CONTROL OF THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE. 11 
points at least. Accordingly, the country within approximately 35 
miles of Washington, D. C., was chosen in the fall of 1908 as pre- 
liminary territory in which to test this method of control. This 
section has since been gone over fairly thoroughly once a year. 
As will be seen by figure 1, 14 points of infection were located, and 
the infected trees destroyed. Most of this work was done by the 
senior writer. The largest infection was a group of nursery trees 
that had been imported from New Jersey; the smallest, a single 
lesion on a small branch of a large forest tree. In one case 11 forest 
trees in a group were infected, the original infection having been 
two trees, dating apparently from as early as 1907. Up to the 
present time (June, 1911) the disease has not reappeared at any 
point where eliminated and the country within a radius of approxi- 
mately 35 miles from Washington is apparently free from the bark 
disease, although new infections must be looked for as long as the 
disease remains elsewhere unchecked. It is therefore believed that 
this method of attack will prove equally practicable in other locali- 
ties, and if carried out on a large scale will result ultimately in the 
control of the bark disease. 
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
In carrying such a scheme,of control into effect on a large scale, 
however, legal difficulties are at, once encountered. The bark dis- 
ease threatens the extinction of the chestnut throughout itsrange. As 
it has already been found in at least 10 States and the District of 
Columbia, it is essentially a national issue, but there is no law 
whereby the Federal Government can attempt to cope with the 
emergency. Each State must act on its own initiative and control 
the disease or let it go as its officers and legislative bodies see fit. 
Herein lies one of the most serious aspects of the matter; for if one 
State elects to undertake control of the disease it will be seriously 
handicapped if neighboring States do not. Any method of elimina- 
tion, isolation, or quarantine in dealing with any disease of plants, 
domestic animals, or human beings necessitates general cooperation. 
It is not practicable to try to control the bark disease solely by the 
cooperation of individual owners of chestnut woodland, since a sin- 
gle indifferent or obstinate person can nullify the efforts of an entire 
community. The control of the chestnut bark disease must there- 
fore be undertaken by the separate States under special legislation. 
Possibly in certain States the crop and woodland pest laws, which 
ordinarily apply only to nursery stock, may be broad enough to 
include this disease, but in most States the first thing to be done 
is to obtain the necessary legal authority and an appropriation for 
action along the following lines, as has already been done in Penn- 
sylvania. 
467 
