The following is from 1840, and was in the Genesee Farmer. Thorburn threw Bateham, owner of the Rochester Seed Store, under the bus in a previous issue. Mr. Bateham writes a good article that tries to make clear the issue of responsibility for people's dashed expectations for Thorburn's China Tree Corn.
CHINA TREE CORN: And the Rochester Seed Store.
Mr. Tucker–Since my return from England, I have been looking over the Agricultural papers received during my absence, and observe numerous articles on the subject of Thorburn's celebrated China Tree Corn, most of which condemn it as an “imposition,” “humbug,” &c.
Mr. Tucker–Since my return from England, I have been looking over the Agricultural papers received during my absence, and observe numerous articles on the subject of Thorburn's celebrated China Tree Corn, most of which condemn it as an “imposition,” “humbug,” &c.
Many of the writers obtained their seed directly from Mr. Thorburn, and of course must look to him for any explanation they may require. But others obtained it through different seedsmen, and seem inclined to suspect them of selling a spurious article for the sake of gain.
In your paper of the 7th of October, is a communication from Syracuse, signed W., and headed “Gross Imposition”. The writer, after stating that he was induced to try the corn from reading Grant Thorburn's glowing account of it, complains that it did not answer the description, and proved inferior to our common varieties.
He then adds:
“We look upon the matter in this section, as a gross fraud practiced upon the public for the sake of gain. The odium at this time is principally attached to Mr. Thorburn, inasmuch as he has the credit of furnishing all the seed; some of which, I am informed, came directly from his store in New-York; most of it, however, that was planted in this vicinity, came thru the ‘Rochester Seed Store,' but was said to be genuine seed from Thorburn's. We look for a satisfactory explanation.”
In the Farmer of November 9th, is a reply to W. from Grant Thorburn himself. But, to me, it is far from being a “satisfactory explanation.” He says, he “thinks W. has not got the true kind,” and then adds, “the seed sold by his sons in New York, Albany and St. Louis, was genuine.”
I am afraid old friend Laurie is becoming rather uncharitable of late, and since he is so free with his insinuations, I shall have to “unfold a tale” which, I fear, will render his defense of but little service to him.
Soon after Mr. Thorburn published his wonderful corn story last fall, I began to have numerous inquiries after the seed. Accordingly, on visiting New York in October, I purchased of Mr. G. C. Thorburn a quantity of the corn, and was informed that his supply was limited and selling rapidly. Soon, after reaching home, this lot was all disposed of, and I sent to Mr. Thorburn and obtained an additional supply.— This was all sold during the winter, and as the spring approached, the demand seemed to increase.
By this time, I expected to hear that Mr. Thorburn's stock was entirely exhausted, as he had stated that he only raised a small patch of about 200 hills; but to my surprise, I was informed that his supply was still adequate to the demand, although orders poured in upon him from every quarter.
O, rare Laurie Todd, thought I, your corn is certainly “something new under our sun,” and well did you name it “Prolific,” for it seems to possess the miraculous properties of the ancient Widow's oil—the more you draw from it, the more there is left!
Being rather skeptical on the subject of modern miracles, I determined to inquire into the mystery. I then learned that the wonderful “new variety'' was an old acquaintance among the farmers of Long Island, several of whom had cultivated it for a number of years, and were then selling their crops to Mr. Thorburn, to supply the immense demand which he had occasioned.
Supposing I had contributed my share towards the nameless “charitable institutions”, I now purchased a further supply of seed from Mr. G. R. Garretson, of Flushing, which I have the fullest proof was the same in every respect as was sold by Mr. Thorburn. All that was had or sold at the Rochester Seed Store, were the two lots from Mr. Thorburn and one from Mr. Garretson. The following letter was lately received from Mr. Garretson in relation to the seed from him:
O, rare Laurie Todd, thought I, your corn is certainly “something new under our sun,” and well did you name it “Prolific,” for it seems to possess the miraculous properties of the ancient Widow's oil—the more you draw from it, the more there is left!
Being rather skeptical on the subject of modern miracles, I determined to inquire into the mystery. I then learned that the wonderful “new variety'' was an old acquaintance among the farmers of Long Island, several of whom had cultivated it for a number of years, and were then selling their crops to Mr. Thorburn, to supply the immense demand which he had occasioned.
Supposing I had contributed my share towards the nameless “charitable institutions”, I now purchased a further supply of seed from Mr. G. R. Garretson, of Flushing, which I have the fullest proof was the same in every respect as was sold by Mr. Thorburn. All that was had or sold at the Rochester Seed Store, were the two lots from Mr. Thorburn and one from Mr. Garretson. The following letter was lately received from Mr. Garretson in relation to the seed from him:
Flushing, L. I., Nov. 5th, 1839.
Mr. M. B. BATEHAM—
Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiries about the China Tree Corn, which I sold you last spring, I would state, that it was precisely the same as was advertised and sold by Mr. Thorburn, under the name of “China Prolific Tree Corn.” It was raised by Mr. Jonathan Mingo, of Flushing. Mr. Thorburn purchased some of the same man, and I sold Mr. Thorburn some of the same lot as that sold you.
Yours, &c. G. R. GARRETSON
Owing to its southern complexion, I always had some doubts of the adaptedness of the corn to this northern climate, and I never recommended it to my customers, any more than to refer them to Thorburn's own account of it, and let them take it on his responsibility alone. My patrons may rest assured that I shall always be ready to give full, and I trust, “satisfactory explanation” of any matters affecting the reputation of the Rochester Seed Store.
The task of a seedsman is generally a thankless, as well as a difficult and responsible one. And while I do not mean to shrink from any blame or responsibility which justly belongs to me, I cannot consent to become responsible for the statements of every puffing “new variety” monger, who may have a fine patch of corn or potatoes to dispose of; even though the profits are to be given to charitable institutions.
M. B. BATEHAM. Rochester Seed Store, Nor. 25, 1839.
P. S. I am frequently asked, what “charitable institutions” received the donation promised by Mr. Thorburn; and some persons actually suspect that he pocketed the funds.
But any one at all acquainted with the unimpeachable character of Grant Thorburn, considers that to be an impossibility. The only reason I can give for the non-appearance of any public acknowledgment, is, that it would be offensive to the modesty of the donor, who doubtless wishes to “let his alms be done in secret.”
Still, as this money was made up of contributions from many who do not think they received an equivalent in return; justice to their feelings renders it necessary and proper that the receipt of the donation should be publicly acknowledged.
M. B. BATEHAM. Rochester Seed Store, Nor. 25, 1839.
P. S. I am frequently asked, what “charitable institutions” received the donation promised by Mr. Thorburn; and some persons actually suspect that he pocketed the funds.
But any one at all acquainted with the unimpeachable character of Grant Thorburn, considers that to be an impossibility. The only reason I can give for the non-appearance of any public acknowledgment, is, that it would be offensive to the modesty of the donor, who doubtless wishes to “let his alms be done in secret.”
Still, as this money was made up of contributions from many who do not think they received an equivalent in return; justice to their feelings renders it necessary and proper that the receipt of the donation should be publicly acknowledged.
No comments:
Post a Comment