April, '19] HUNTER: PINK BOLLWORM WORK 169 



Quarantine and Non-Cotton Zones 



In 1917 a special session of the Legislature of Texas, at the suggestion 

 of the Department of Agriculture, had provided a pink bollworm act. 

 This act became effective on December 28, 1917. During the period 

 between the finding of infestation and the date the law went into effect, 

 through the cooperation of the railroads and shippers and the vast 

 majority of the farmers, practically effective voluntary quarantine 

 measures were enforced. The special statute gave authority for the 

 quarantining of districts found infested by the pink bollworm and for 

 establishing non-cotton zones, if necessary. It was most fortunate for 

 the cotton industry of the country that this statute had been provided. 



The first steps taken under the law were to establish quarantine and 

 non-cotton zones at Hearne and in southeastern Texas. In both cases 

 a considerable area beyond the last points found infested was included 

 as a safety belt. In southeastern Texas the width of this safety belt 

 varied from 6 to 10 miles, depending on local conditions. 



The difficulties in the way of establishing a non-cotton zone in 

 southeastern Texas were considerable. The area included 38,000 acres 

 of cotton in 1917. The territory had suffered several agricultural 

 catastrophes, including the failure of the citrus industry. Although 

 the region is normally too humid for cotton, there had been two dry 

 years which had enabled the farmers to produce unusual crops, and this 

 fact gave cotton in general estimation an importance which it cannot 

 be said to deserve. With war prices for the staple, the general state 

 of the public mind at the suggestion of a non-cotton zone can well be 

 imagined. 



Obstacles Encountered 



Although realizing the difficulties very keenly, the Commissioner of 

 Agriculture, Fred W. Davis, and the governor of the state took the 

 very commendable stand that the case required the establishment of a 

 non-cotton zone, and the steps necessary to that end under the law 

 were taken. 



As was expected, a few farmers, through lack of information and 

 some for other reasons, planted cotton on their places. A test case of 

 the law was soon provided. A planter in Liberty County had put in 

 125 acres of cotton. He was arrested under the provision of the law 

 which prohibited the planting of cotton in non-cotton zones estab- 

 lished by proclamation of the governor. It was found on the trial that 

 the statute was defective in that, while prohibiting the phinting of 

 cotton under certain conditions, it did not specify a penalty. The 

 penal code in Texas requires the indication of specific jienaities in such 



