burbank

BURBANK FOLLIES, PART IV

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Over his sixty years, Luther Burbank likely never suffered a month as dreadful as those days spanning New Year 1910.

– –

THE BURBANK FOLLIES SERIES

These articles cover Luther Burbank’s association with the Carnegie Institution, which awarded him a subsidy of $10,000 a year “for so long a time as may be mutually agreeable.” The grant began in 1905 and continued through 1909.

Part one explains the significance of the grant and why Burbank was such a controversial figure at the time. Also introduced here is Dr. George Shull, a noted botanist sent by the Institution to study and document Burbank’s methods.

Part two explores Dr. Shull’s relationship with Burbank, whom he found mostly uncooperative. Shull discovered his work was scientifically worthless as Burbank kept few notes – a failure that led to Burbank’s reputation being tarnished in the embarrassing “Wonderberry” dispute.

Part three describes Dr. Shull’s dismay in 1907 to find competition for Burbank’s attention with researchers from the Cree Publishing Company, which had contracted with Burbank to create a ten volume encyclopedia about his work. This section also covers the short-lived plans by Petaluma’s George P. McNear and others to create a Burbank Institute.

Part four finds Burbank embittered in early 1910 after the Carnegie grant is cancelled and he finds himself defending his work in the national press.

Events in 1909 that probably contributed to the termination of his grant are discussed in “Selling Luther Burbank“, including the appearance of Oscar Binner as his new publisher and publicist, plus the short-lived deal for distribution of Burbank products with the controversial brothers Herbert and Dr. Hartland Law.

The dark times began in mid-December of 1909 when his mother died. It was not unexpected – she was 96 and in failing health – but her passing was still a heavy blow; “she had been her son’s constant companion and throughout the years the devotion of one to the other was marked,” the Press Democrat noted in her obituary. She had lived with him or in a house next door his entire life, except for a brief period when he first moved to California. It must have been a lonely Christmas without her in his big house on Tupper street.

Barely a week after her funeral, Burbank found reporters on his doorstep. A San Francisco newspaper had published a rumor that Burbank had lost his $10,000 annuity from the Carnegie Institution. We don’t know which paper published the original story, but in wire service summaries it was stated that the Institution allegedly disliked his “commercialism,” and specifically didn’t approve of the deal he had made with the Law brothers to form a distribution company. The Santa Rosa Republican asked Burbank if any of this was true; “he replied that he had not heard of anything of the kind and felt certain there was nothing in the story published.”

Then on January 16, 1910 – a month and a day after the death of his beloved mother – the New York Times printed the most damning story on Burbank that had ever appeared in a major American newspaper. Headlined “Doubts Cast on Burbank Wizardry,” the article began,

Scientists and Government officials are beginning to examine with a good deal of attention the schemes to which the name of Luther Burbank, the so-called “plant wizard,” has been lent.

Mr. Burbank’s varieties of vegetable, plants and flowers have been exploited for years in the press as standing marvels. He has not hesitated to call them his creations and he has received scientific recognition of the highest character by an annual grant of $10,000 for ten years from the Carnegie Institution to enable him to continue his experiments.

But lately his claims have met with a good deal of criticism…

“Burbank, to my mind, is just a sharp Yankee seedsman,” the Times quoted Dr. B. T. Galloway, Chief of the Washington Bureau of Plant Industry. “Too many of the men who really made great discoveries in the horticultural world died in the poorhouse, for me to be willing to see a man get such renown with so little solid basis for it.”

The paper rehashed at some length a controversy from the previous summer when an English gardening magazine and The Rural New Yorker (“an agricultural publication of high standing”) declared Burbank’s “Wonderberry” was a variety of nightshade that most gardeners considered a weed. The NY Times also brought up Burbank’s non-creation of the thornless “Burbank Cactus” and cast doubt that it was the world-changing discovery Burbank claimed.

“But putting aside the question of the merit of Mr. Burbank’s plants,” the article continued, “scientists feel that of late he has permitted himself to be exploited commercially in a way contrary to scientific ethics.” The article denounced the “lurid advertising” of the New South Farm and Home Company, which was selling farmland in central Florida that Burbank had supposedly attested was perfect for growing his cactus at great profit. Burbank apparently had no connection at all with those land promoters, although their ads quoted letters he had written about general Florida agricultural conditions out of context and used his signature in the ad to make it appear he had endorsed this specific project. The Times apparently did not seek comment from Burbank, making their criticism about any ethical failures on his part less stabbing.

Burbank telegraphed his response to the Times the following day. “I am exploited, whether willing or not, and very much against my own wishes,” he wrote, curiously not denying an endorsement of New South Farm and Home. “Does it pay to exploit commercially a proposition which does not stand on a sound basis of character and value?” He also copied a description of the cactus from his catalog, pointing out that while non-prickly cacti existed in nature, his invention was “absolutely thornless.”

Burbank’s letter to the New York Times continued:

It was mutually agreed upon and fully understood, both by the Carnegie Institution and myself, that I should have the privilege of supplementing their inadequate annual aid towards the continuance of my experiments by the sale of my productions as before.

I am now past sixty years of age, have done good work, and no one is dependent upon my efforts. The grant brought with it more care, responsibility, correspondence, and visitors and a full crop of envy and jealousy, and but for the advice of friends I should have dissolved my connection with the institution last year.

Those comments were remarkable because here was Burbank apparently confirming important news – that the rumors were true and he had lost the prestigious grant that served as the bedrock of his scientific legitimacy. The Times’ editor didn’t seem to know what to do with this admission; Burbank’s letter was published as a stand-alone article with the preface that “it was also noted that Mr. Burbank is in the receipt of an annual grant of $10,000 for ten years from the Carnegie Institution that he may pursue his scientific studies unhampered by lack of funds.”

In fact, Institution president Robert S. Woodward had sent Burbank a letter more than three weeks earlier, notifying him that the Board of Trustees had voted to “discontinue subsidies in aid of your horticultural work. It is unnecessary here to set forth the reasons which have led to this action…The probability of such action was also indicated to you in the summer of 1908 on the occasion of my last visit to you. While personally regretting the necessity for this termination of our relations, there appears to be no other course open to the Institution.”1

Thus Burbank’s endowment had ended exactly when the San Francisco paper had published its story about the rumored cancellation. Burbank had lied to the Republican reporter when he said it wasn’t true. Or maybe not; what he actually told the Santa Rosa paper was “he had not heard of anything of the kind.” The official letter from Washington D.C. could not have reached him by that time, and while presumably president Woodward would have telegraphed Burbank promptly after the decision had been made, we don’t know that. It’s certainly possible someone among the anti-Burbank faction on the Carnegie board rushed to leak the embarrassing news to the press before he actually received notice.

