WINTER MEETING, 1879. 21 



noted and prosperous fruit regions in America lias had its most proGtablc in- 

 terests entirely destroyed by an unfortunate adherence to this same short- 

 sighted policy. 



This correspondent deprecates legal sanction to entering a person's premises 

 and destroying his private property, and intimates that it is only for the purpose 

 of enabling some one to draw p, salary, to help nurserymen sell their trees, to 

 build up the prosperity of the ''fruit belt," to the injury of the other sections 

 the state. 



If the disease in question were simply a personal matter, which concerned 

 solely or mainly the individual whose trees were affected there would be rea- 

 son in the caution which is uttered. 



If a person's hand or foot is affected with some disease of blood poisoning, 

 we may urge him to immediately cause it or allow it to be removed, and if he 

 refuses, though we are certain this refusal will cost him his life, we are con- 

 strained to submit, acknowledging it to be a personal matter, affecting mainly 

 himself. But if, on the contrary, his disease be of a contagious nature, 

 exceedingly liable to spread and attack others, then a due regard for our own 

 health and lives justifies us in taking such precautions as experience dictates, 

 regardless of the individual's refusal or remonstrance. 



It is one of the great advantages of civilization that society is quietly and 

 safely enabled to protect itself in this way, to abate a nuisance whenever 

 public interest demands — to interpose the law to protect our endangered 

 rights, our lives and property, — it is the opposite of barbarism, which has only 

 personal or brute force for individual protection of life and property rights. 

 We esteem it highly essential to maintain strict quarantine regulations to ward 

 off disease ; we do not hesitate, nor indeed should we, to adopt, if necessary, 

 the most stringent regulations to prevent the spread of the rinderpest, cattle 

 plague and other contagious diseases among our domestic animals. And if 

 experience demonstrates that a vegetable disease, threatening the destruction 

 of one of our chief fruits, is in its nature highly contagious, the same exer- 

 cise of wisdom which causes us, under similar circumstances, to enact laws for 

 the protection of our own lives and of those of our domestic animals, will sug- 

 gest that we proceed in the same manner to jirevent the spread of the disease 

 in question. To the question which this correspondent asks : why not enact 

 a law to destroy apple, pear and cherry trees affected witii disease? — we answer, 

 because they are not affected with any disease that is even surmised to be con- 

 tagious, while the peach tree is subject to one known to be so. As well might 

 he ask why not enact quarantine laws regulating consumption, etc., and 

 the answer is the same, for the reason that consumption, etc., while very 

 dangerous diseases, are not of a contagious character, while small-pox, for 

 instance, is. . 



Peach trees are liable to many diseases that are not contagious, which are 

 destructive in their nature, but which proper care and attention may prevent 

 or remove, and the tree be preserved. But it must be borne in mind that for 

 a tree affected with the yellows there is no cure, so far as known ; it is sure to 

 die, and beyond that, it is a public nuisance, inasmuch as it threatens, and if 

 left to itself, is certain to cause the ultimate destruction of all the peach trees 

 in the vicinity. 



In removing a peach tree diseased with the yellows we are not destroying 

 property. Such a tree has no value, its fruit is unwholesome and worthless 

 and the tree is certain to die. We are simply abating a nuisance, removing a 

 dangerous contagion in order thereby to save from destruction tlie trees which 



