burbank

THE NEWSPAPER FEUD OF 1905

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Press Democrat editor Ernest L. Finley got along with almost everybody in Santa Rosa, with a couple of notable exceptions: One was James Wyatt Oates, whom he went out of his way to describe in his reminiscences as a disagreeable bully. His other nemesis was whoever sat in the editor’s chair at the rival newspaper.

Finley’s previous foe at the Santa Rosa Republican was Allen B. Lemmon, whose tenure as editor and publisher ended shortly after the 1904 elections, following weeks of the two editors lobbing insults at the other political party, its candidates, and even personally at the other editor. Taking control of the Republican were a pair of out-of-towners who had worked at papers in Sacramento and Oakland. They quickly made an impressive debut with a little muckraking series on the poor conditions of Santa Rosa schools (complete with photographs!) and added a chatty “society” column. Perhaps impressed with the newcomer’s initiative and a little cowed by their journalistic acumen, the Press Democrat no longer mentioned the other paper at all. That truce lasted all of four months.

In mid-March 1905, Finley aggressively went on the attack with a parody claiming to be an advertisement from the Republican. “This excellent household journal,” began the fake ad that appeared in the Press Democrat, “having just passed under control of people from the big town, who never saw a pumpkin in their lives, will henceforth be devoted to the pleasant, though arduous task, of teaching metropolitan ways to hayseeds, and introducing city culture to the backwoods.” With no disclaimer whatsoever, the PD parody, which ran about 800 words, tried to ridicule the competing paper for its “Sussiety news,” making a few minor errors, and running a contest. It comes across as something that was probably side-splitting funny when read loudly to comrades at a saloon, but now just seems snarky.

The Republican responded the next day by reprinting the Press Democrat’s entire parody with an added light-hearted preface. Their article (transcribed below) had one of the best-est headlines ever: “IS THE PEE-DEE SMOKING ‘HOP'”?

The Republican staff apparently thought Finley was playfully engaged in bonhomie jousting. They were wrong. The Press Democrat ran yet another parody ad March 21, but this one had fewer yucks and more sneering. Finley pressed his accusation that the Republican editor was both elitist and ignorant: “While the people here have been poling hogs and mulching turkeys and grafting onions, we have been acquiring information upon all things of importance to the people of rural communities. Since our arrival here, and our assumption of the editorial helm of the Republican, we have been disseminating this wisdom without stint.”

This second parody from the Press Democrat also ventured deeper into the confusing hall of mirrors by mostly pretending to be the Republican criticizing the Press Democrat: “…bearing in mind our self-appointed task of moulding local journalism and local conditions generally into a more metropolitan form, we continued to scan the morning paper daily, and held up a mirror to its short-comings in a way that, although it may have been painful, was nevertheless for the best interests of the public. It is an actual fact that since taking charge of the Republican we have paid more attention to the way the Press Democrat is conducted than to the course of our own journal. We expect no pay for this. The approval of our own conscience is sufficient reward until such time as the people of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county awaken to our merits and accord to us the credit justly due.”

Both parodies reveal much about Finley’s deep wellspring of resentment against outsiders, but it was the second offering that showed how thin-skinned he was. Contrary to the parody’s theme, the new management at the Republican hadn’t been criticizing the PD; in the month prior, no editorial mention of the Press Democrat can be found at all. The Republican had invited the attack, however, for having the temerity to point out an error made by Finley.

Without wandering too deeply into the weeds here, a Press Democrat reporter had asked Luther Burbank whether a sour grape could be bred (really, a grape with high levels of tartaric acid). The nurseryman said yes, it was possible. On March 17, an article in the PD with the headline, “Grapes to Yield Nothing But Acid,” quoted Burbank as saying that a grape could be created “that will yield tartaric acid altogether.” The reporter had either misquoted Burbank or the remark had been mangled in rewrite by editor Finley. That same evening, the Republican ran a short article with a clarification from Burbank: sure, over time a grape could be developed that had more acid, he said, but it could never be a little blob of just acid, as implied by the Press Democrat. The Republican headline read, “Mr. Burbank is Chagrined” that such misinformation had been attributed to him.