The day after Burbank’s letter to the New York Times was published, newspapers everywhere reported that his deal with the Carnegie Institution was terminated – again, this was over three weeks after the Board voted. Like other papers, the Press Democrat excerpted sections of his letter-to-the-editor as if it were Burbank’s press release (and he might well have distributed it as such). To its discredit, the San Francisco Call cut-and-pasted the letter to make it appear to be an interview under the headline “Burbank Discusses Institute’s Action.” Worse, the Call paired the “I am exploited” sentence with a reference to his deal with the Law brothers, removing it completely from the original NY Times context about land scammers in Florida. Not the golden age of journalism that was.

The churlishness apparent in Burbank’s comments must have shocked all but his most devoted admirers. What he dismissed as “their inadequate annual aid” works out to over a quarter million dollars in today’s money – hardly a trivial sum. For those in the public who revered him as a “wizard” here was another all-too-human Burbank, with self-pity and bitterness seeping from his words.

Burbank’s comments left the impression the grant requirements were a burden and great imposition, but we now know that he did little and was uncooperative, even sometimes hostile to researcher Shull (see parts 2 and 3 of this series). In the termination letter Woodward also wrote he expected Shull be able to wind up his report, and Burbank responded, “I shall try to aid Dr. Shull in recorrecting the dictation which I have been giving him the last five years.”2 When Shull returned to Santa Rosa, however, he found Burbank even more intractable‎ and insisting he was too busy. Shull wrote to Woodward, “He says he has no income now, and that his time is worth $500-$600 an hour.”3 In the end, Dr. Shull was able to complete only one small paper which described Burbank’s experiments with rhubarb.

It’s telling that Burbank called the Carnegie grant his lost “income.” He evidently misunderstood it to be an entitlement – a public benefactor’s thanks for years of good works and encouragement for him to continue doing what he was doing. It also seems he failed to understand the advancement-of-science mission of the Carnegie Institution. Asked to provide a summary of his work in 1908 for the Institution’s yearbook, Burbank submitted four pages of hyperbole and descriptions that were more appropriate for advertisement copy.4  His thornless cactus was really popular and yields were amazing; he gushed,  “it means more than the discovery of a New Continent!!” His work was “a heavy burden personally, but to the great world it means a revolution, a new birth in agriculture, horticulture and biological research.” Needless to say, none of that ballyhoo made its way into the dry two paragraphs that appeared in the yearbook.

In Burbank’s defense, it has to be said that there was also a great deal of miscommunication between him and the Institution’s president Woodward. In the summer of 1908 – about a year and a half before the grant would be terminated – Woodward wrote to him in alarm:5

…I deem it imperative to state that a halt must be called upon all these operations if your connection with the institution is to continue.

I wrote you in December, 1904, and it is still my desire, to give you a free hand in your horticultural work and in the expenditure of the subsidies grated you, but it was assumed, of course, that in so doing the good name of the institution would be in no sense jeopardized. Now, however, that the institution is put on the defensive with regard to your connection with it, it is essential for me to point out that your entrance into other fields than those of horticulture, however much this may be desired by the irresponsible public, raises serious doubts as to whether your connection with the institution should continue…

Woodward was particularly concerned because he had received “a large mass of correspondence with regard to the projected institute to be founded in your honor.” Burbank promptly replied that his information was far out of date; he had nothing to do with the proposed local “Burbank College” and anyway, the idea never went very far and had been abandoned months ago.

The Institution was also greatly concerned about the ongoing work for a series of Burbank books supposedly being produced by Cree Publishing, then later Cree-Binner. Burbank repeatedly assured him it was apples and oranges; the other books were intended to be lightweight reading for the general public. When Burbank griped, “I have long been pained, surprised and disappointed that the Carnegie Institution has made no move” to present his work to “the clamoring public,” Woodward replied they had always planned to publish the “popular aspects of your work,” but were scared off when the guys from Cree showed up.6 This was news to Burbank; demerits to the Carnegie Institution for not making that clear way back in 1904, when the terms of the grant was negotiated.

Once the money was cancelled, Burbank did not comment upon it directly, aside from his disjointed letter to the New York Times with its odd swipe that the undoing was to be blamed on the “full crop of envy and jealousy” against him. But he was not quite ready to let the matter go.

Edward F. Bigelow, editor of “The Guide to Nature,” a monthly magazine published by a naturalist society based in Connecticut, inserted himself in the summer of 1910 between Burbank, “the grand, kindly-hearted man, beloved by all who knew him and especially by the school children of Santa Rosa” and “iron-hearted” Woodward (not that Bigelow had any bias). The published article offers snippets from letters written to him by both. Burbank seemed to be on a rampage to find out who was responsible for pulling the plug:

I would ask you plainly why do the Carnegie people refuse to give the full facts, I DEMAND them… I have never desired any publicity, and would always have greatly preferred private life except that it was necessary to mention my new creations in order to sell them to keep the work going; but I now desire publicity and lots of it. the more the better. I wish this thing dug to the very earth and the guilty parties exhibited to the light.

Woodward’s response was measured and polite (at least, until Bigelow apparently became strident). “You are certainly unaware of the thousand pages or more of history bearing on this subject filed in our office,” he replied, but declined to explain the reasons for the termination, “out of consideration for [Burbank] especially. [T]he history of our attempt to cooperate with him in his work should not be given to the public until after his death.” Nothing about it was further said, however, when Burbank died sixteen years later.

