February. '12] SHERMAN: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 71 



and inconvenient trips to make an inspection which was really quite 

 useless. In this manner we spend much money and time that really 

 gives no tangible return. How far should we go in these inspections? 

 Should we inspect everything that comes to a nurseryman from 

 abroad? In North Carolina bulbs, herbaceous plants and conifers 

 are the classes of stock most frequently brought in and I must confess 

 that to inspect these sometimes seems like a waste of time and funds. 

 May we not decide among ourselves what is worth while to inspect and 

 what not? Let us not forget, however, that if a state relaxes and 

 should happen to be the first to become infested it would look bad, 

 even if the infestation were in no wise due to the relaxation. The 

 official who inspects everything can with more justice say that he has 

 left no stone unturned. 



To what extent need we concern ourselves about fraudulent practices 

 among nurserymen? Is it, or is it not, our business to indicate the 

 size of the nursery and the character of its stock? We all know of 

 cases where a man with only a small area of poorly cultivated stock 

 will advertise through the press or his agents that he has a larger 

 nursery, and a larger quantity and better quahty of stock than we are 

 able to locate in our inspections. Is this our affair or not? I put 

 this question impartially to the attorney of our State Department of 

 Agriculture and he told me that our duties had nothing to do with it, — 

 that our duty only concerned the condition of the stock as regards 

 insects and diseases. I should like to know the practice in other 

 states, and in those cases w^here the inspectors do concern themselves 

 in matters of this kind it might be of interest to know whether the 

 laws demand it, or whether this duty is voluntarily assumed. We 

 cannot doubt that openness in this matter is in the interest of honesty, 

 so there is no thought of criticism in this suggestion. If there is a 

 real moral obligation resting on us to make these matters public we 

 should at least know whether our laws require it or not. Is it the 

 business of anybody else to guard the public in matters of this kind, — 

 or is it a matter in which no one has a specific duty and which must 

 be left to take care of itself? 



I must admit that I feel that there is a tendency to make our inspec- 

 tion systems top-heavy w^th a multiplicity of laws, rules, regulations, 

 etc. I fear that in our zeal to cover every conceivable point of weak- 

 ness we are liable to fritter away our energies and time on details 

 which are after all, not essential, and especially is this so when such a 

 mass of routine detail is undertaken by those of us who have limited 

 funds and limited assistance. 



Is it well for us even to pretend to guarantee that the purchaser 

 shall receive trees that are wholly free from scale, crown gall, etc.? 