Caught in an error – and one misrepresenting a scientific statement by the venerated Luther Burbank, no less – the Press Democrat reacted quickly. But not to correct the mistake; instead, Finley changed the subject into whether Burbank was “chagrined” or not.

That same night, a PD reporter (certainly Finley himself) was knocking on Burbank’s door. The newspaper was told, “There is certainly no reason why I should have been chagrined by anything that has ever appeared in the Press Democrat in connection with my work …I also sincerely hope that you will not allow the matter to swerve in the least the warm friendship that has always existed between us.” The love fest continued with Burbank saying that he and his Secretary had also complimented the Press Democrat’s record of accuracy. The headline: “Mr. Burbank was not ‘Chagrined.'”

The Republican followed up the next day with yet another visit to Burbank for clarification and comment on the not-chagrined kerfuffle. This is now the fourth time that a journalist has pestered him about the theoretical possibility of sour grapes – is there any wonder why the poor man tried to keep away visitors?

The first PD parody appeared in the next issue, and the feud was on. From then until the earthquake a year later, rarely a day went by without one or both papers taking an editorial page potshot at the other. Finley excelled at coming up with little mottos that were probably cute and apt at the time, but today seem bizarre, or maybe like coded spy messages: “The Evening Fakir is at it again,” “Our friend down the street bleeds easily these days,” and my favorite, “Although the Republican spars for wind, it has to ‘acknowledge the corn.'”

IS THE PEE-DEE SMOKING “HOP”
While Under Some Influence, the Scribe “Hands It” to The Republican.
The “Sussiety” Writer is Really Pained — Nay, More, Thinks the Pee-Dee is “Vewy Rude, Dontcherknow!”

“The principal trouble
With some people is that
They go through life
Imagining that all the other
People are fools.”
– The Great Pee-Dee.

Whether the Press-Democrat scribe has been indulging in tartaric acid, gall or wormwood is not easy to determine. That something has upset his stomach seems, however, quite certain — witness the following from the Sunday morning issue of that paper. The Republican re-prints it for the edification of its readers:

THE DAILY REPUBLICAN.

This excellent household journal, having just passed under control of people from the big town, who never saw a pumpkin in their lives, will henceforth be devoted to the pleasant, though arduous task, of teaching metropolitan ways to hayseeds, and introducing city culture to the backwoods.

First Aid to the Foolish.

In the brief space of two months, this enterprising journal has introduced the codlin moth for the benefit of the fruit growers of Sonoma county, has discovered the quacking drake and the loss of blood without hemorrhage. To this record we point with pardonable pride.

Another startling discovery for which the Republican claims credit, and the honor of first heralded it to the world, is that there is a busy railway station known as “Melino” in Green Valley where thirty-two trains pass every half-hour. But for the Republican’s enterprise, this place might never have been found.

With its unparalleled facilities for gathering and disseminating information the Republican now follows the practice of publishing today’s news yesterday — sometimes even earlier. In fact, we have on several occasions told of events so far in advance that they haven’t happened yet.

In addition to these advantages the Republican is equipped with a private and exclusive system of grammar and rhetoric, which no other paper in the county is entitled to use, or would know how to use if the right were granted. Besides all this, we have an especially devised and copyrighted code of journalistic ethics, not known or even attempted elsewhere in the world. All these benefits are enjoyed by the Republican’s subscribers without extra charge.

Useful and Reliable Information.

It is not every rural community that can command the service of trained and cultured metropolitan journalists spreading the light of knowledge. How many of the farmers of Santa Rosa or Sonoma county would ever have found out that the codlin moth is beneficial, had not the Republican made this important discovery and given its subscribers the startling news the very day after it was unearthed?