But the basis can be found in the minutes of the December, 1908 Board of Trustees meeting, when Burbank’s final year of financial support was approved. Andrew Carnegie spoke in support of Burbank, saying he wanted to “sustain Mr. Burbank in his work” for the benefit of mankind, not the advancement of science, and would even approve in an increase in the amount. Woodward agreed, but pointed out he was often asked “why we, as an institution, are subsidizing a faker.”  The Board resolved “it was desirous of seeing the work brought to an end.”7

While unlikely, it’s possible that Burbank could have stayed on the grant payroll for another few years, given his personal backing from Mr. Carnegie. But it is probably revealing the first reports of the cancellation mentioned Burbank’s association with the Law brothers; given Woodward was already concerned Burbank might be harming the “good name of the institution,” there was no way he could remain part of the Carnegie family if he had been associated with the scabrous Laws. In the end, Luther Burbank lost his lucrative deal with the Carnegie Institution not because of a cabal of enemies, but because of bad decisions by the guy he saw every morning in the mirror.

NOTES:

1Unpublished correspondence December 27, 1909; archives of Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA
2Unpublished correspondence January 12, 1910; archives of Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA
3Peter Dreyer, A Gardener Touched With Genius (Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA), 1985, pg. 180
4Unpublished correspondence September 29, 1909; archives of Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA
5Unpublished correspondence August 4, 1908; archives of Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA
6Unpublished correspondence August 15 and September 22, 1908; archives of Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA
7Dreyer, pg. 173

LUTHER BURBANK’S MOTHER DIES HERE LAST NIGHT
The woman who gave Luther Burbank to the world is dead.

Deeply loved and revered by the immediate members of her family and highly esteemed by a large circle of friends, Mrs. Olive Ross Burbank entered into rest at a quarter past five o’clock Wednesday evening at her son’s residence on Santa Rosa avenue. Her life span lacked but three years and four months of being one hundred years.

The end came so peacefully that it was just a lengthening of the unconsciousness into which she had fallen some days previously and an awakening again in a land where time is not measured by years and where people never grow old or infirm.

Almost up to a week ago Mrs. Burbank was able to take some walking exercise in the garden about the house. She had commenced to show signs of failing, some eight or ten years ago, however. At the close of life came the final breakdown of the system and accompanying pain and suffering, which was relieved by the coming of the silent messenger and the touch that brought peace, winging the spirit of the loved mother and friend to the realms above.

Born in Massachusetts

Mrs. Olive Ross Burbank was born in Sterling, Mass., on April 7, 1813. She came of rugged scotch ancestry. In 1845 she was married to Samuel Walter Burbank and they lived at Lancaster, Mass. Her husband died in 1868. Of the union five children were born, three of whom survive. The latter are Luther Burbank of this city, Alfred Burbank of Riverside county, and Mrs. Emma Burbank Beeson, recently of this city, and Healdsburg, and now of Point Richmond. A stepson is Daniel Burbank of Petaluma.

Makes Home With Son

It was in 1877 that Mrs. Burbank came to Santa Rosa, two years after her son, Luther Burbank, had made his home here. Since that time she had been her son’s constant companion and throughout the years the devotion of one to the other was marked. She was deeply interested in his work in the creation of new fruits and flowers and each of his successes meant just so much joy for her. She used to smile as she related how when he was a mere baby Luther had a love for flowers, even to the extent that his tears would turn to laughter if a flower was pressed into his baby hands.

Mrs. Burbank was a remarkably active woman. She has friends here who remember when she first moved to Santa Rosa. Then despite the fact that she was seventy-five years of age, by her looks and actions she could easily have passed for fifty. She was always kind and solicitous for others. “Mother’s Birthday” will no longer be celebrated as it has been for many years at the Burbank home on each recurring April 7. They were red letter days in the Burbank household. Her room in the Burbank household was where the summer’s sun lingered longest, and where through the open window the sweet perfume of the Santa Rosa rose and the other of her son’s flower creations could come.

Some Reminiscences

In the little school Mrs. Burbank attended in Massachusetts she had as a classmate the little girl who was the “Mary” giving the nursery rhyme, “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” It was to that school that the lamb followed Mary.

Mrs. Burbank was over six years old and attending school when the late Queen Victoria was born.

Interment at Sebastopol

The funeral will most likely take place on Friday afternoon at one o’clock from the residence and the interment will be in the family plot in Sebastopol cemetery. The funeral will be strictly private.

– Press Democrat, December 16, 1909

NOTHING TO WIERD STORY
Frisco Paper Says Support is Withdrawn

A San Francisco paper of Wednesday has a long rambling story purporting to give the action of the trustees of the Carnegie Institute, in which it is declared the institute has decided to withdraw the financial support guaranteed to Luther Burbank of this city.

Mr. Burbank has never heard of such a matter, and it is hardly probably that there is anything to such a wierd [sic] story. When asked by a REPUBLICAN representative concerning the matter Wednesday afternoon, he replied that he had not heard of anything of the kind and felt certain there was nothing in the story published.

The work which Mr. Burbank  is doing is far too important to humanity for the Carnegie Institute to withdraw its support, especially as it was pledged for a specific number of years. This institute does not do things in that manner, and it is an improbable story given to the public.

The cause assigned for the withdrawal of the support of the institute was the commercialism of the work carried on by Mr. Burbank. It is a well known fact that the amount of financial aid which the institute has given him annually is more than expended in carrying on the thousands of experiments which he has underway. For this reason Mr. Burbank sells the rights to new species which he creates. It is declared in the article published that the company formed by the Law Brothers for the exploitation of Mr. Burbank’s works is responsible for the alleged withdrawal.

– Santa Rosa Republican, December 29, 1909

CARNEGIE AID HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN
Luther Burbank Confirms the Report–Idea of “Commercialism” Old Not Exist in Understanding

Some time ago the report was mentioned that the Carnegie Institution has withdrawn its financial aid towards the development of Luther Burbank’s experiments. The appropriation was $10,000 a year. Mr. Burbank has confirmed the withdrawal of the support and in an interview wired to the New York Times on Monday had this to say of the matter, regarding the announcement that the withdrawal had been because of “commercialism” in the disposal of products:

“It was mutually agreed upon and fully understood, both by the Carnegie Institution and myself, that I should have the privilege of supplementing their inadequate annual aid towards the continuance of my experiments by the sale of my productions as before.

“Am now past sixty years of age, have done good work, and no one is dependent upon my efforts.

“The grant brought with it more care, responsibility, correspondence, and visitors and a full crop of envy and jealousy, and but for the advice of friends I should have dissolved my connection with the institution last year.

“Personally, I have no desire for wealth or fame, a thirst for these is the root of may evils. My ambition has been to leave the world better for having passed this way. To be misjudged is a passing trifle, to have lost a life of honest, earnest labor is a tragedy.”

