economic or tariff fields no two florists think alike, for no two are affected 
alike, and some florists, and nurserymen too, undoubtedly are benefited 
by the exclusion of plant products which compete with what they pro- 
duce. As in all trades, there are selfish men in ours; a florist who 
grows only one variety of Narcissus is benefited by the exclusion of all 
other varieties of Narcissus and, indeed, of all other bulbs, while a florist 
who grows only Geraniums or bedding plants is benefited by the exclu- 
sion of all plant products—but does such exclusion benefit the United 
States or even the majority of florists? Naturally, a handler of, say, terra 
cotta, is benefited by the exclusion of brick and lumber, but would such 
exclusion benefit the United States or the building industry? Every 
bit of comment that is favorable to Qu. 37 we have heard or read from 
trade members treats only of the economic protection it gives them 
from competition; not one commends it for the protection it was designed 
to give from pests. This seems conclusive to us that Qu. 37 is considered 
an economic measure; we contend that economic protection is not in- 
cluded in the functions of this Board, that it is purely a tariff proposi- 
tion. 
Hundreds of varieties excluded by Qu. 37 are not being commercially 
produced in this country, while the cost of production of other hundreds 
will prevent their quantity sale when produced. Home production should 
be encouraged and protected in every legitimate way, but by the tariff, not 
by this Board. The tariff bill now before the Senate provides duties 
more than double those now in effect, which will give home production 
all the protection it needs, especially when it is considered that prices 
in Europe are approximately three times what they were prior to Qu- 
37, and it will be many years before an adequate supply of necessities is 
again available. Summarizing our deductions, we submit to the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture these 
Recommendations 
1. We recommend that Qu. 37 be withdrawn; it is indefen- 
sible even as an economic measure. This will end the iniquitous 
system of “special permits,” which is unfair, un-American and dis- 
criminatory, since the Board not only decides which variety may 
be imported and in what quantity, but by which firms or indi- 
viduals. We submit that no firm should be permitted to import 
the same stock that another firm is not permitted to import— 
we need not comment on the abuses that can grow up under such 
a system. If there are any varieties of plants in Qu. 37 which 
carry a real risk of introducing a “dangerous pest new to or not 
widely prevalent” in this country, the danger can be met ef- 
fectively by specific quarantines, as the law intended. 
2. We further recommend the establishment at entry ports, 
especially at New York, to begin with, of an inspection station 
where all imports of plants and plant products (excluding bulbs 
and seeds) will get adequate inspection. The cost of this station 
and its maintenance will represent but a small fraction of what 
Qu. 37 costs the country in loss of customs duties on excluded 
products each season. 
3. We recommend that the Board make accessible, to persons 
legitimately interested, information with regard to the special 
permits that have been issued since Qu. 37 was promulgated, 
stating the class or variety of plant products, the quantity, the 
name of the importer and the country of origin. Secrecy in such 
matters invites charges of discrimination and favoritism in the 
issuance of special permits. 
‘ 