The Republican has made many other discoveries, equally startling and of equal importance to the farmers of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county. How many of the ignorant tillers of the soil here know the proper way to harvest rutabega squashes? Few, indeed. Here it has always been the custom to shake the tree and pick up the squashes from the ground. By this process most of the ruta-bagas were bruised; gangrene set in; and the result was that jelly made from these squashes would not keep well, and was positively unhealthful. Rutabagas should never be shaken from the tree. They should be carefully picked with sugar tongs, wiped with pink tissue paper, and the pickled for two weeks in a solution of lime, sulphur and gasoline. Handled in this way, they form a dish fit for the gods, build up the wasted tissues, improve the breath, harden the gums and, in short, tone the system generally.

Portland Tours Contest.

If there is anybody in this community whom you would like to get rid of, send his name to the Republican on a blank ballot furnished for that purpose. The man who gets the most votes will be sent out of the state. None of the Republican staff is eligible under the terms of the contest. This condition is made necessary by the fact that before it was imposed nobody voted for anyone else except Republican writers.

The Real Thing in Sussiety News.

Through the courtesy of the Superintendent of the Glen Ellen Home, the Republican has secured the service of The Prattler, that most distinguished writer upon social topics, hotel arrivals, etc. Those outside the pale of white ties and hard-boiled shirts who may have imagined that Sussiety news cannot be interesting, should read the thrilling stories from this brilliant writer’s trenchant pen, and learn what literature really is. The Prattler is intensely enthusiastic regarding his work — so much so that he says that after one function has been pulled off he can scarcely wait for another. He just wishes such things could last forever!

Now is the Time to Subscribe.

You should not delay, but send in your name at once for this incomparable and incomprehensible newspaper. The very next issue may contain information that will keep you awake o’ nights and be worth a fortune to you. Old residents of the county, men who have taken all the county papers for years, say they have never seen anything like the Republican under its present management. Don’t delay. There may be something in the very next number that will astonish you as well as everybody else, and make your hair curl.

– Santa Rosa Republican, March 20, 1905

Read More

SONOMA COUNTY AND EUGENICS

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

National news stories are off-topic here, but that 1905 Press Democrat headline, “Dr. Brown Would Drown the Idiots”, is irresistible, and also lends the opportunity to briefly discuss Sonoma County’s shameful role in the 20th century eugenics movement.

Like many other states, California had an institution for children that were diagnosed as “feeble-minded” (more about that offensive term below). Founded in 1883 by a pair of civic-minded women, the facility shuffled between four South Bay and East Bay towns until the state agreed to buy a ranch near Glen Ellen. With a band playing a cheery tune at the train stop, the first 148 children arrived in 1891 at what was then called The California Home for the Care and Training of Feeble-Minded Children. By 1904, the Home had 541 “inmates” and a staff of 70, making it the largest employer in the county. The state was also pouring money into the institution to expand it rapidly. (More on the history of the institution proper can be found in a November 19, 2000 Gaye LeBaron column available by searching the Press Democrat web site archives. The Home is still often referred to interchangeably as “Eldridge,” which was the name given to the train stop.)

“It was with the idea of providing a home for the purely custodial cases as well as undertaking the training and development of the epileptic feeble-minded that the management in the past ventured its memorable struggle…from its former inadequate quarters to the present unrivaled location,” the PD noted in a 1904 promotional insert that contained a full page on the Home, partially seen at right. But wait — read that section again: why the mention of the epileptic feeble-minded?” That’s because, according to a 1904 Census Bureau report, (PDF) about 18 percent of those institutionalized as feeble-minded were actually epileptic — by far the largest category of those considered “physically defective.”

