114 PROTECTION OF PLANTS. 1916-17 



its green fields breaks the monotony of this coloured expanse. In culti- 

 vated districts mustard seems most abundant because the daisy and butter- 

 cup have diminished; this shows that the two last-named plants could be con- 

 trolled with the exercise of sufficient care. But who would be willing to 

 undertake this task? Without general action the work would be useless. 

 A piece of property surrounded by abandoned fields will not escape invasion. 

 A farmer who respects himself, not daring to cultivate such fields at the 

 very door of the city, will leave. I believe that many have thus gone away. 

 In truth what do we find cultivated east of our big city? Bill-boards; 

 horrid bill-boards supported by a frame-work anything but artistic. And 

 you may be sure that they grow thickly. They advertise a thousand 

 marvels — they offer the best in the world at the lowest price. Not a few 

 offer you, for really nothing, the land on which they bloom. But now 

 to the point. All these lands were bought up at the time of the boom in 

 real estate. They were then put up for sale. From that moment there 

 was no longer any place for the farmers. In the meantime, until these 

 lands are sold, the noxious weeds are making the most of their opportunity. 

 A wonderful advertisement indeed for our city, these fields of yellow and 

 white. Is the soil poor? It is the soil of the Island of Montreal formed 

 by the pleistocene deposits. Thick in places, in others it measures but a 

 few inches on Trenton limestone. This is the soil found in the gardens 

 adjoining the city. If you doubt its value, go and see it; you will easily 

 recognize the poorer spots by the height and colour of the plants. But 

 when you see wild mustard from three to four feet in height and resembling 

 shrubs; when you see the buttercup and tall daisy hiding calves four months 

 old, you may conclude that the soil is not poor. Consequently it could be 

 made productive located as it is near the city, near an inexhaustible source 

 of fertilizers. It would be well adapted to intensive farming and in the 

 spring could supply the markets and replenish the purse of the farmers. 

 But it is preferable to produce advertisements, this being less troublesome. 

 Is this the fault of the land? Will it wait until the real estate madness 

 returns to have the bill-boards replaced by houses? If so, it will wait a 

 very long time. We know, moreover, that it is not the rise in real estate 

 that will greatly multiply construction. If the land increases in value, it is 

 useful for speculation; it is bought and sold, to be bought and sold again. 

 Thus the change ite only in the advertising, which change is prejudicial 

 neither to the buttercup nor daisy. 



A few farmers remain, however, and these have a right to self-protec- 

 tion. Moreover there are laws with regard to noxious weeds. Should not 

 all owners of uncultivated lands be forced to cut down the weeds before 



