62 



THE GARDEN MAGAZINE 



March, 1919 



or what have they done? Lilies, the most fickle 

 and disease-bearing of all bulbs, may come in 

 provided the soil about them has been baked or 

 sterilized. How joyous the first spring shoots 

 of a baked lily bulb! 



Narcissus Pseudo-Narcissus, N. Bulboco- 

 dium — valuable (?) in natural planting — and N. 

 Tazetta for indoor forcing are still ours — but 

 never N. poeticus, N. Jonquilla, N. poetaz, nor 

 N. incomparabilis. and why? Why is one Daf- 

 fodil more "daffy" than another? 



Even Autumn Crocuses are not denied, but 

 they who have Colchicum in their gardens will 

 be the proudest of the proud. Can someone 

 share with me (even one corm) of their Colchicum 

 Bornmuelleri? 



If there is some infant industry of bulb growing 

 of rare and small bulbs in this country that this 

 act will foster, how soon will the secret be out? 

 Will my next Chionodoxa bulbs come from Bell- 

 ingham, Wash. ? Are there enough of these ex- 

 cluded bulbs and roots there to fill the demand 

 of all the garden builders next fall? If so, then 

 the newspapers must have lost a scoop and a 

 miracle of industry was perfected secretly in war 

 time. Frankly, I don't believe any great quan- 

 tity of Scilla bifolia, American grown, will be 

 available next fall. 



One more — even though Lilies, Hyacinths, 

 Tulips and other bulbs are now allowed under the 

 regulations — "it will doubtless be the policy of 

 the Federal Horticultural Board to exclude these 

 plant materials ■when it would seem assured that 

 the commercial needs of the country can be met 

 by home grown supplies." (Quoted from Plant 

 Immigrants No. 143.) Now where do we get off? 

 Who, when, where, why, how and what will decide 

 this supply of home-grown supplies to be ade- 

 quate? I hope to keep a complete file of the 

 catalogues of all these fortunate nurserymen and 

 growers. And will these bulbs be of guaranteed 

 good quality and no more expensive, compara- 

 tively, than those brought, to date, from Europe? 

 I do want to know as soon as the Federal Horti- 

 cultural Board can print a statement. If the 

 bulb situation is a fair sample of the value of the 

 proposed quarantine, ! ! 



I have not run out of ideas, but I pause for 

 breath. 



This proposed regulation affects me as owner 

 of a garden, as a landscape designer, and in- 

 structor in the same; also as interested in the new 

 trees, shrubs, and herbs of the Orient and their 

 quick introduction (when valuable) into our gar- 

 dens. The study of our hardy perennials, in a 

 way similar to that of the Arnold Arboretum in 

 trees and shrubs, is a work for the near future, 

 but I have nothing to say on that at present. 



As a citizen I marvel at the bungling unrea- 

 sonableness of this Federal Board's act, but I 

 wish as a grower of plants to know what is really 

 behind it! Except for actual dealers and they 

 who read the trade journals, the general garden 

 public never heard of this greatest event in Ameri- 

 can horticulture. Even though it may be good 

 medicine for us in the long run, we should like to 

 know why this drastic treatment. I hope that 

 the Garden Magazine will before June have 

 explained all this to its readers in detail, and if 

 this thing ought to be we should be told why. If, 

 as seems from present evidence, something is be- 

 ing put over on us, we should be sure of the facts 

 and then go after it. And as a public weapon 

 nothing succeeds like ridicule. At present the 

 regulation is as full of jokes as a sieve is of holes. 

 Massachusetts. Stephen F. Hamblin. 



A Charming Subterfuge 

 To the Editor of The Garden Magazine: 

 A/TY ATTENTION is directed to your editorial 

 *■**■ in the January number commenting on the 

 plant exclusion edict which becomes effective 

 June 1. 



This order of the Department of Agriculture 

 has raised a whirlwind of protest from the great 



mass of professional and amateur gardeners who 

 regard its promulgation and execution as un- 

 necessary, ineffective, and flagrantly discrim- 

 inating. 



If the danger of importing serious additions 

 to our list of insect pests and plant diseases is 

 great enough to warrant prohibiting the importa- 

 tion of practically all ornamentals, why should 

 not the entry of fruit stocks be also refused? 

 Why charge one class of nursery product with 

 potentiality for harm and punish it with ex- 

 clusion, while other classes with an equal ten- 

 dency to carry the danger are permitted entry? 



You say that it is "idle now to point out that 

 the most devastating insect pest, the gypsy moth, 

 for instance, was not introduced as an accidental 

 rider on plants and nursery stock but was the 

 deliberate introduction of a scientific investigator 

 for an entirely different purpose." Permit me to 

 differ. I believe it's not only worth while, but 

 our duty to ourselves and posterity to point out 

 the inconsistencies of this ruling, not only to the 

 Agricultural Department, but to our Congress- 

 men and Senators. Let them know how the 

 gypsy moth was expected to prove a foundation 

 for a great silk industry, how the cotton boll 

 weevil simply moved from wild cotton to the 

 cultivated. How the recently introduced corn- 

 stalk borer (described in your January issue) 

 came in a bale of hemp. How other dangerous 

 foreign insects broke out through departmental 

 agencies at Washington. 



You say, — "Of course, in the long run, we may 

 all be better off." I fully agree, but not by the 

 exclusion. The agitation which has only started 

 and which I feel confident will result in rescinding 

 the order will prove highly educational. It will 

 teach the great mass of gardeners the necessity 

 of greater vigilance in detecting and destroying 

 the enemies of our horticultural subjects. As a 

 result we will be better off. 



