October, '09] JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 343 



the state for his reports, though there was no official entomologist in 

 that state till 1870. New York led in 1854 by the appointment of 

 Dr. Asa Fitch as entomologist to the State Agricultural Society, fol- 

 lowed closely by the federal government the same year and by the 

 states of Illinois and Missouri, making provisions for the work of 

 official entomologists in their legislative sessions in 1866-1867 and 

 1867-1868, respectively. 



These earlier workers, though poorlj^ compensated and hampered by 

 numerous and unnecessary restrictions, paved the way for the more 

 comprehensive legislation of later years. California was a leader in 

 enacting a general horticultural law, designed expressly for the con- 

 trol of the codling moth and other dangerous fruit pests. In 1895 

 there were only four states — and they western — which had general 

 horticultural laws, while four others, Missouri, Kansas, Minnesota 

 and Nebraska, had enacted special legislation, prompted by the ex- 

 tensive ravages by grasshoppers. But two states, namely, New York 

 and Utah, had at that time made any legal provisions for the control 

 of foul brood. 



The discovery of San Jose scale in the eastern United States in 1893 

 and the subsequent alarm among horticulturists resulted in the en- 

 actment of numerous state laws, designed expressly to regulate the 

 traffic in nursery stock and thus prevent the free dissemination of this 

 pest. This is well illustrated by the fact that in 1898 fifteen states 

 had enacted general horticultural laws, designed expressly to control 

 injurious insects and for the most part directed against San Jose scale. 

 Subsequent years witnessed great activities among legislators with 

 horticultural interests, and in 1908 there were some thirty-nine states 

 and territories which had in some way or other made legal provisions 

 for the control of traffic in nursery stock. 



Meanwhile the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth had become 

 well established in Massachusetts and adjacent states, and, as a result, 

 all of the New England states and New York have made more or 

 less comprehensive provisions for the control of one or both of these 

 pests. Similarly the discovery of the boll wee\al in Texas, and the 

 danger of its spread to adjacent cotton-growing states, has resulted in 

 legislation by Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South 

 Carolina. 



It requires no great mental acumen in tracing the above history to 

 discover a distinct relation between cause and effect. Most, if not 

 all, of the horticultural laws now current in the United States are the 

 result of an insistent demand by a more or less extensive constituency. 

 The first enactments were designed to meet the necessities of a serious 