Jack London visited the Home (which was adjacent to his ranch) in the summer of 1905, later writing a short story, “Told In the Drooling Ward.” Written from the viewpoint of a “high-grade feeb” (who sounds more like a cousin to Huck Finn), the story follows the attempted escape from the institution by two boys with epilepsy. London’s character described the world of the “epilecs” at the Home:


“You see that house up there through the trees. The high-grade epilecs all live in it by themselves. They’re stuck up because they ain’t just ordinary feebs. They call it the club house, and they say they’re just as good as anybody outside, only they’re sick. I don’t like them much. They laugh at me, when they ain’t busy throwing fits. But I don’t care. I never have to be scared about falling down and busting my head. Sometimes they run around in circles trying to find a place to sit down quick, only they don’t. Low-grade epilecs are disgusting, and high-grade epilecs put on airs. I’m glad I ain’t an epilec. There ain’t anything to them. They just talk big, that’s all.”

“Club house” or no, these children with epilepsy were still captives, warehoused until age 18 as “feeble-minded” alongside others with severe cognitive disabilities, such as microcephaly. What “training” they were given at the Glen Ellen facility is not apparent; photos from a few years later show inmates tending crops in fields surrounding the grounds. Contemporary pictures of East Coast institutions show girls sewing or doing needlepoint, and boys working in tailoring or leatherwork.

The children also may have faced a greater risk of harm from the institution itself than their disability. The late Victorian era believed that there was a dangerous form of epilepsy — use the Google ngram viewer and you’ll find “epileptic insanity” discussed in hundreds of articles and book chapters in medical literature up to the 1940s. Although there was no scientific proof that epileptic insanity was an actual physiological disorder, some authors at the time confidently reported that it accounted for 10-30 percent of all epilepsy cases. Some also claimed that everyone with epilepsy was, by definition, mentally unstable; a 1883 text on insanity stated, “There are those who, as soon as they find the slightest indications of epilepsy in the person under investigation, instantly jump at the conclusion that, ergo, that subject cannot be of sound mind.”

(Although their definition of epileptic insanity was fuzzy, it didn’t stop doctors from prescribing specific medical treatment: A 1917 medical text says epileptic insanity attacks can be treated with a regular enema cocktail of chloral hydrate, tincture of cannabis and digitalis, although “use of opium for a long period has been known to break up recurrent maniacal attacks.” Well, I should think so.)

Not only was their notion of “epileptic insanity” mistaken, but also was their certainty of precise underlying causes of epilepsy. According to our best science in 2008, about 100 diseases and conditions are thought to have possible links, but we admit today that no certain cause is discovered in 7 out of 10 cases. But a 1902 Clinical Psychiatry textbook noted “genuine epilepsy” was linked to unknown anatomical changes in the brain most of the time — with the insanity form, however, “defective heredity” was diagnosed as the cause in most cases. Such certainty that “defective heredity” caused a non-existent disorder was an early step down the very dark road of eugenics.

Eugenics was a popular debate topic in the 1890s and first years of the Twentieth Century. America’s leading popular scientist, Santa Rosa’s own Luther Burbank, contributed a widely-reprinted 1906 treatise, “The Training of the Human Plant.” To Burbank, “mingling of races” was healthy, but he thought it was a “crime against the state” if “degenerates” had children:


“Suppose we blend together two poisonous plants and make a third even more virulent, a vegetable degenerate, and set their evil descendants adrift to multiply over the earth, are we not distinct foes to the race? What, then, are we not distinct foes to the race? What, then, shall we say of two people of absolutely defined physical impairment who are allowed to marry and rear children? It is a crime against the state and every individual in the state. And if these physically degenerate are also morally degenerate, the crime becomes all the more appalling.”

(UPDATE: On closer reading, the context of “moral degenerate” was in reference to people who had syphilis and other STDs which were incurable at the time.) The truly appalling thing was Burbank’s flawed humans-as-plants metaphor. Aside from implying that some people are no better than weeds, he lost what scientific authority he had in this essay by sweeping “moral degenerate[s]” into his definition of “absolutely defined physical impairment.” As with his poorly-reasoned “kinetic universe” theory (see earlier post), Burbank didn’t seem aware that he was spoiling the stew by tossing a dollop of pseudoscience into his pot.

