THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 485 



QUARANTINE (2 (JifejS) DIVISION. 



Report for the Month of August, 1915. 



By Frederick Maskew. 



In digesting the reports of the several stations of the Quarantine 

 Division of the State Commission of Horticulture and working out this 

 synopsis of the same for publication, it is with a pardonable sense of 

 pride that I contemplate the effectiveness of a system that transacts this 

 volume of business each month with such a minimum of friction, and 

 thus demonstrates both the efficiency of the entire service and the sanity 

 of the regulations through which the same is conducted. In comparison 

 with these obtained conditions is the apparently universal discontent 

 with existing horticultural regulations and the persistent efforts of other 

 states of the United States to originate and establish uniform horti- 

 cultural laws. 



In seeking for a formula applicable to this problem it is difficult to 

 determine how the much coveted solution is to be accomplished with this 

 State as a factor in the sum total. California occupies a unique position 

 in this matter, and in the end the impartial execution of the provisions 

 of the present state quarantine law protects not alone the crops produced 

 within the limits of her own territory, but incidentally those of the entire 

 continental United States. Along our coast line are located the princi- 

 pal entry ports for traffic from all points on the Pacific Ocean, and the 

 ultimate destination of the units of this traffic, both freight and pas- 

 senger, embraces during the course of a season practically all points in 

 the United States. Consider the source of origin of these plant products 

 entering our maritime ports and the several means employed in their 

 importation, and it will be patent to all that California can never afford 

 to repeal her much contested custom of inspection of horticultural im- 

 ports at point of delivery, as provided for in the quarantine law. Any 

 attempt even of abrogation of the same for any purpose should not be 

 countenanced; exceptions or discriminations from the general rule of 

 practice would make the entire position untenable and promptly undo 

 the work of years. 



As a complement to the foregoing it is true there exists another phase 

 of the matter of horticultural regulations in this State with which the 

 present state quarantine law is in no way concerned, and perhaps is the 

 target against which the attack of these reform measures are mainly 

 directed — the various rules and ordinances governing the movement of 

 plant products to and from points within the State. This is a distinct 

 and different problem and whether or not these regulations are sus- 

 ceptible of improvement or are in need of unification the writer of this, 

 having no jurisdiction in the matter, does not presume to render a 

 decision. 



