April, '21] marlatt: federal horticultural board work 169 



A second class is in relation to funds appropriated by Congress but 

 -without reference to a Bureau or office, but referred by the Secretary of 

 Agriculture to joint control of the Board and the appropriate bureau. 

 The corn borer appropriation (1920) is in this class. 



Then we have a third class where the funds are definitely appropriated 

 to the bureau or office and the quarantine feature comes under the co- 

 operative control of the Board. There is quite a long series of these — 

 the gipsy and brown-tail moth, wheat smut, pine blister, and Japanese 

 beetle are examples. If we totaled the funds appropriated for all this 

 quarantine and control work it would probably exceed $2,000,000. 



The two big interesting problems of the year are the pink bollworm 

 work in Texas and Louisiana and the South, and the administration of 

 plant quarantine 37. 



I think that at the last meeting of this Section I reported rather 

 hopefully on the pink bollworm situation. Unfortunately, about that 

 time, or a little thereafter, the insect reappeared in the old district in 

 southern Texas and was discovered also in Louisiana. I think the details 

 of those discoveries are probably familiar to all of you. This develop- 

 ment led to a very large amount of activity on the part of the Board — 

 getting extra funds from Congress for cleanup work and getting action 

 and legislation from the States of Texas and Louisiana. 



I wish every State in the Union in the presence of an emergency like 

 the appearance of the pink bollworm in Louisiana would take the same 

 sort of enthusiastic, thoroughgoing, heroic action which the State of 

 Louisiana took. The State enacted laws giving full authority and 

 appropriated $225,000, and has carried out the program, which is even 

 more important. 



Texas was laggard, I regret very much to say. The Secretary of 

 Agriculture became very much interested in the matter. We had 

 conferences in Washington which were addressed by the Secretary of 

 Agriculture, and finally at the request of the Governor and of the 

 Legislature of Texas the Board went to Austin, Tex., and remained 

 there for a considerable period to aid the Legislature in enacting a suit- 

 able pink bollworm law. Unfortunately, due to active opposition and 

 consequent delay, the Legislature was not able to perfect the legislation 

 and the law as passed has large defects. For example, it does not pro- 

 vide for immediate noncotton zones. Several such zones can begin 

 only with 1921. It abandoned, by oversight I think, the border zone 

 which had been established for two years. It limits destruction to fields 

 of cotton actually found infested, and hence prevents regional destruc- 

 tion of growing, maturing cotton, and it requires further that any 

 noncotton zones established shall be reestablished ever\^ year instead of 

 ■continuing until the order is lifted. 