To his credit, Burbank stopped short of linking “moral degeneracy” to heredity. But in the years that followed, there was no shortage of medical experts who sought to blame criminality and other anti-social behavior on impaired brains or bad genes. A 1916 Boston Medical and Surgical Journal article reported that one examining doctor found 1 in 3 delinquents were feeble-minded. The author followed with a sweeping generalization that “every person who is called a criminal is now thought to have some mental variation from the normal.” Nor were epileptics exempt from this thinking. A 1918 study, “American Social Problems,” went even further: “Many feeble-minded, however, are also epileptic, and epilepsy is a common trait of criminals.”

Down the slippery slope of eugenics we tumble; if criminals usually had epilepsy (not true, of course), were epileptics usually criminals? If someone in authority, such as the 1916 “Special Investigator” for Massachusetts State Board of Insanity wrote in the article above that all criminals had some sort of mental disorder, wasn’t having a brain impairment suspect behavior in itself?

The stigma of once being labeled (or suspected) of feeble-mindedness also carried the risk of incarceration at a state hospital. The Insanity Board investigator — surely with the best of intentions of separating the disabled from the population of hardened criminals — believed that cops and other law-enforcement officials could be trusted to pick out the feeble-minded and send them to an institution without court hearings:


My belief is that the first mental examinations should be made by probation officers, judges and police officers…I think that an examination several hours long is not feasible or necessary. I think that a good history of the life, brief and easy to get from every man arrested, obtained before sentence, would in the majority of cases enable a non-medical man to separate out most of the insane and feeble-minded.

Those sent to the Sonoma State Home (the new name for the institution, as of 1909) possibly faced harsher punishment than a regular convict. A just-passed state law allowed for the “asexualization… [of] any person who has been lawfully committed to any state hospital for the insane, or who has been an inmate of the Sonoma State Home, and who is afflicted with hereditary insanity or incurable chronic mania or dementia.”

To be clear: The California law was authorizing forced sterilization of any inmate — and with no more review than a signature from two health board members. As the years progressed, they must have suffered writer’s cramp.

Although many other states followed suit before WWI, California was by far the most active. A 1922 study found 4 out of 5 forced sterilizations nationwide were performed in the state, with the justification being “mainly eugenic, also for the physical, mental or moral benefit of inmate, also partly punitive in certain cases.” Women usually had their tubes tied, and men were given vasectomies; but about 5% of the time, doctors performed hysterectomies or castrations.

(For details on sterilization in all states in this era, see the Carnegie Institution’s survey: “Eugenical Sterilization in the United States.” The Carnegie Institution — which, incidentally, was Luther Burbank’s patron for a few years at this time — actively promoted race-cleansing eugenics projects in the U.S. that were later studied approvingly by the Nazis, including a proposal for locally-operated gas chambers.)

Until 1918, sterilization was rare at Eldridge, with only 12 inmates forced to undergo the operation. But under new superintendent Dr. Fred O. Butler, it became virtually a factory operation, with about 5,400 sterilized between then and 1949, a thousand of the procedures performed by Dr. Butler himself. “We are not sterilizing, in my opinion, fast enough,” he said.

In examining admittance records from Butler’s tenure for her book, “Building a Better Race,” scholar Wendy Kline found there was also a marked shift in the types of patients arriving at the Home: “…a large proportion of Sonoma’s activities had nothing to do with the problem of mental deficiency and much to do with the problem of female sexuality.” Kline cited a 1926 study of the Sonoma Home that reported almost half of the women were there because they were classified as sexually delinquent, with notes in their records that they were “passionate,” “immoral,” “promiscuous,” or similar. The study found only 3 percent of the women were accused of actual crimes, such as prostitution. Male patients, however, were never found to have “sex delinquency;” most were adolescents sent to Eldridge for sterilization by their families because they were “masturbators” or “passive sodomists.”

