AOIUCULTrilAL Al'IMtol'HIATlON IIII.I-, 11»2t, Ih? 



niittinj; money iiili) tho catripin^n. Wr siir<-(MM|«Ml iii bmUlin;: it ii[) 

 l)v Iclliii;; j'xactly wluil tlu* harlnTiy Imsh luw \h'v\\ iloin;; to our 

 ^ruiii rrops, and wr air very anxioiiM to have tiir roiniuit (••«' r«m.sulrr 

 tin* (Irsinil)ility and liiiaiuial oxpiMlicncv. if ^you ph'us*'. of rashirig in 

 on that piiMic sciitiincnt. Our manifestation of that puhlir senti- 

 ment is of immechate and direct interest to yoiir eommittee; We are 

 fircparrd t«) say now that our assurance of obtaining a[>propriutions 

 rom tlic States most interested in harherry eradication is very jfood. 

 We have in practically all of ihos- Slates alii-ady startetl harlx-rrv- 

 erathcation appropriations on tlieir way. (lovernor Neslos and NIr. 

 Kitchen, of North Dakota, are callin«; for a $2.'). (MM) appropriation 

 for that State. Minnesota, us you know, has had an appropriation 

 of .?'_'().()()() for the last two y(»ar-;, and that appropriation will !»«• 

 repcateti and. possibly. increas(>d. 



'I'he situation in South Dakota is not so defiijite l)eyon<l the fact 

 that tiie Farm Rureau Federation in that State and the eommis- 

 si(»ner of a'^riculture aic with us and are <:oinp: to do evervthin«; they 

 can to obtain an adt'(|Uate State ap|)ro|)iialion. In Illinois, the com- 

 mis.si()ner of ajjriculture tells me (hat he has already included in his 

 estimates an item of S'JO.OOO for l)ail>eir\' eradication. In Wisconsin 

 the commissioner of a.i;riculture has iiicluded a similar item of SI ').()'M). 

 and is i;«»in>jj to increase it to .S2."), ()()() if it can be increased before the 

 le^^islature meets. In Michi<:an tiie j)lant patholoj^ists have re- 

 quested an ai)proj)riation of .S22,()00. In Ohio the commissioner of 

 agriculture tells us that he is goinj; to put in a refpiest for an appro- 

 priation of .SIT). 000. Therefore, you can see that as far as can be done 

 at the pri>sent time, the States are preparing; to make appropriations. 

 We have admitted from }he very start of this campai«,Mi. of course, 

 that a lar<;e )ortion of it should be State responsibility, but we have 

 not admitto( , ami do not now admit, that it is entirely a State re- 

 sponsibility by rea.son of the fact that it is essentially a regional 

 problem. The States are now ready to assume their share of respon- 

 sibility uiid will do so at their next legislative sessions. You realize, 

 of coui-se, that it would be futile for me to promise that the States are 

 going to do thus and so. All that we can say at this time is that the 

 commissioners of agriculture ar<> including barberry eradication itiMns 

 in their budgets, ami the farm bureaus are doing (everything thrv 

 can to obtain those ap|)roj)riations. 



Mr. Andkkson. Do you know wliat , Slate appropriations were 

 available for this purpose this past year ^ 



Mr. FrM.Ki{. For this year the only specific State appropriation 

 for barberry eradication was that of Minnesota of $20,000. How- 

 ever, the commissioner of a<:riculture of Ohio tells me that between 

 three and live tliousand dollars wr.s spent in that State for barberry 

 eradication out of funds available for that kind of work. The 

 same thinj; is true in other States. Bv reason of tlie fact that the 

 approj)riations were not sjiecifically for the purpose of l)arberry 

 eradicjition, it is very dillicult to make a })rccise answer t(^ that 

 cpicstion. We know that in Wisconsin several thousand dollars 

 were spent bv the department of agriculture in cooperation with 

 the Federal (lovernment. All of the items for next year about 

 which I have been sjieaking, however, are t<^ be specific appropria- 

 tions for l)arberry eradication. As you understand, the State 

 legislatures do not meet until after the 1st of Januarv. and some of 



