6 
1898, shows that the loss per acre would be very small. It is plain 
that the planter could not only regain this small loss, but actually 
greatly increase the fertility of the land by the use of commercial fer- 
tilizers, which would cost an inconsiderable amount in comparison with 
the gain in the following crop, as a result of lessened damage by the 
boll weevil. 
As a matter of fact, the preceding objections are not necessarily 
serious. They deal with general changes in cotton culture made neces- 
sary by the ravages of the boll weevil. As is beginning to be well 
known to Texas planters, it will not be possible for tenants to work as 
much land as formerly. More cotton will be produced by decreasing 
acreages and increasing the attention given to what remains. If this 
is done, the objections mentioned will largely disappear. 
NECESSITY FOR A LAW. 
The critical seriousness of the weevil problem, together with the 
demonstrated necessity of fall destruction, led to the recommendation, 
first made by Dr. L. O. Howard in Circular No. 14 of this Bureau, 
February 12, 1896, that some legal means of enforcement be provided 
by the legislatures of the States concerned. The recent work of the 
Department has all pointed towards the prime importance of this matter. 
Although there are no exact precedents for such a law, it is believed 
that its passage and enforcement would plainly be within the police 
powers of the State. It would not necessarily be essentially different 
in principle from the laws regarding the control of insects injurious to 
fruit trees, which are now in force in many States. Dr. Howard states: 
‘The law should provide for the appointment of commissioners in each 
county. These commissioners should be empowered to enforce remedial 
work, to levy penalties, or to have the work done by their own agents, 
the cost to be assessed upon the property. It will be well to let this 
law have a wide bearing and not confine its application to this particu- 
lar insect, but cover all injurious insects in case of future emergencies 
of a similar nature.”’ 
Mr. Jefferson Johnson, of Austin, Tex., whose extensive experience 
as a cotton planter and as chairman of the board of award under the 
Texas law appropriating a large sum as a reward for the discovery of a 
successful remedy for the boll weevil has made him thoroughly con- 
versant with the habits of the pest, as well as with all means of con- 
trolling it which have been suggested, is firmly of the opinion that the 
time has come for the enactment of such a law. 
From the present outlook, therefore, and as a result of extensive work 
with the boll weevil for several years, the Department of Agriculture 
warmly recommends the passage of Jaws regulating fall destruction of 
the cotton plants in the manner described in this circular in the States 
of Texas and Louisiana. 
