616 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



hearing, the governor of Texas, who was present, promised to call a 

 special session of the legislature for the purpose of so revising and 

 snppleinonting the existing pink hollworm act of that wState as to 

 give the n(>ecled authority for control work and to provide by State 

 appropriations funds for the enforcement of such special legislation. 

 Such called session of the Texas Legislature was convened at Austin 

 May 20, 1920, and continued for the full legal period of 30 days. The 

 Department of Agriculture, on the invitation of the governor and the 

 legislature, participated in the discussions in relation to the proposed 

 legislation. 



For nearly the full legal period of this session the legislature con- 

 sidered a pink bollworm bill which had been drafted by a committee 

 appointed by the le^slature for the pur})ose. This bill if enacted 

 would have prevented all Federal or any other cfTicient control work in 

 that State on account of the restrictions which it placed on inspection 

 and control activities. At the last moment, however, the bill was 

 discarded and another measure revising the existing act soniewhat 

 along the line of the department's recommendation was substituted. 

 Unfortunately, under the 30-day limitation of this called session of 

 the legislature, there was little opportunity to discuss and fully 

 amend and perfect this substitute bill. 



As enacted, June 19, 1920, the law omits important powers 

 which were included in the law of 1919, but on the other hand is an 

 improvement on that law in some respects and is perhaps the best 

 legislation which was then obtainable under the conditions which had 

 developed. The main defects in this law from the department's 

 viewpoint tire (1) that it does not immediately provide for the enforce- 

 ment for 1920 of noncotton zones for the invaded districts: (2) that it 

 fails to give authority to establish regulated and noncotton zones in 

 counties bordering on Mexico on the determination of near-by infesta- 

 tion in Mexico and independent of any actual infestation in the 

 counties concerned, as was provided for in the law of 1919; (3) that 

 it limits the destruction of cotton to infested fields and therefore will 

 prevent any regional destruction of cotton which may be necessary 

 for effective work of extermination; and (4) that the establishment of 

 noncotton zones provided for after 1920 is weakened by making it 

 necessary to reestablish such zones yearly. There is also a question 

 as to whether such zones can be established on such regional basis 

 as may be necessary for effective extermination work. 



The' largest defect in the law from the department's viewpoint is 

 its failure to provide for a noncotton zone for 1920 to put an imme- 

 diate stop so far as possible to further multiplication of the insect 

 in the invaded Trinity Bay district. 



The law, on the other hand, provided for a continuation of all 

 regulated zones for 1920, and also provided for regional clean-up of 

 cotton fields after harvest in suCh zones. It further provided appro- 

 priation of SI 00,000 to carry out the act, $50,000 of which shall be 

 tor compensation of farmers for cotton destroyed, or other losses 

 occasioned by the enforcement of the act, and $50,000 for the admin- 

 istration of the act. An important feature of the law of 1920 is 

 that it declares the pink bollworm to be a public nuisance and a 

 menace to the cotton industry, and that its eradication is a public 

 necessity. This action gives the law a stronger position shomd its 

 ralidity be attacked in the courts. 



