No. 4.] THE GYPSY MOTH. 361 



Commission and secretary of this committee during all the 

 work, as given before the committees on ways and means 

 and agriculture of the House of Representatives, then sitting 

 jointly to consider the report of this investigating committee. 

 It will give the reader a hint of the conditions under which 

 the investigating committee's report was sent in. 



Testimony before Committees on Ways and Means and Agri- 

 culture, SITTING jointly, April 5, 1900. 



I have been much interested in this report of the investigating 

 committee, and have examined it somewhat critically, and find 

 that we have been condemned for our success in the enterprise. 

 I find on the fourth page of the report that the investigating com- 

 mittee say : "It has not been clearly demonstrated to the com- 

 mittee that the actual damage done thus far has been of any 

 considerable damage financially.*' Why is this? Simply because 

 the gypsy moth committee, in whose charge the work has been, 

 has succeeded in its work, — for which we are condemned. 

 Again, they say: "There are to-day, so far as known, no large 

 colonies." Why? Simply because we have succeeded in our 

 work, — for which we are condemned. Again, they say: "We 

 find no substantial evidence that gardens, crops or woodlands have 

 suffered serious or lasting injury." The reason for this is the 

 same as given before. 



Again, the committee criticise the Board of Agriculture, on page 

 5, and say that, " the Board has fairly left itself open to adverse 

 criticism in this particular," i.e., the dissemination of information 

 as to the danger from the depredations of the moth ; and say : 

 "Such methods should not be tolerated." What is the Board of 

 Agriculture for? What was the duty put upon the Board of Agri- 

 culture by the Legislature in reference to the moth ? Has it not 

 been a part of its duty to inform the State as to the necessity for 

 appropriations? How otherwise should the Legislature be able to 

 judge whether the appropriation was necessary, and how much, 

 and who was to give the information, if not those appointed by the 

 State to do the work and care for it ? 



The investigating committee say, also, on the same page : " Con- 

 tinued experiment and study have given us the most approved 

 methods of defence and attack, and to cope with and cheek its 

 spread is now a matter of comparative ease." To whom is the 

 credit of this due, if not to the gypsy moth connnittee? Wiio has 