Like all eugenics true-believers, Butler and his staff always sought evidence of physical deformity to “prove” their crackpot theories. Wrote Kline:


Doctors took note not only of patients’ sexual behavior but also of the sexual organs themselves. For example, of the eighty-two women admitted to Sonoma between January 1918 and August 1919 who were sterilized, forty-one, of 50 percent, were also noted for their “abnormal” genitals. Twenty-two of these patients were singled out specifically for enlarged genitals — the clitoris, vaginal wall, or labia — additional evidence (in the opinions of institutional physicians) of sexual deviance…and underscored the assumption that feeble-minded women were indeed “oversexed.”

The valuable chapter in Kline’s book aside, very little is written about Dr. Butler’s house of eugenic horrors. What happened there certainly wasn’t a secret; Butler was a prolific writer. And nothing is available (at least, nothing that I’ve found) about Sonoma County’s views on the doings behind the walls at the Home, which continued through WWII and after, even as Germans were being rightly condemned for the same practices. This is fertile ground for an American History grad student seeking a thesis topic.

As for our theme item about Dr. Brown and the idiots, not much else is known; several newspapers around the country printed a small item like this, also usually quoting a quip from the Richmond Times-Dispatch: If we were to drown all the idiots like rats, “some states would soon be mighty hard up for legislators.”

DR. BROWN WOULD DROWN THE IDIOTS
Special Dispatch to Press Democrat

New York, Jan. 28 — Dr. Brown of the Board of Health created a sensation while speaking of the proposed new system of education for the backward scholars when he declared that idiots should be drowned. He argued that there was no time these days to spend on children that were deficient in mental powers and said that as there was no hope for idots [sic] their lives should be extinguished.

– Press Democrat, January 29, 1905

Read More

BEWARE BURBANK KNOCKOFFS

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Luther Burbank may as well have been Luther Rolex, so often were shoddy knockoffs apparently passed off using his name.

That both local newspapers produced long stories on the same theme within a few days of each other suggests that Burbank’s secretary, the euphonically named May Maye, had dispatched some sort of press release about the fakes. The followup story in the Press Democrat confirms that there was indeed a problem a few weeks earlier with counterfeit carnations in San Francisco on St. Patrick’s Day, but the other incidents below are described only as have happened “recently,” and some probably came from Burbank’s copious scrapbooks to underscore the seriousness of this type of threat to his business.

MAKING CAPITAL OUT OF HIS FAME
FRAUD BEING PRACTICED UPON PUBLIC AND INJUSTICE DONE LUTHER BURBANK
Plants and Flowers That Eminent Scientist Never Saw Are Being Sold as His Creations

When Dr. J. J. Summerfield of this city was in Birmingham, England, recently he chanced to pass a florist’s establishment and his eye rested on a sign in the window which told in attractive lettering that “Burbank’s Thornless Cactus” were for sale there.

Naturally the Santa Rosan entered the store and asked to see the Burbank creations. He was shown some insignificant flowers and plants and was told emphatically that they were the genuine, “obtained direct from Burbank.”

Summerfield looked at flower and plant for a moment and then startled the proprietor by saying:

“I am one of Burbank’s nearest neighbors in Santa Rosa, California, and I know positively that Mr. Burbank has not sent out any of his never fading flowers or thornless cacti. I will give you just half an hour to remove those signs from your window or else I will have it done for you.”

A half hour later Dr. Summerfield passed the place and the signs had disappeared and the proprietor of the store promised that they should not be displayed again.

But it is not only abroad that frauds are being practiced upon the public and injustice done the creator of so many new fruits, plants and flowers. Even in San Francisco and other cities, it has come to Mr. Burbank’s notice that a “Burbank Green Carnation” is being sold. The truth is Mr. Burbank has not yet attempted to produce a “green carnation.”

