Knowledge of Nation’s Plant Needs Is Incomplete 
2° We submit: That in assuming to determine what kinds of plants 
and how many of them are needed for horticultural development, the 
F. H. B. is exceeding both its authority and the limits of its knowledge— 
or that of any individual or group of individuals. The Board has recently 
distributed to the trade ponderous questionnaires calling for detailed 
figures as to the available stocks of some thousands of varieties of Roses, 
Tris and Peonies for the seasons of 1922-1926, inclusive, and of Orchids 
and Gladioli for the current year! Is this not a tacit admission that it 
has heretofore been without definite information as to how many of these 
relatively common plants are in this country and how many may be said 
to be needed? And yet for more than two years it has been rendering 
decisions upon just this point. Would not the logical procedure have 
been to have secured complete information on every possible subject before 
discriminating between species and varieties of plants on a basis of hor- 
ticultural needs? 
3. We submit: That whereas the original purpose of the plant quar- 
antine law was to provide for inspection so that, presumably, plants in- 
spected and found clean would be permitted to enter freely (infected 
specimens or shipments being subject to return, destruction or treat- 
ment as might be deemed necessary), and that whereas the F. H. B. was 
created to supervise and administer this service, it now admits that it 
has failed in its attempt to do so and advocates wholesale exclusion as the 
last hope. Why is this failure not an indication either of inefficiency on the 
part of the employees of the Board or, perhaps, of the failure of the 
Government to provide sufficient funds, rather than a proof that all 
plants are too dangerous to be admitted and that ultimate total exclusion, 
so far as this is possible, is the only safeguard? 
Granting, for the sake of argument, that the importation of every 
living plant and bulb should, and could, be stopped -for, say, ten years, 
what assurance can the F. H. B. give that even that would provide ab- 
solute immunity against the introduction of “any tree, plant, or fruit dis- 
ease or of any injurious insect, new to or not, theretofore widely prevalent 
or distributed within and throughout the United States?” Would our 
growers and orchardists find it any less necessary to spray? Would there 
not remain the danger of introducing the same exotic pests by means of 
soil ballast, packing materials, raw fruits. grains and other commodities 
making up our commercial importations and, for that matter, through 
human beings themselves, the ships on which they travel, and every fac- 
tor in the intercourse between nations? AJl of these things, by the way. 
the Board has, by law, the power to intercept, quarantine and exclude— 
but heretofore it has not seen fit to subject them to anything like the 
requirements enforced against plant products. 
European Countries Not Closed to American Plants 
4, We submit: That in maintaining that inspection i i 
systems are ineffective, the F. H. B. nee a position paseo ig 
phytopathological and other authorities of European countries which 
lying closer together and having been occupied and cultivated for a much 
longer time are, presumably, in greater danger of infestation by new 
pests. To support its claims for “liberality of entry” as regards plants 
the F. H. B. has stated, without qualification, that “Holland, France Ger. 
many, Austria and Switzerland prohibit the entry of all ‘living plants 
from America and other countries—Belgium, It i 
Russia—are closed in lesser degree.” ee al 
10 
