THE .TiCIDIAL STAGE OK RUSTS. 29 



understood. That the proximity of liarherries to grainfields was 

 injurious to the crops had long been l)elieved, although no one could 

 say just what caused the dajnage. In many cases stringent laws 

 making the destruction of barberries compulsory had been enacted. 

 Klebalm (63, p. 205) finds the first mention of such legislation by 

 De Magneville (68, p. IS), who says that laws against the growing 

 of barberries were extant in Rouen, France, in 1660. The citations 

 of Loverdo (67, p. 199) and Prillieux (86, p. 221) undoubtedly are 

 taken from this reference. Klebalm, however, was unable to locate 

 the original law, even though M. Ch. de Beaurepaire, Archiviste 

 Paleographe de la Prefecture de la Seine Inferieure in Rouen, looked 

 through the record of laws for 1660 and also for 1760. There is, 

 thus, some doubt about this report. 



In the eighteenth century rust literature became much more 

 extensive. According to Klebalm (63, pp. 205, 206), Erhart (38, p. 

 59) says that in 1720 an English farmer destroyed his neighbor's 

 barberries with hot water because they hurt his wheat. This instance 

 is also cited by Hornemann (56, p. 8). De Bary (12, p. 35) found the 

 noxiousness (Schadlichkeit) of barberry to wheat mentioned by 

 Kriinitz (65, p. 198), who says: 



Man hat sic ohne Grund beschuldigt, dass sie in den nahe dabei stehenden Korn 

 den Brand verursachten, weswegen dieselben sogar aus den Zaiinen um die Landgiiter 

 verbannt werden. 



Withering (105, p. 199) in 1776 wrote: 



This shrub should never be permitted to grow in corn lands, for the ears of wheat 

 that grow near it never fill, and its influence in this respect has been known to extend 

 as far as 300 or 400 yards across a field. 



According to Davis (37, p. 82) the oldest legislation in the United 

 States concerning barberries w^as enacted in Connecticut in 1726, 

 when towns were empowered to pass regulations at their town meet- 

 ings for the destruction of barberries within their respective tow^n- 

 ships, "it being by plentiful experience found that where they are in 

 large quantities they do occasion, or at least increase, the blast on all 

 sorts of English grain." In Massachusetts an act w^as passed in 1755 

 making the destruction of barberries in that Colony before June 13, 

 1760, compulsory (73, pp. 797, 798) because "it has been found by 

 experience that the blasting of wheat and other English grain is often 

 occasioned by barberry bushes to the great loss and damage of the 

 inhabitants of this province." Similar laws, but much less stringent 

 than those of Massachusetts, were passed in Rhode Island in 1766 

 and 1772, and again in Connecticut in 1779. 



In 1781-1784 Marshall (71, pp. 19,359; 72, p. 11), by reason of the 

 strong existing prejudice against barberries in England, undertook 

 actual experiments to determine whether or not barberries w^ere the 



216 



