hards could be based for any future calculations.
There are two reasons for this. First, most of the figures we have are
based upon the records of a few pet trees around the dooryard or garden,
grown under favorable conditions. Second, the young groves are not yet
old enough for anyone to say, with any degree of accuracy, what the
results will be. Therefore, the alluring figures printed in these
pamphlets are only guesses.

Furthermore, what of the contract of these concerns? What does it
specify? You would be surprised to know the legal construction of one of
these contracts, together with their guaranty bond. In most cases they
advertise to plant, and properly cultivate for a period of five to seven
years, orchards of the finest varieties of budded or grafted pecan
trees, with Satsuma oranges or figs set between. But the guaranty
company is usually wise enough to have lawyers who are able to advise
them of their liabilities, and about all they actually guarantee is
that, after a period of five years, provided all payments have been
promptly met, there will be turned over to the purchaser five acres of
ground with trees upon it. Five years old? No, they may not be one year
old. Budded or grafted? No, they may be mere seedlings. Oranges set
between them? No, the orange has passed out of the proposition before
the bond stage. The companies generally print a copy of the bond, but
usually in such small type that the victim does not read it, though the
heading is always prominent. It thunders in the index and fizzles in the
context.

Moreover, suppose suit is brought on one of these contracts and bonds?
What is the measure of damages? What basis has any court or jury for
fixing damages? And be it remembered that courts do not exist for the
protection of fools against their folly. The principle "caveat emptor"
is as old as the common law itself, and it means that the buyer must
beware, or in other words, that he should inform himself, and that he
cannot expect the courts to protect him where he has failed to exercise
due caution and diligence. Therefore, as a lawyer, I should very much
hesitate to take on a contingent fee the suit of one of these various
victims against a promoting orchard corporation.

However, in any jurisdiction where there is a criminal statute against
fraudulent representation and obtaining money under false pretenses, I
should not hesitate, if I were the prosecuting attorney, to indict every
member