It is extremely rare that we decline to admit articles to our columns that are not of a personal character, and never for the reason that the writer differs from our views. Any respectful article is admitted to our pages, provided it tells anything new, or is not evidently written under a misapprehension. "Lex" wants to know why we did not publish an article of his. It was for the last reason. He tried to show that the Gardener's Monthly is wrong in maintaining that there "should be no laws protecting the originators of fruits and flowers." On the contrary we believe there should be such laws. But the laws proposed by some people are so thoroughly impracticable that we decline to have our space wasted in discussing them. The "laws" are about as good as they can be now. We know of a person who has been some six years working on a new plant, -and who will probably realize $20,000 for his " labor and skill " next year. This is as good as he would probably do under any " patent law." Indeed, there are plenty of ways by which the originator of any good thing can be "protected " now, provided he has a good thing, and has the proper judgment to make use of these ways.

If he has not this, not even a "patent law" will help him. "Lex" misundertands us; that is why the paper did not appear.