GRASSHOPPERS AND OTHER INJURIOUS INSECTS OF 1911 AND 1912. 101 



package shipped by the firm from whom A buys the stock. Mani- 

 festly, we have no authority to act outside of this state, and have 

 felt obliged to refuse to do this, such decision being endorsed by 

 the Attorney General. 



It is to be noted in this connection that officials in one or two 

 states to our certain knowledge are willing to certify (and have 

 done so) that A owns a nursery (in locality from which purchases 

 are made) etc. This is manifestly a misrepresentation. Some pro- 

 vision, however, should be made in our law for dealers in our own 

 state who buy from inspected nurseries in Minnesota, and, not wish- 

 ing to advertise same, are nevertheless obliged to place a certificate 

 on stock shipped outside the state. 



We append here an address by Mr. H. B. Scammel, our deputy 

 inspector in 1911, delivered before the Minnesota State Horticul- 

 tural Society at its winter meeting in December, 1911. It indicates 

 very plainly upon what points our law is weak and how such weak- 

 ness may be remedied. 



Needed Changes in the Horticuhural Inspection Law. 



The present law applying to horticultural inspection in Minnesota was 

 enacted by the legislature "in 1903 and revised in 1905. It filled a long fek 

 want and served its purpose fairly well during the past eight years, but there 

 are some features embodied in this bill which do not cover the situation exist- 

 ing today, and it is earnestly hoped that some changes and additions may be 

 made, desirable from the standpoint of the inspector as well as from that of 

 the nurseryman, which will became part of the law at the next session of the 

 legislature. 



Some states in which fruit growing has become one of the leading 

 industries need, and have adopted, laws sufficiently stringent to afford good 

 protection within their borders; other states, such as our own, the Dakotas 

 and lesser fruit raising states have horticultural laws less severe, and it seems 

 right that differences in the state laws should exist because of the differences 

 in conditions which are found in various parts of this country. 



Our own law is of a type quite different from that of California or New 

 York, but our nursery and fruit growing interests are not developed to the 

 same extent as in the former states, and it would seem that with some changes 

 we could secure a law which would better satisfy Minnesota conditions. 



The most noticeably weak point in our law is that which limits inspection 

 to places where trees or plants are grown for sale. This may be done at the 

 request of the owner, or when the inspector has reasonable ground to believe 

 that any injurious insect pests or dangerous plant diseases exist, but bear in 

 mind that none other place than that where stock is grown for sale may be in- 

 spected. Minnesota nurseries and orchards have been comparatively free of 

 serious insect pests but suppose an orchard is found infested with San Jose 

 scale and the owner refuses to spray. In such case he cannot be reached under 

 the inspection law, but possibly something might be done under some other law, 

 such as maintaining a public nuisance. 



It should be required that every nursery be inspected at least once each 

 year, and the right granted to examine any place which the entomologist may 

 have' reason to believe needs attention. It cannot be too strongly advocated 

 that a list of the places from which buds and scions are secured by nurserymen 

 be obtained from them and a careful inspection be made of the tree from 



