and this means practically the suffocation of horticultural development 
and progress. 
And we are told that these restrictions and embargoes are necessary 
to protect the country from insect pests and plant diseases. | The same 
argument could be used by medical enthusiasts to stop immigration to 
our shores to protect the country from human ills and diseases, but 
people would sicken and die just the same. Or the police department 
might shut out all immigration for fear that a criminal might occasion- 
ally come, but we would have crime just the same. Recently there was 
found on our Eastern coasts a species of pileworm that on ‘Western 
coasts has caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage by attacking piles 
and other underwater structures; it came presumably with the barnacles 
on ships and, following the Board’s reasoning, it would be necessary to 
exclude all ships for fear they might bring the pile pest. We contend 
that exclusion of inspected plant materials does not exclude pests, and 
does not reduce the annual damage done by pests to our crops and for- 
ests. If the Board follows its present policy of excluding plant ma- 
terials to its logical conclusion and excludes all merchandise and, indeed, 
all ships because of the suspicion that they might bring pests, it would 
not, in our opinion, reduce the sum total of damage by pests by any de- 
gree visible. The gypsy moth was introduced into this country by a 
naturalist or entomologist at Harvard University, but the exclusion of 
all naturalists and entomologists in future from this country would not 
reduce the annual damage done by the gypsy moth. You cannot change 
the course of Nature by restrictions on business or exclusion of merchan- 
dise. Your purpose is laudable and right, but your method is dead 
wrong—the remedy is infinitely worse than the disease. 
We are told that many of the pests that now plague us came in on 
shipments of plant products, but we contend that was before we had our 
present system of Federal and State inspection and before the exporting 
nations had theirs. We admit there are pests on all plant products, 
on home grown as well as on foreign grown, on our incoming shipments 
of greenhouse products as well as on our outgoing shipments of wheat 
and other cereals, but so long as these pests are not new or dangerous 
we should expect only the same degree of reasonable freedom from other 
nation’s products as they expect of ours. Of florists’ imports, fully 98 
per cent come from inspected establishments and 95 per cent go direct into 
greenhouses, so the risk of importing new or dangerous pests with such 
shipments is practically nil. 
Some Unwarranted Discriminations 
But if the Board considers such drastic remedies necessary, why not 
apply them to similar products not used by florists? Why discriminate 
against florists? Why exclude nearly all varieties of flowering bulbs 
without also excluding onions and all other bulbs not used by florists? 
Qu. 37 places no restrictions whatsoever on the importation of field, vege- 
table, or flower seeds, so why regulate and restrict the importation of 
palm seeds used by florists without also regulating the importation of 
all other seeds, representing 98 per cent of total seed imports? Why ex- 
clude a few valuable orchid plants when the same ship brings in 40,000 
bunches of bananas collected in the same forest? And why exclude 
even on special permits, living plants which require a little soil to protect 
the roots while allowing shiploads of soil or earth, arrivin hip’ 
ballast, to be dumped on our shores? ‘ es 
The florist trade is heartily in accord with this 
out the purpose for which it was created, but when t 
6 
Board in carrying 
he Board gets into 
