58 Loco Weeds. 
and soon threatened to bankrupt the state. Mr. Henry W. Selover 
of Denver, who carefully collected the facts concerning the law and 
its effects, gives the following table to show the result upon the rev- 
enue of the state: 
Gener’t Revenue) |Loco Certificates 
CouNTIES. from 1881 to ’84, issued ’81 to’84, |Amount short. 
inclusive. inclusive. | 
DEES ASS AU Gee 0 leas ren Aas aici $24,632 73 $i 502, 644k tee 
MR PIOS Sek ee es 18,342 65 [esa ea Reda Sees Ga 
Rests erg eg: he 11,540 °35 28,403 69 $16,863 34 
BNET a 16,758 98 21,017 44 4,258 46 
Miter oe ea a F : 23,768 94 1506 Fo ee 
ICERSO Tee ee hss, 71,086 66 17 O75 02 ee 
BM, cp eig oe, os 30,741 96 EpGB0 GOH oe ce 
Huerfano pes P ue tr Pavey oso 16,946 08 41,748 89 24,802 81 
BMS ARIMAS yo 60 Orr Oe, 41,344 37 BA003 FO. Se etee os 
MOR ceca eee 24,989 92 $5505 4¢. lias sake 
Pueblo AN ae SE FSO A ea 81,142 09 Wia00 ae ee ee 
MON ty se 18,221 84 21,142 28 | 2,920 44 
ROtahy ies Se $379,516 57 $153,555 96 
The law was luckily repealed in 1885, before it had swallowed 
the entire state revenue. The history of this legislation is a most 
notable instance of the inefficiency of bounty laws. The destruc- 
tion of pests can and ought to be left to those most directly con- — 
cerned. Indeed, to foster rather than destroy seems the general 
tendency of all bounty laws. 
It seems strange, with agricultural experiment stations throughout 
the country, that the loco question does not become settled. Much 
of the confusion doubtless arises from the great similarity existing 
among the species of Astragalus and Oxytropis. The poison, too, 
may not be inherent in the plant, but due to a fungus or an insect. 
This view would perhaps explain its prevalence during some years 
and in certain regions and also the constantly increasing number 
of new loco weeds. _ : 
For much that this paper contains I am indebted to the Rocky 
Mountain Druggist, which republished the articles from which I 
have quoted. 