– Press Democrat, January 19, 1910

CARNEGIE SURPRISED AT WITHDRAWAL OF AID

The newspaper interviews at Del Monte on Thursday Andrew Carnegie stated that he was surprised at the announcement some time since that the Carnegie Institution had withdrawn its financial aid to the research work done by Luther Burbank. He said that while he did not usually interfere in the conduct of the business of the Institution he would inquire into the Burbank matter.

– Press Democrat, March 12, 1910

Read More

SELLING LUTHER BURBANK

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Luther Burbank wants you to go away. No, he does not want to hear about your prize-winning begonias. No, he will not talk to you unless you have an appointment. No, he will not sell you anything.  Can’t you read the sign on his fence? “Any person entering or trespassing on these ground will be prosecuted.” Go. Away. Now.

Burbank was under constant siege from admirers who traveled to Santa Rosa to see the “Plant Wizard” who was profiled in illustrated magazines and newspaper Sunday sections. A visiting friend was astonished to find Burbank “overrun by a horde of curiosity seekers…their endeavors to see him were most annoying. I know of no way of stopping their coming short of a shotgun.”1

The thwarted public probably came away thinking Burbank as rude as he thought they. Couldn’t he spare a single plant from the abundant fields surrounding his house? Can’t they have one damn seed as a souvenir? Unfortunately, the articles that fawned over Burbank rarely mentioned his hybrids were sold exclusively through retailers, such as the Burpee and Stark Brothers seed catalogs and the regional Owl Drug Store chain. So it was very big news when it was announced in 1909 that three men had formed a company called “Luther Burbank’s Products” to sell Burbank’s seeds and live plants directly to the public. 

(RIGHT: 1909 ad for Burbank seeds available through selected Owl drugstores)

For anyone just tuning in, here’s a short summary of what happened up to that point: In 1905, the prestigious Carnegie Institution awarded Burbank a grant of $10,000 a year with the understanding that it would result in some sort of scientific report about his plant-breeding methods. Two years later, Burbank signed a contract with the Cree Publishing Company to create a 10-volume set about his work. Burbank insisted the books for Cree would be aimed at a mass-market audience and not at all in conflict with what he was supposed to be producing for the Institution, but the Carnegie directors were not so sure. See the four part “BURBANK FOLLIES” series for more on all this.

The Santa Rosa newspapers could scarcely contain their excitement over buying directly from Burbank to be bothered with accuracy. They blurbed the deal was “the most gigantic of its kind in the history of the country” (Press Democrat) and “said to have netted Mr. Burbank a couple of million dollars” (Santa Rosa Republican). The San Francisco Examiner also gave the “gigantic business enterprise” headline coverage and devoted nearly an entire inside page to Burbank. Also given much ink was that the main investors were the brothers Herbert and Dr. Hartland Law, who owned the Fairmont Hotel and other blue-ribbon real estate.

In an interview with the Examiner, Dr. Law said the brothers were undaunted, although “we have begun to realize is a greater project than we thought it was when we first took it under consideration.” The tasks ahead were monumental, particularly setting up a global distribution network which would “involve the expenditure of several million dollars.” Let’s hope they didn’t spend too much money up front; less than a month later, Burbank announced that he was breaking the contract – “the proposition was found to be impracticable,” he said in a terse statement to the press. “While it is true that my business has become too extensive and too complicated to be handled by one man, yet, I believe that by having complete control of the entire system I can direct competent men in a way to secure the best results,” Burbank stated.

What was Burbank thinking? It’s understandable he didn’t want to cede all control, but he was also 60 years old and had no talent or interest in building a large operation. No other suitors were courting him – it would be another three years before a similar distribution business was formed. With his chronic bad health, did he really expect to keep up the exhausting work involved with his plant breeding methods as he entered old age, staking his future on profits from far-between windfall sales?

Also unclear in press coverage was the role of the third partner: Oscar E. Binner, whom several San Francisco papers unfortunately and repeatedly misnamed as “Dinner.” Little was written in any of the papers about Mr. ?inner, except the vague description that he was a “wealthy Eastern man.” When Burbank withdrew from the project Binner gave a lengthy statement to the Press Democrat in which he managed to say very little, revealing mostly his talent at public relations.

Binner is an underrated figure in the Burbank canon; in the definitive biography by Peter Dreyer, A Gardener Touched With Genius, he rates scarcely more than Burbank’s secretary, the euphonically named May Maye. But it was Binner who put together the ill-fated deal with the Law brothers, Binner who kept the Burbank book project from collapsing over the years, and Binner who masterminded a national campaign that brought Burbank acclaim greater than he had ever known before. Part manager, part counselor, part promoter, Binner aimed to be the Col. Parker to Burbank’s Elvis and during Burbank’s most successful years, he was something very much like that.

When he met Luther Burbank in January, 1908, Binner was 45 and a respected man with two successful careers behind him. As a youth in the Midwest he had apprenticed as an engraver and printer and by 1895 the Binner Engraving Company was established as a leader in the business. (Which is to say, his company produced very high quality printed material – they were hired by the Smithsonian Institution to produce a book of photographs of the moon, for example.) They were pioneers in commercial illustration; search for “Binner Engraving” on eBay or in Google Books and you’ll find dozens of examples that are today respected as topnotch period art. The trade magazines of the time are filled with mentions of him as a much admired – and sometimes, jealously envied – master of his craft.

Advertising was a big part of the engraving business, and around 1901 Binner opened a branch office in New York City. In particular he cultivated a side career as an advertising director, becoming the head of publicity and promotion of Lever Brothers, an English soap maker. Binner’s campaign to introduce Lifebuoy Soap as a modern, ultra-hygienic American product via photo-realistic ads was a remarkable success, and cemented his reputation as a successful ad man. In 1905 Binner returned to his engraving company in Chicago, selling it to his partner five years later when his attention firmly turned to all things Burbank.

Much of what we know of Mr. Binner at that time comes from two extraordinary letters written to Nellie Comstock. (When she died in 1940, these letters were donated to the Luther Burbank Home and Gardens.) An accompanying note from her son Hilliard pointed out that Binner lived with their family on Hoen Avenue for a time, and Nellie sometimes acted as a diplomat to resolve disputes between Binner and Burbank because she was “an intimate friend of both.” The origin of the connection between Comstock and Binner is unknown, but might trace back to their shared roots in the Chicago area.