One of the cheekiest of the impositions is published in the Las Vegas, N. M., Optic. This is what it said:

“W. S. Burke, editor of the Albuquerque Journel [sic], is trying some interesting experiments with thornless cacti on this ranch near the city. While in California, recently, his old-time friend, Luther Burbank made him a present of some choice specimens of the thornless variety of cactus, with which he had been experimenting for a long time with the object of securing a species that would grow in the most pronounced desert. If he has succeeded, the barren tracts of California and Arizona and New Mexico will soon become the feeding ground of hundreds of thousands of cattle. The thornless cactus is nourishing and palatable to stock of all kinds.”

The Mr. Burke referred to Mr. Burbank has never seen, and does not know, so that the “old-time friend” idea is a false one. Again, Mr. Burbank has never sent out a single plant of the thornless cactus to anyone.

The Modesto News recently gave an account of one G. W. Elsey, who has a “tree of the Burbank plumcot.” The fruit is described at some length. There are none of the Burbank creation of plumcots on the market, therefore the plumcot Mr. Elsey has is not a product of the eminent scientist at all.

In Mexico, Arizona, and other places the supposed Burbank thornless cactus is being offered and the whole thing is a fake for, as stated, Mr. Burbank has not put any plants on the market. In London and New York the “never fading” flower is being offered and there are none of the genuine flowers to be had in either place at present.

– Press Democrat, April 6, 1905
MORE TROUBLE FOR BURBANK
A Florist Dyes Carnations Green and Declares Them Wizard’s Creation

An enterprising florist has created another endless chain of trouble and inquiry for Luther Burbank, whose home in this city is besieged early and late with visitors anxious to see and talk with the creator of new fruits and flowers.

In the celebration of St. Patricks Day recently the enterprising florist referred to dyed some beautiful white carnations a pretty green on the tip ends, and palmed them off on unsuspecting customers as the latest creation of the Burbank genius. Their success was instantaneous and many patriotic sons of Erin purchased the dyed carnations at fabulous prices.

Already the persons who saw and purchased the so-called green carnations supposed to have been designed by Mr. Burbank have begun writing letters regarding it. This morning’s mail brought several inquiries about the price of plants and other questions for Mr. Burbank to answer. One letter from Bakersfield enclosed the faded petals of the carnation to Mr. Burbank and this was the first time he had seen the alleged creation of his genius. It is apparent at first glance that the populace has been sadly imposed upon by the florist.

The story of the alleged green carnation brings to mind one of Mr. Burbank’s prettiest and most wonderful creations, the last plants of which were devoured by voracious gophers last season. This was a carnation which was pure white on the first day it blossomed, a beautiful pink on the second day, and a deep red on the third day. This color was maintained until the flower withered and died, but the succession of colors on the three days was a remarkable feat. At the time of its creation no one seemed to appreciate it and now that it is obsolete there is a great demand for it. Mr. Burbank knows the exact steps by which this was produced and intends to reproduce it. Mr. Pierson, a carnation expert of Cromwell, Mass., is very desirous of obtaining this novelty. He has two million feet of glass in his nurseries, most of which are devoted to the cultivation of carnations.

– Santa Rosa Republican, April 14, 1905
WHITE CARNATIONS ARE TURNED GREEN

Twice recently the Press Democrat has called attention to the fraud being perpetrated upon people in San Francisco by flower dealers selling “green” carnations, claiming that they are Burbank creations, when in reality they are white carnations dyed green by the use of chemicals.

According to a metropolitan newspaper the Board of Health of San Francisco have received a communication from F. Shibely, a florist, complaining that certain flower dealers were exhibiting and selling green carnations which were really nothing but the ordinary white blossoms colored green by the use of dye which he thought poisonous. While not ordering an official inquiry into the matter the Board directed that the Health Officer take such means as might be found available to give the flower buying public notice of the statement made.

– Press Democrat, April 22, 1905

Read More