No. 4.] THE GYPSY MOTH. 363 



would be handicapped with uo one to train the new force. Again, 

 each one of these men is capable in field work of earning his 

 advanced pay, be it three or four dollars a day, because of his 

 superior capability, reliability and experience. Especially is this 

 true in the case of expert field work, which was largely the work 

 in which these men were employed when the privates were not 

 employed. 



Again, the committee say, on page 8 : " The system of scouting, 

 necessary under the policy of extermination, is an expensive feature 

 of the work ; in its practical operation, barren of positive and 

 justifiable results ; and, as ordinarily carried on, a manifest waste 

 of money. Dozens of men racing through the woods a hundred 

 yards apart, with the avowed object of locating nests and noting 

 evidence of the existence of insects, present a ludicrous and con- 

 temptible exhibition of ineflicieut management somewhere." The 

 fact is that no such scouting is done. The nearest approach to it 

 is when men have been sent to examine woodland to locate colonies 

 where work maybe started in the clearing of such woodland. How 

 is the committee or anybody in charge of this business to find 

 colonies without such examinations? 



The investigating committee say, on page 10: "Much of it 

 [evidence] comes from unreliable and prejudicial sources, which 

 hardly entitle it to a passing consideration." Yet they have largely 

 printed it here for the information or misinformation of the Legis- 

 lature and the people. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that a con- 

 siderable part of the evidence of the wasteful and extravagant 

 expenditure of money, the lack of control of the men and bad man- 

 agement and loafing came from two witnesses, ex-employees, whom 

 you, Mr. Chairman, heard here last year ; and I want to say to 

 you, having heard their evidence at both hearings, that it has en- 

 larged several times over what they were able to give you then. 

 From the nature of the case they can have had no further experi- 

 ence, and the enlargement of the evidence must be for a purpose. 

 Mr. Chairman, doubtless you can obtain the evidence of these two 

 men from the stenographer's report for the investigating committee, 

 and, if you will take the trouble to look it over and compare it with 

 what was said last year, you will understand to what I refer. Mr. 

 Chairman, you remember how little weight the evidence of these 

 two men had with your committee last year. With the investigating 

 committee, the case seems to have been reversed. 



On page 12 the committee say : " Patronage should not be held 

 out as a reward for legislative action." Patronage has never been 