Binner came to meet Burbank via Cree Publishing, the Minneapolis company trying to produce the set of Burbank books. His exact status is unclear, but they must have already formed the Cree-Binner Company, which apparently had the sole purpose of wrestling the Burbank project into print. (Cree Publishing continued producing other books under its original imprint.) By 1910, Cree was completely out of the picture and Binner owned all work on the project produced to date.

In his first letter to Comstock, Binner boasted of his terrific working relationship with Burbank and that he scored points by immediately dismissing the entire editorial staff because they weren’t to Burbank’s snuff. His secret in getting results from Burbank was patience and working with him, he emphasized repeatedly in the letter. Over six single-spaced typed pages, Binner testifies to his devotion and defends Burbank’s greatness (it seems Comstock had joined the scientific skeptics who didn’t think Burbank’s work was worth much), along with flogging his own sacrifice in trying to bring Burbank’s message to the world (“Your red headed old hen with the yellow feathers has earned more money the past two years than I have”). With pleadings and bombast he hammers away that soon the world would kneel at Burbank’s shrine and only Binner could make that happen: “[W]hat I have to offer is that which he needs and which he does not know how to produce…I have the talent and ability and desire to give him what he needs most in order to present to the world his story in such a manner as to make it live for centuries. L. B. will see it. Wait.”2

(RIGHT: Oscar Binner c. 1911. Image courtesy Luther Burbank Home and Gardens)

Megalomania aside, Binner was basically right; he possessed a unique skill set that Burbank needed. Burbank was an inept businessman and deal-maker; Binner had single-handedly built one of the leading companies in his field. Burbank expected fawning profiles in the press to lure public interest; Binner was an acknowledged master of reaching out through advertising. But most of all, Binner had a talent for what Burbank really needed most: Marketing Burbank’s unique brand.

You can find Binner’s fingerprints over everything connected to Burbank in the years immediately following. In a why-didn’t-anyone-think-of-that-before flash of genius, Burbank was relieved of the visitor nuisance after a “Bureau of Information” was built on Santa Rosa Avenue in front of the farm where the public was invited to buy seeds, bulbs, and color lithographs of Burbank plants, suitable for framing. Binner produced dozens of pamphlets by and about Burbank and tried to sell shares in the Oscar E. Binner Company (“Luther Burbank’s Publishers”) for the publication of the still in-progress Burbank encyclopedia – “The popular edition will…have a field of about fifty million prospective purchasers,” he gushed. Binner created the Luther Burbank traveling display that toured agricultural shows and exhibitions around the country for two years to high acclaim, ending 1912 on view at the huge American Land and Irrigation Exposition at Madison Square Garden, where the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang “Ode to Irrigation.”

This chapter of Binner’s story ends in 1912, with the incorporations of the semi-autonomous Luther Burbank Press, Luther Burbank Society and Luther Burbank Company. Binner still had a role in Burbank’s affairs, but that’s a different adventure. Another Binner trail to follow leads to the question of whether he had any part to play in the final breakup between Burbank and the Carnegie Institute in the latter part of 1908. Although Burbank counted on the $10,000 annual sinecure, losing the distraction of the Carnegie obligation would have been greatly to Binner’s advantage. The Luther Burbank Home and Gardens archive has a letter to the Institute’s president from Binner that has an unpleasant tone and implies they were exchanging insults in prior correspondence. There’s also an incriminating passage in that letter to Comstock: “L. B. misunderstands himself. When he finds himself, then he will see what is best for him and best for all time and all the world. He will waste no more of his talents and time on [the Carnegie Institute]…”

And finally, there’s the unsolved mystery of why Burbank walked away from the lucrative deal with Law brothers. As it turns out, there are two versions of how it came about. In an interview with the Examiner, Hartland Law described the “peculiar way” the project began with a chance encounter on a train with a man coming to secure rights to “Burbank’s book.” Law expressed sadness that California had little appreciation for Burbank. Some time later, the same man approaches him outside the Fairmont. “This man later on visited Burbank, told him of the interest I had shown in his book, and in the end he was the medium through which my brother and myself met Burbank in this city and discussed the preliminary plans for this later project.”

But in his letter to Nellie Comstock, Binner wrote that there was no lucky happenstance involved. Burbank directed Binner to research potential moneymen and convince them to form a partnership: “…I was to find men of character, reputation and wealth who could handle this project as it should be handled. I worked hard, I traveled much and at last found two men, men whose names and reputation could not be assailed and whose wealth was more than sufficient to finance this project…”

The key to Burbank’s about-face is probably the part about “men whose names and reputation could not be assailed.” Yes, the Law brothers were multimillionaire property owners, and Herbert Law was one of the directors of Wells Fargo. But the paint was still wet on their respectability; not mentioned in the San Francisco or Santa Rosa papers was that the brothers had made their fortune through a quack medicine and pyramid scheme they still owned (this article is a must-read). Singled out by medical journals and muckrakers as one of the worst of all the insidious medical frauds, the money they offered Burbank dripped with blood.

Always thin-skinned about being considered a charlatan himself, it’s unthinkable that Burbank would have entered a partnership with the Law brothers if he knew about their dodgy source of income – or that he would have stayed with them once he discovered the facts later. Yes, the Laws kept their noses mostly clean and gained further respectability as years went on, but from the perspective of 1909, Burbank probably looked upon them as a career-destroying scandal waiting to explode after he discovered who they really were. In the end it was likely the Law brothers that played Burbank and Binner, not the other way around. Should the Laws ever be enmeshed in a scandalous wrongful death lawsuit, what better character witness to call to the stand than their partner and friend, Luther Burbank, one of the most respected men in the nation.


1Samuel Lieb letter to Carnegie Institute President Woodward, August 26, 1908; Luther Burbank Home and Gardens archives
2Oscar Binner letter to Nellie Comstock, February 25, 1910; Luther Burbank Home and Gardens archives
WILL HANDLE ALL PRODUCTS
Burbank Sells Rights to his Future Creations

Arrangements have been made by Herbert E. Law, Dr. Hartland Law, and Oscar E. Binner, millionaires of San Francisco, to take entire control of the commercial aspect of the work of Luther Burbank. The gentlemen have purchased the right to all the new creations of Burbank not otherwise disposed of previously and all those which may evolve through his genius in the coming years.

