THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 311 



deterred in their purpose by a single setback. Many elements were 

 vStirred in the matrix that molded public opinion and generated the 

 pressure that forced the passage of the act that, created the State Board 

 of Horticulture on March 13, 1883. 



In looking for some of the causes that brought about the foregoing 

 we find the San Jose scale causing a reduction of assessment values in 

 many parts of the State; the codling moth in the north; the cottony 

 cushion scale in the south ; and a close student of these times will also 

 lind that the matter of a "free package" with its many commercial 

 aspects, played no small part in this matter of applying the principles 

 of quarantine to horticulture. To me, perhaps, the most signiticant 

 signs of the times is found in utterance of C. II. Dwindle, president 

 of tlie Board, to the following effect: "Meanwhile rates of interest have 

 fallen so much on this coast that capitalists are more inclined to loan 

 money in the country and not a few of them are themselves investing 

 in orchards." Here entered into the art of horticulture in this State 

 the spirit of business with all that it portends — system, keen analysis 

 of cause and effect, attention to details. ma.\inuun production, and 

 markets for the produce. These principles abided, and have proved 

 largely instrumental in placing the products of California in the 

 envial)le position they hold in tiie markets of the world today. 



Analyzing the provisions of the act that created the State Board 

 of Horticulture, three facts stand out with distinctness. First, it is 

 set forth clearly that "the members of said board shall receive no 

 compensation wliatever. ' ' No better voucher could be asked for of the 

 sterling qualities of the nine sagacious men who composed this board 

 than the fact that without exception they cheerfully undertook the 

 task imposed upon them under thase conditions, promptly organized 

 for business on April" 5, 1883, and during their term of service, in 

 addition to much other constructive work, laid the foundation for the 

 system of quarantine regulations and inspection service in force 

 tiiroughout the State today. Second, we find authority conferred to 

 appoint such quarantine guardians as may be necessary to carry out 

 the provisions of the act ; and a third fact, more pertinent to the subject 

 of this paper, is that all quarantine procedures were still a matter of 

 rules and regulations forumlated by the board, no penalty being pro- 

 vided for their violation, and they were concerned chiefly with existing 

 internal conditions rather than with importations of plant material 

 from abroad. These conditions obtained until March 10, 1885, when 

 "An act to prevent the spread of fruit and fruit tree pests and diseases 

 and to provide for their extirpation" was approved and became a law. 

 In section 2 of this act the legislature clearly set forth the duties of 

 the inspector of tree pests and the quarantine guardians, especially so 

 in relation to horticultural material imported or brought into this State, 

 and provided a penalty for any violation of the provisions of this act. 

 This was decided progress, and the provisions of this act appear to have 

 been the warrant for the procedure of the quarantine officers for the 

 following five years. 



During the year 1891 we find much agitation concerning the prin- 

 ciples and application of horticultural quarantine. At that time, 

 even as it is today, tho-:e whose merchandise was included in the ruling 

 set up the cry that our quarantine restrictions were for purely com- 



