Mr. John S. Collins says: "I notice in last monthly, under the heading of 'The Comet Pear,' an opinion of the Editor of the Gardeners' Monthly which I do not consider correct. It would no doubt have been proper for the owners of the farm on which the old pear tree had grown to have named it, if they had done so in a reasonable time and let the name been known to the public. The person now most interested in having the name of pear called 'Law-son,' states in his circulars and catalogues that the tree was probably grown before the time of 'John Lawson the Elder,' and that the Lawson family have always ' guardedly secluded ' it from the public. They neither raised the tree or introduced it to the public, although they owned the tree for generations.

"I think there are several reasons stated in enclosed circular why the Comet is the proper name for the pear".

[We have no desire to be the umpire in any personal quarrel between two business firms. The fact for an Editor is that two firms have two names for one thing, and the public will ask the Editor which name is to be used.

The only facts for the Editor are simply these : The owner of a farm has a pear tree that came up on the land he owns. He gives a neighbor, as a compliment, a few grafts. After this the owner of the tree concludes to put the tree into commerce. He sells the whole stock in his possession to a nurseryman and tells that nurseryman its name is Lawson. Will it be contended that he shall be estopped from his undoubted right to call his own property what name he pleases, because a friend who received a few complimentary grafts chose to forestall him by giving one of his own?

We are told that Mr. Lawson never "uttered a protest against" the extraordinary liberty of a stranger naming his own property without consulting him in any way in the matter, and we do not know that he was called on to protest. If the owners "guardedly secluded" the tree from the public, they had the right to do so.

As an Editor, called on to decide this delicate question, we can only say that it appears that the owners of the tree have distributed the pear under the name of Lawson; they never consented to its being called anything but Lawson; and as, under pomological rules, " the owner of a tree has the right to name it," we cannot see that we have any discretion but to accept Lawson as its legitimate name. - Ed. G. M].

In some quarters where a terrible racket was heard because we decided that under the rules, Lawson would have to be adopted as the name of this pear, we are now told "it matters little what name is finally given to this Pear." This conclusion is at least a hopeful sign of final recovery.