NATIONAL CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS. 108 



We have then the anomalous condition that the National Govern- 

 ment can control the introduction and spread of insects which affect 

 the health of man and the domestic animals, but that it has no laws 

 against those affecting crops or plant life. Will the opponents of 

 such legislation show wherein the principles involved differ? Is not 

 the loss to plant life from insect pests far greater than to either 

 human or animal life? How do the values of animal and plant 

 products compare? According to the Report of the Secretary of 

 Agriculture for 1905, the domestic animals of the United States were 

 worth $2,995,370,277 in 1901. There are no figures as to the exact 

 value of animal products, but estimating a similar increase from 

 1900, they would be worth approximately $2,000,000,000. The total 

 value of farm products is estimated by the Secretary for 1905 at 

 $6,415,000,000. Plant products would therefore be worth approxi- 

 mately $4,415,000,000, the ten staples alone being worth $3,515,000,- 

 000, while the value of all domestic animals and their products would 

 be $4,885,572,394. In short, the plant products are more than twice 

 the value of the animal products, and practically equal in value both 

 the live animals and the products which they produce. These esti- 

 mates include the value of the products of so-called " farm forests," 

 but do not include the value of lumber or the virgin forests not on 

 farms. Nor is the inestimable value of city shade trees and parks 

 here considered. The losses occasioned by insects, exclusive of those 

 to animals and stored products, have recently been estimated by Mr. 

 C. L. Marlatt at $520,000,000, which is entirely conservative. 



We would venture the assertion, therefore, that the annual losses 

 occasioned by imported insect pests far exceed all losses of animals 

 from disease and of those human diseases which are subjects of Na- 

 tional quarantine. Of course we can place no money value upon 

 human life, but were that possible, we have no doubt that the loss of 

 plant products from a half dozen insect pests imported during the 

 last quarter century would far exceed all losses from animal and 

 human diseases which within that time have been the subjects of 

 National quarantine. 



The gypsy moth at present threatens the welfare of New Hamp- 

 shire, Rhode Island, and, indeed, all New England, and, if unchecked, 

 ultimately the whole country. Massachusetts has done, is doing, and 

 we believe will do all in her power to check the pest within her 

 borders. But why should her citizens be taxed sufficiently to prevent 

 its spread to neighboring States ? And what recourse have the other 

 States if Massachusetts does not prevent such spread? It would 

 seem that Massachusetts is maintaining a public nuisance as far as 

 the neighboring States are concerned, but it is doubtful whether a 

 suit could be entered against her on that ground even theoretically, 