The deal is one of the greatest ever made on the coast and is said to have netted Mr. Burbank a couple of million dollars, and placed him beyond the necessity of having any care for the material things of earth. He will now be able to lay aside business cares and worries and give his entire time and attention to the propagation of new fruits, flowers and shrubs, to which he has already devoted forty years of energetic work.

The commercial portion of the distribution of the products will be carried on an elaborate scale by the men who have become interested in the matter. They will establish agencies in all portions of the world, and the fame of Burbank will be carried to greater extent in the remote parts of the world than ever before.

Much illustrated and printed matter concerning the Burbank productions will be sent broadcast [sic] all over the world, and the handling of the business will necessitate a large clerical, office and shipping force. The spineless cactus will be sent to all the known arid regions, where it will produce sustenance for man and beast. It is claimed that recently Mr. Burbank has bred properties into this cactus which will make it available for producing sugar and alcohol as a by-product. It is said the sugar from the cactus will rival that produced from beets and that brought from the Hawaiian Islands.

The new company intends to purchase, if possible, the rights which Mr. Burbank has previously disposed of to certain creations and thus have a monopoly of all his efforts. There are many things which Mr. Burbank has accomplished of which the world knows nothing, but in future all these will be given to the public through the new agency established.

Mr. Burbank was recently in San Francisco and had a conference with the men who have purchased the rights to his creations and later they came here and spent some time in looking into the matters.

The arrangement made with the Messrs Law and Binner will not affect the distribution of seeds through the Chamber of commerce. The deal of Secretary Brown will be carried out as arranged and he is already promoting their selling in a number of states.

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 27, 1909
TO HANDLE THE BURBANK PRODUCTS

A business transaction of world-wide importance has been consummated in Santa Rosa, whereby Dr. Hartland Law and his brother, Herbert E. Law, the millionaire owners of the Fairmont hotel, the Monadnock building and other valuable property in San Francisco and elsewhere throughout the United States, and Oscar E. Binner, a wealthy eastern man, who has spent several months in Santa Rosa, have secured the rights… [missing lines type and garbled text] …They have formed a company known as “Luther Burbank’s Products, Incorporated,” and have already formulated complete plans for the distribution of the products in all civilized countries.

By reason of the deal consummated Mr. Burbank will henceforth devote his entire time to the scientific development of his great work, while the business and commercial end will be handled entirely by the company. The transaction not only includes the products already perfected but those in course of development.

– Press Democrat, February 26, 1909
BURBANK DISTRIBUTION
Big Work Planned by the Owl Drug Co.

Monday a representative of the Owl Drug Company of San Francisco closed a contract with Edward H. Brown of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce for the exclusive agency of Luther Burbank’s flower seeds for the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Mr. Brown deserves great credit for placing the agency where it will do so much good for our town.

We know of no concern better able to handle the distribution of Mr. Burbank’s seeds on a large scale than is the Owl Drug Co., with its eleven big stores in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Mr. Burbank himself feels that the Chamber of Commerce need not look elsewhere for agencies as he believes, as do me, that the present arrangement will immediately consume the entire supply.

Other big concerns have been negotiating for the agency, but due to the fact that the Owl Drug Company had better facilities to carry on the distribution thoroughly the agency was given to them.

– Santa Rosa Republican, March 22, 1909
RUMOR THAT BURBANK DEAL IS OFF

A month ago, it will be remembered, it was announced that Herbert E. Law, Dr. Hartland Law, San Francisco millionaires, and Oscar E. Binner, a wealthy eastern man, had completed arrangements whereby they would take over the entire charge of the distribution of Luther Burbank’s products throughout the world.

It was rumored here yesterday that the big deal was off and that Mr. Burbank had decided to still remain at the helm of the commercial as well as the creative branches of his work. Mr. Burbank preferred not to discuss the matter at all yesterday. Mr. Binner is in San Francisco,, and could not be seen yesterday.

– Press Democrat, March 24, 1909
LUTHER BURBANK ISSUES STATEMENT REGARDING DEAL
Will Direct His Own Business As Heretofore

This combination was altogether unique–with the exception of Mark Twain, John Burroughs and possibly some other cases–in fact only an experiment, as nothing of just its nature had ever existed. Hence no one could foretell the outcome.

The early developments did not indicate satisfactory future results either to the world or to the parties involved in the transaction.

As no corporation had yet been formed and only a preliminary contract executed, when the proposition was found to be impracticable. It was mutually agreed that it be abandoned.

While it is true that my business has become too extensive and too complicated to be handled by one man, yet, I believe that by having complete control of the entire system I can direct competent men in a way to secure the best results.
Luther Burbank.

On Wednesday Luther Burbank absolutely confirmed the report published in the Press Democrat of that morning that the deal between himself and the Law Brothers and Oscar Binner, had been abandoned. The deal, one of the most gigantic of its kind in the history of the country, involved the sole handling of the Burbank products and their distribution throughout the world, with the exception of two or three small contracts into which Mr. Burbank had already entered. The announcement in the paper Wednesday morning that the deal was off attracted something of the surprise of that of a month ago, which told of the preliminary contract.

A Press Democrat representative had an interview with Mr. Burbank on Wednesday and obtained from him a statement explanatory of the abandonment of the contract. Mr. Burbank intends to be at the helm in the directing of his big business. He believes that with the assistance of competent men this can be done, and the best results secured.

Oscar E. Binner returned from San Francisco Wednesday night. He was associated with the Law Brothers in the transaction mentioned. In discussing the turn things had taken, Mr. Binner in the course of an interview, had this to say among other things:

“For myself and by associates, the Law Brothers, let me say that Mr. Burbank’s absolute happiness and contentment were our first consideration.

“We still believe that to have equipped for Mr. Burbank a world-wide sales organization, such as we had planned, would not only have enabled him to devote more of his precious time to his noble and unique research, but also have been the means of giving to the entire civilized world an opportunity of getting a practical and most valuable benefit of his wonderful achievements. There is no doubt in our mind that with such an organization as we had planned for, consisting of some of the best world’s workers, Mr. Burbank would have greatly extended his marvelous achievements.

“Every plant, fruit, and product of this great genius would through this sales organization have been scattered throughout the civilized world and so become the property of all mankind.

