THE HCiRTrCULTURAL SOCfETY OF NEW YORK 



Board appearing at the same time in opposition. Several weeks 

 later the Secretary made partial but indefinite answer to the 

 statement twice presented to him, and at the same time conveyed 

 the opinion of the Department's Solicitor sustaining the attitude 

 of the Federal Horticultural Board but referring to the actual 

 necessity and propriety of the particular regulations of the quar- 

 antine as determined by the "administrative judgment and discre- 

 tion of the Secretary." 



This opinion being simply that of a lawyer and, moreover, of 

 the lawyer who, in the course of his official duties in the Depart- 

 ment had already approved the quarantine, is not viewed by the 

 Committee as necessarily final or conclusive. Neither does the 

 Committee feel that the legal aspects or the broader, fundamental 

 questions involved have been in any way taken out of the field of 

 further consideration by authoritative, unprejudiced minds. In 

 this belief the Committee was represented also at the bulb con- 

 ference called by the Federal Horticultural Board on October 30, 

 1922, at which the chairman of the Committee simply reiterated 

 the main recommendations previously sul)mitted and pointed out 

 the obvious intent of Congress in passing the Act of 1912 as 

 expressed in the report of the Congressional Committee that ex- 

 amined the Act. 



In this same belief the Committee is continuing to observe, study 

 and kee]) abreast of developments with, at all time, the rights and 

 interests of those horticultural activities which it represents, and 

 the constitutional rights of American citizens, as its paramount 

 concerns. It may here be emphatically stated that the Committee 

 does not and never has criticized, questioned or disputed the 

 desirability of a proper and effective quarantine, or other essen- 

 tial, sane regulations under the Act of 1912; but that it objects to 

 the interpretation of the Act whereby the Federal Horticultural 

 Board ( in fact, though the Secretary of Agriculture in name) 

 has assumed and exercised ])owers that in its judgment are prov- 

 ing prejudicial to the best interests of American horticulture. 



Nov. 24. 1922. E. L. D. Seymour, Secretary. 



456 



