One of the most re-markable incidents of the times is the stupidity of the managers of exhibitions in regard to the under-lying principles of success. They are failing everywhere, and each failing exhibition cries aloud for reform. The story of its ruin is clearly told; but the managers belong to that class which have ears and hear not, - eyes, but see not. Like blind-eyed Samson, they hug the pillars 6f the temple they have so long taken a pride in. They cannot move on, without causing the old fabric to tumble about their ears.

The latest farce is the Edinburgh International Exhibition. The medal is of no value in itself. A medal is quite as good as The Medal; so the managers hit upon the ingenious plan of giving no medal actually to anybody, - but only a printed certificate with a picture of a medal, with "Gold medal" printed across it. This suited the exhibitor just as well as the real medal, - for all the exhibitor desires is a chance to say that he had "a gold medal awarded." In this way the Society could afford to be very liberal with premiums, - and they were liberal. Out of 2,200 exhibitors 1,230 had awards of premiums. The exhibitors were elated with this generosity, and made " grand exhibits." People flocked to see it, and it was a "grand success," that is to say, there was a surplus over expenses of $100,000. But how long will this last? When the public finds out that any body can get "a gold medal awarded," what value, even as advertising dodges, will they have?

We have been through this sort of thing all over our land. Horticultural exhibitions have come to be generally the merest farces, because the people understand that the premiums awarded mean nothing. The best exhibitors stay away because the premiums amount to nothing. To prop up the failing exhibitions, the managers stoop to all sorts of mountebank extras, in order to draw the ignorant masses, and are thus able to boast of " financial success." Newspapers and magazines are tired of noting the proceedings. At one time there was a general interest attached to the successful exhibitor. To know that John Smith got a first premium for roses, meant something. It meant something to the public, as well as a great deal more than something to John Smith. Now the magazine would be thought much below par to waste space to announce that John Smith got first prize, Tom Brown second, and Bill Jones third. It simply means that these were best there, the public well knowing that the leading growers were not represented, and that better "premium" plants could be bought for a few cents at the street corners.

We have long contended that premiums should be given only for excellence, and the point of excellence should be stated in the award. To get the premium, not to excel, is the aim of too many exhibitors.

The chief difficulty is to get judges equal to this work. To give a fair award to a new or rare plant, judges competent to tell a rare plant from a common one must make the award. Still, rules could be formulated for the guidance of judges. Points of excellence could be established. The path could often be made so clear in this way that a judge, though a fool, could not err therein. Then there would be an inducement to the best exhibitors to bring out their novelties - novelties in kind, novelties in culture, novelties in superiority in every sense. People go to exhibitions to be amused and instructed. They get neither of these in commonplace things. But common-place things should be welcome as exhibits. It is the highest awards that should be discriminative. The best exhibitors appreciate these, and especially would they appreciate any effort of the Society to advertise their excellencies for them. Without some care of this kind, successful Horticultural exhibits will soon be matters of history only.