In the meantime, every interested person 

 should use his or her influence to impress upon 

 Congress the far-reaching injustice of the order 

 and bring pressure to secure its rescinding. I do 

 .not make the plea purely on the ground of the un- 

 necessary destruction of an established industry, 

 not only of the United States, but also of practi- 

 cally all foreign countries. Through the span of 

 life nearly every man meets unforeseen obstacles 

 and disasters. The florists and nurserymen ot 

 America are resourceful enough, trained to hard 

 and concentrated effort, to withstand the de- 

 molition of the business structures which, in 

 many cases, represent the patient building ot 

 several generations. They may emerge from the 

 experience better equipped mentally to success- 

 fully combat the trials and tribulations which 

 beset their paths. But what of the great ma- 

 jority of American citizens, whose communion 

 with Nature in her variety of beauteous forms 

 should be stimulated and fostered? The tired 

 business man, the overworked housewife, the 

 wage-ea*«er, all whose minds need rest and re- 

 freshment must be considered. It is an evasion 

 to say that our native flora can provide all the 

 recreation for tired souls. It were as well to 

 suggest for some economic purpose that a Ford 

 car would fill the requirements of everyone and 

 so prohibit the manufacture of all other types. 



Let us admit that the restrictions might have 

 the tendency to stimulate American develop- 

 ment of novelties and lead us to greater efforts 

 in attempting to produce here material which 

 generations of experience have taught the world 

 can best be grown in specially favored localities. 

 If the facts justified the claim of necessity in the 

 exclusion, we would all as cheerfully submit as 

 we do to a smallpox quarantine. But, while 

 ornamental horticultural products are by infer- 

 ence charged with responsibility for the introduc- 

 tion of injurious insects and dangerous diseases, 

 a careful analysis of the source and manner of 

 introduction of the great mass of dangerous pests 

 exonerates them. 



For more than a century the practice of import- 

 ing horticultural products has grown so that to- 

 day millions of dollars are invested in the business. 

 Not only here but in France, Belgium, Holland, 

 England and many smaller countries. In all 

 this time until 1912 there existed practically no 

 restriction and no inspection. Since 1912 there 

 has been rigid inspection of all importations upon 

 arrival in this country. This in addition to very 

 thorough phytopathological supervision in prac- 

 tically all foreign states. 



Let us consider the very inconsistent discrim- 

 ination which permits the importation of Rose 

 stocks for grafting or budding, but prohibits the 

 bringing in of the budded or grafted Rose. Why? 

 Because there are a few more square inches of 

 surface on the Rose stem which increases the 

 area on which the pest may be harbored? But 

 the fact is patent that if any danger exists it lies 

 in the possibility of a lurking egg or germ in the 

 root-mass which remains the same after budding 

 as before and since 1912 the inspectors have not 

 reported infection or infestation on the millions of 

 Roses imported. 



Another rank inconsistency is found in the 

 embargo on bulbs. While Hyacinths, Tulips, 

 Narcissi, Crocuses, and Lilies are permitted, 

 hundreds of varieties of bulbs not in that small 

 list are excluded. The prohibited varieties are 

 not charged with greater potentiality as pest 

 carriers. The excuse is made that by elimin- 

 ating the hundreds of various bulbs, probably 

 nine tenths of the danger is overcome. This is 

 but another evidence of the miscarriage of the 

 purposes of the Congressional delegation of legis- 

 lative powers to a body of scientific men with no 

 familiarity with the commercial side of the 

 question. For every seedsman and florist knows 

 that the importations of the several varieties of 

 bulbs not prohibited constitute fully ninety 

 per cent, of the total importations of that class 

 of goods! What will really happen will be an 

 increase in these varieties to fill the places of the 

 other ten per cent, and no good will result. 



But the limitation would result in a condition 

 similar to an attempt to cook an appetizing meal 

 with plenty of beef, pork, fish, potatoes, and flour 

 but nothing else. No salt and pepper to flavor. 

 Nothing but these truly vital "necessities." 

 How many successive meals cooked under these 

 limitations would be satisfying? 



Finally, the Federal Horticultural Board was 

 created for a very beneficent purpose. It was 

 given great powers. It has exercised them here- 

 tofore in such a manner that great good has 

 resulted. In doing this it has heretofore acted 

 within the spirit as well as the letter of the Act 

 creating it. It was undoubtedly intended that 

 whenever any special outbreak of dangerous in- 

 sect or disease appeared upon any class of plant 

 the Board should have power to regulate and in 

 extraordinary cases to prohibit the entry of this 

 class of plant until the danger had passed. But 

 I am confident that it was not intended nor anti- 

 cipated by Congress that the practical exclusion 

 of all ornamental nursery stock and the destruc- 

 tion of a vast industry would at any time be con- 

 sidered unless some extraordinary crisis devel- 

 oped. It cannot be successfully contended that 

 present conditions warrant the drastic action 

 which has been taken. 



Riverton, N. J. E. H. Michel. 



Fosters an Infant Industry 



To the Editor of The Garden Magazine: 



THE excellence of your magazine for fur- 

 thering a love of nature's beautiful plants 

 among our population, and your efforts along 

 these lines are greatly to be commended, and 

 have won my admiration for the last ten years or 

 more that I have been a subscriber. But "no 

 Roses without thorns," so — 



In your January issue you appear to disapprove 

 of the new restrictions on nursery and plant im- 