That our project (and when I say ‘our’ I mean Mr. Burbank first of all and the Laws and myself) was one which would have made the world better, is evidenced by the fact that hundreds of leading publications throughout the land recognized it as such, and heartily endorsed it, some even giving editorial recognition. Only one single article decried our project, and the man that wrote it admitted the next day that he had   a ‘grouch’ on and was sorry he had written what he had.

“As further evidence and a most gratifying one are the numerous letters that have been received by us from some of the most prominent and influential men throughout the land. Many from our friends, but many more from total strangers to us, congratulating us on our project and offering us unlimited support and assistance if we would give them the privilege.

“One of the best and most responsible endorsements we received was from a man who, perhaps, is better able to judge and recognize what this great project would have meant to Mr. Burbank and the civilized world. I refer to an old and much admired friend of Mr. Burbank–Prof. E. J. Wickson, whose editorial in the Pacific Rural Press came nearer to our personal views and sentiments than all others.

“However, as already stated, Mr. Burbank’s happiness and contentment was our first consideration, and if this would in anyway be involved by the project we were willing to step aside and annul the contract we entered into together on the 23rd of February.

“Mr. Burbank has many true and loyal friends throughout the world, yet none I feel can be more willing to help and assist him at any time than the Law Brothers. As for myself, I have always given him the best there is in me, and I shall always continue to deem it a pleasure to serve him.”

– Press Democrat, March 25, 1909
BURBANK’S BUREAU WILL OPEN TODAY
Information Will Be Furnished all Visitors Together With Other Details–Open Daily

Luther Burbank’s Bureau of Information will be opened to the public today from 10 to 12 and 2 to 4, and each succeeding day, Sunday excepted. It occupies the neat and attractive little building on Santa Rosa avenue fronting the old Burbank residence.

This branch office is designed for the accommodation of visitors, having been found necessary in order that Mr. Burbank be protected from the constant interruptions which have beset him in the past by those who wished either to meet him or to have to opportunity of securing information or samples, souvenirs, seeds, bulbs, etc. These have note heretofore been generally obtainable except from Eastern dealers.

Some scientifically accurate extremely fine studies of his newer fruits and flowers have been produced by California artists and Eastern lithographers, and these will be available to all.

Rare seeds also, all grown under Mr. Burbank’s personal supervision, will be available.

A big register is being prepared for the names, addresses and remarks of visitors. All are welcome to inspect the new office.

– Press Democrat, May 25, 1910
MANY CALLERS AT BURBANK BUREAU
Many States and Several Countries Already Represented Among the Visitors

The information bureau at Luther Burbank’s private experimental grounds on Santa Rosa Avenue is proving a great thing for visitors in this city, who are desirous of obtaining some information concerning Mr. Burbank’s work and also as to where seeds, plants and literature, etc., can be obtained.

The handsome little building the bureau occupies near the site of the old residence has already been visited by several hundred people from out of town. Some fifteen states are represented among the callers and they are people who have come to Santa Rosa for a visit while making an itinerary of the state. Several countries are likewise represented.

Most of the time Miss Pauline Olson is in charge of the Bureau and no one better qualified or more conversant with the nature of the information desired could occupy that position. Daily some of the beautiful blooms created by Mr. Burbank are artistically arranged in the room and these never fail to attract the admiration from visitors.

The poppies and amaryillis are in bloom in the Burbank gardens at the present time, and the color picture is a very beautiful one.

– Press Democrat, May 25, 1910

Read More

1923burbankcactus

THE PRICKLY LUTHER BURBANK

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Luther Burbank was clearly peeved when the reporter asked for comment on whether his greatest achievement was actually a failure.

At issue was a government pamphlet released a month earlier, at the close of 1907. The topic was the prickly pear cactus, also known as genus Opuntia, also known as Burbank’s most profitable plant creation ever. The government experts were envious, Burbank told the reporter, because he had beaten them in developing a fast-growing spineless variety that had ten times the nutritional value of the regular plant.

(RIGHT: Luther Burbank with his spineless cactus. Photo from the Sept. 1908 issue of Overland Monthly)

The spineless cactus was Burbank’s moon shot – an odyssey with the goal of creating a hybrid that would be as important to mankind as his namesake potato. Worthless deserts would become valuable pastures and croplands; the fields once used to grow animal fodder like alfalfa could now feed the world’s hungry. It was his longest running project (a photograph in the Library of Congress collection shows Burbank tending a cactus seed bed c. 1890) and one that he called “soul-testing.” In his authorized Methods and Discoveries book series, he revealed uncharacteristic emotion:


…[T]he work through which this result was achieved constituted in some respects the most arduous and soul-testing experience that I have ever undergone….For five years or more the cactus blooming season was a period of torment to me both day and night. Time and again I have declared from the bottom of my heart that I wished I had never touched the cactus to attempt to remove its spines. Looking back on the experience now, I feel that I would not have courage to renew the experiments were it necessary to go through the same ordeal again.”

Burbank declared success in 1907, a year after making a deal for Australian rights to five varieties – a sale he credited for allowing him to build his fine new house – and he published a cactus catalog (a later version can be found here). The improved spineless cactus would mean “a new agricultural era for whole continents,” he boasted, and “in importance may be classed with the discovery of a new continent.” Most of the public, however, probably already knew of Burbank’s latest marvel from magazines and newspaper Sunday sections, which had been churning out gee-whiz photo features for a couple of years. Then came a widely-reprinted speech he delivered at an agricultural convention. Where the catalog offered grandiose visions of desert paradise, his speech read like a salesman’s list of can’t-refuse bullet points: Yield is 200 tons of food per acre; grows in the very worst conditions; cattle and other animals prefer it to everything else. How many would you like to order, at $2.00 each?

Cactus mania continued ballooning through the end of 1907 as it became publicized that Burbank would receive a staggering $27,000 – by far, the biggest single payday of his life – from a Southern California company for rights to some varieties. Eager to get in on a Sure Thing, investors and farmers besieged government ag field offices seeking more information about these spineless wonders, which led the Dept. of Agriculture to write a pamphlet. And that’s what brought the Press Democrat reporter to ask Luther Burbank whether his cactus was actually a “failure.”

