, just to hand, appears a libelous note, page.362, by J. Warren Smith, section director, headed “A Carelem Statement,” which if not replied to is likely to reflect upon my scientific reputation. As an officer in charge of a scientific department it should hove beeu clear to him that no atatement in rint over my name would appear without emanating from aome autgentic source of information, and also that no scientist would publish alleged facts from the unsupported source of news aper columns.
* My source o8nformation w a the report of the Meteorological Congrejj held in Chicago, 1893, printed ‘aa one of your bulletins. On page 438
you will find the statement of facts complained of. As I have never seen these dia uted by any authority in the United States I accepted them in good Zith. In fact, if the statement is incorrect, what credence can be placed in any of the published reports of papera read at that congress? In fairness to me I shall esteem it a favor if you will give space in a future issue of the Monthly meather Review for this refutation. . Will you kindly set me right in regard to Curtis’s statement, so that in revised itxmes of the bulletin “Climate and Meteorology of Auetralia” the true facts may be given. In the meantime I shall continue to
publish my former statement as being based on an authentic official
re O r t .
%inally, Mr. Smith, while accusing me of quoting a statement witli- out taking the trouble of verifying it, is self-committed on the face of i t of a similar charge, for had he read the three preceding lines of the quotation he would have noticed the following reference: “Curtis, in a paper read before the Meteorological Congress in 1893, sets forth,”
etc . I am conscious that no apology is required for bringin the matter under your notice, and at the same time desire to express &e assurance that your kind acquiescence in my request will be highly esteemed. I am, dear colleague, yours faithfully, (Signed) H. A. HUNT, Commonwealth Xet.?orologist. Prof. WILLIS L. MOORE, LL. D., Sc.D.,
The above letter was forwarded to Prof. Smith, ancl
Chief United States Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.
his statement appears below:
In the Monthly Weather Review for March, 1911, page 362, the writer, under the head of “A Carelees Statement,” referred to a para- gra h in Climate and Meteorology of Australia, by H. A. Hunt. ?he p a r a p h had reference to the effect of deforestation upon the peach crop in kichigan and northern Kansas, and in connection there- with letters were quoted from officials in both States showing that the facta were not as stated in Mi. Hunt’s book. Afr. Hunt, the Commonwealth meteorologist of Australia, states that his authority was the report uf the Meteorological Congress held in Chicago in 1893, page 438. He requests that the implication that any statement would be made in rint over his name without emanating
from some authentic source oPinformation be refuted in the pages of the Review. This I hasten to do, and herewith present an apology for such impli- cation. M criticism should have gone beyond Mr. Hunt to the authority dat he quoted. Mr. Curtis was writing of cold winds that are injurious to vegetation, and said:
STATEMENT.
“The low temperatures alone would not prove disastrous, but i t is the wind which renders the cold penetrating and destructive. These cold winds are the principal enemy of the tender peach and determine the limit of its successful cultivation. A remarkable example of their effect is to be found in the climatic history of Michigan, where a half century ago peach trees flourished and were rarely injured by the cold; but after the lumberman began his work of deforestation, Dakota blizzards made greater and greater inroads into the State, the tender peach trees were killed along their path, and now the peach crop has nearly disappeared. From the same cause the attempt to grow peaches in northern Kansas has been largely abandoned. * * bir. Hunt’s paragraph to which my article referred reads: “In Michir,,United States of America, where hdf a century ago
peach trees ourished and were rarely injured by the cold, the crops have now nearly dimppeared, owing to the removal by timbermen of the shelter afforded by the forests. In northern Kansas, too, from the same cause, the growing of peaches has been largely abandoned.” The present writer must confw that he did not notice the reference to Nr. Curtis’s paper in the lines immediately preceding the paragraph quoted from Mr. Eunt’s book, and he regrets the intimation that Mr. Hunt’s authority was some unsupported magazine or newspaper article. At the ssme time i t seems to the writer that the statement of Mr.
Curtis WAS incorrectly used to support an argument against deforesta- tion. As is well known by people a t all familiar with conditions in the Missouri Valley, and as was so well stated in the letter from the secretary of the Kansas State Horticultural Society, there were never any forests in northem Kansas to be cut off.
to the letters published with the article in the March Review. secretary of the Kansaa State Horticultural Society makes plain that there are a large number of peach trees successfully grown in northern KaIl&s. The head of the department of horticulture of the Michigan Agri- cultural College is very emphatic also in Raying that while there are not so many peaches grown in that State as formerly, the cause is not from deforestation, but because of soil exhaustion and the s read of serious diseases, with the lack of attention to these diseases. %e aays that in many cases where the proper attention is given to all details of peach production the reward is just as fine a crop as ever waa obtained. The letters from Messrs. Eustace and Wellhouse are reproduced herewith.
As to the reliability of Mr. Curtis’s statement, I can only refer a
(Signed) J. WARREN SMITH, Professor of Meteorology.
Letter froin H. J. Eustncp, Division o j Horticulture, Michigan Agricultural College Ezperiment Station, East Lansing, Mi&., Februay 21, 1911.
I t is true that peaches are not so extensively raised in the southem part of Michigan as they were some 25 years ago, but the reason is not the one that is given in the quotation in your letter by any means. The real reason is soil exhaustion, the coming of serious diseases like the peach yellows and little peach, and the spread of the San Jose scale. The old peach orchardists who could produce a crop in a very easy way are not willing to give them the care and attention now necessary to produce a crop. However, there are many cases where the proper attention to all the details of the peach production are given, and the reward is a fine crop, just aa fine &B was ever obtained.
Letter from Walter Fellhome, secretary Kansas State Horticultural Society,
Topeka, Kans., Februay PO, 1911.
Your letter to Mr. Coburn, in regard to peach growing in northern Kansas, mas handed this department for reply. I n order to wive you an idea of the extent to which peaches are grown in northern gansas, we present a statement of the number of bearing peach trees now growing in some of the northern counties, as follows: Atchison, 43,327; Brown, 57,876; Clay, 48,124; Cloud, 63,027; Doni- phsn, 58,541; Jackson, 56,151; Jewell, 321,269; Marshall, 81,487; Nemaha, 71,124; Pottawatomie, 40,158; Wdington, 93,128; total, 884,282 peach trees. Forests have not been extensively cut in northern Kansas in the recollection of ita oldest inhabitants, because no such forests existed. There are many more trees now growing in this part of our State than
were there 50 years ago, the result of planting of the inhabitants. Mr. Hunt is certctinly mistaken in his statementa as regards peach growing in northern Kansas.