At first read, it’s hard to understand why Burbank knocked the pamphlet and its authors. It doesn’t mention him at all; the 67-page report simply documents the wide variety of prickly pear cacti and how they are consumed in Latin America. Even the title, “The Tuna as Food for Man,” is perfectly clear about the author’s objective, as “tuna” is the Spanish name for this cactus. Some of the fruit described was inedible or tasteless, but a few varieties, such as the Amarilla, was delicious; other varieties were dangerous or plain weird, such as the Tapona (“plug”), which was said to cause such severe constipation that death could ensue.

The Ag. Dept. bulletin also noted that some prickly pear, which had been cultivated by native peoples for generations (probably millennia) were naturally spineless, a fact that Burbank wanted rarely known. Although he would simply answer “no” when asked directly if he had bred the smooth variety from the prickly sort, he wanted the public to believe exactly that. George Shull, the botanist from the Carnegie Institution who studied Burbank’s methods for years, later wrote of his dismay that Burbank set up a display intended to be “misleading to the uncritical:”


Just inside his gate at his Santa Rosa experimental Garden, he had planted a bed, some 15 feet square, with a sprawling, thorny cacti from the desert. In the midst of this forbidden looking culture, he planted a single specimen of Opuntia Ficus-Indica of the spineless variety, in most striking contrast with the thorny cacti around it. Mr. Burbank’s visitors, who often came in droves, would look over the fence at this striking demonstration and comments to one another [on] the amazing wizardry which “created” the smooth fat-slabbed cactus from the sprawling thorny ones.*

It may seem odd that the government would produce a 1907 pamphlet all about the prickly pear yet not mention the 800 lb. Burbank in the room, but this undoubtedly was the wisest decision. One reason is that Burbank was a polarizing celebrity, beloved by the public and viewed as something of a charlatan by the many in the scientific community, as discussed in the first “Burbank’s Follies” essay. Any explicit praise or criticism would be sure to raise someone’s hackles. Another reason is that Burbank simply hadn’t shared samples of his hybrids with government researchers – and according to an article in the Jan. 10, 1909 Los Angeles Herald, Washington was still waiting over a year later to see a Burbank cactus. A few sentences in the pamphlet’s introduction, however, took a very cautious aim at deflating a few of his claims:


Enthusiastic magazine writers would revolutionize conditions in arid regions by the establishment of plantations of prickly pear without spines, those converting the most arid deserts into populous, prosperous communities. Experience teaches, however, that the spineless varieties of cultivation are not hardy under natural desert conditions, that all of the valuable spineless species which produce either fruit or forage in economic quantities require considerable precipitation at some time of the year, and that economic species are not known which thrive under a minimum temperature of less that 10°F [Ed. note: In a later pamphlet, the author changed the cold-weather threshold to 20°F].

In other words, never would the desert bloom in vast cactus farms. The spineless varieties were more delicate than the spiny forms, sensitive to cold and not as drought tolerant. They grew best only in places with year-around rainfall or with wet, mild winters and dry summers. Places like Santa Rosa, California, for example.

Other claims by Burbank and his agents crumbled under scrutiny. Often mentioned was that a crop would yield 200 tons of forage; less said was that it would take at least three years for the cactus to grow to that size. Burbank also stated that his cactus required only about a third the amount of water needed to grow alfalfa – although again avoiding mention that a crop took three years, thus bringing water use to a draw. Since his cacti were slow growing (though apparently faster than many wild forms) it was impractical for pasture grazing, yet harvested cactus paddles were bulky, hard to transport, so they had to be grown near where they would be used. Any way you looked at it, the Burbank cactus was a failure as a world-changing plant; it was just another Burbank garden novelty.

The author of the Agriculture Department bulletin was horticulturist Dr. David Griffiths, who went on to write several more bulletins on the prickly pear in following years, all available through Google Books. He never mentioned Burbank or his hybrids, and never found farmers or ranchers growing the cactus in places where it was not naturally found, such as southern Texas. And the more he investigated the prickly pear, he learned that all varieties improved with irrigation and cultivation, yet it only really thrived in very specific conditions: Not too cold or hot, not at high altitude or at sea level, not too damp or dry. See again: Santa Rosa.

The Burbank cactus bubble floated along until 1915, when Burbank’s sales company received an order from Mexico that was too large to fill, so they shipped regular prickly pear with the thorns shaved off, a deceit that was discovered as soon as thorny new growth appeared. The scandal nearly destroyed Burbank’s reputation, particularly because the fraud was conducted by the “Luther Burbank Company” and every plant came with a tag promising the “guarantee of receiving original Burbank productions.” But some felt that the fraud actually began years before, as Burbank began making irresponsible claims about a plant that had little more potential than its wild cousin. (UPDATE: The Burbank biographies that state a bait-and-switch fraud was discovered are probably wrong. See this discussion.)

*pg. 141, Peter Dreyer, A Gardener Touched With Genius (Luther Burbank Home & Gardens, Santa Rosa, CA) 1985

THE GOVERNMENT EXPERTS BELITTLE BURBANK’S WORK
Declare the Spineless Cactus a Failure
Noted Santa Rosan, However, is Willing to Let His Work Speak For Itself and Abide by the Result–Working on Seedless Variety

San Francisco, Jan. 23– Luther Burbank is reported to be considerably wrought up over the publication of a government bulletin which says the Santa Rosan over-worked the facts when he declared that he had produced a spineless cacti. The bulletin is called “Tuna as a food for Man, and is issued by David Griffith of the Bureau of Plant Industry, last month.

The Bulletin declares that the general belief and hope that the species that the spineless cacti would displace its wild sister on the deserts of California and Arizona to furnish food and a substitute for water to lost prospectors is doomed to disappointment and failure. Experiments go to show, declares the circular, that the cultivated variety is unable to withstand of the hardships of the desert and will be no more acceptable than the wild cacti.


Mr. Burbank, when seen last night regarding the bulletin by a Press Democrat representative, said he had seen the statement and declared that the government experts were piqued because they had been beat out by him by five years in securing the spineless variety. He said he was more than willing to let his success speaks for itself, and abide by the results. He had been able to increase the cacti productiveness four times and its food value ten times as with his spineless variety a yield of 200 tons per acre could be secured as against 20 tons from the wild, while the sugar and fat in the spineless was greatly increased. “The next move will be to produce a seedless as well as a spineless variety,” said he in closing.

– Press Democrat, January 24, 1908

Read More