162 PROCEEDINGS OF THIRTY-THIRD FRUIT-GROWERS ' CONVENTION. 



protection of our fruit interests. The pests we keep out can do us no 

 harm. The old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 

 cure, ' ' can be applied with a tenfold greater meaning to protecting our 

 fruit interests. No insect pest, once thoroughly established, can ever 

 be eradicated by any artificial methods such as fumigation, spraying, 

 etc. We are, however, compelled to resort to these expensive methods 

 to prevent loss of fruit and destruction of trees. 



Where we have been fortunate in securing nature 's checks in the way 

 of predaceous insects and interna] parasites our burdens have been con- 

 siderably lessened. 



The State quarantine office maintained at San Francisco, under the 

 supervision of the State Commissioner of Horticulture, is doing a great 

 work in the way of preventing the further introduction of dangerous 

 insect pests and plant diseases. While we thoroughly appreciate this 

 most valuable work of the State Commissioner, we realize that it is only 

 through a thorough and complete cooperation with the County Boards of 

 Horticulture that the greatest benefits can be derived. 



It is certainly an injustice to hold the State Commissioner responsible 

 for. the introduction and spread of fruit pests over our State, unless he 

 is provided with the proper authority to compel the necessary precau- 

 tions to be observed by the county horticultural officials. We believe 

 the State Commissioner should exercise a general supervision over the 

 appointments of county horticultural officials. We are all aware of the 

 fact that quite a number of fruit-growing counties of the State have 

 neglected or refused to appoint horticultural commissions. Other 

 counties through their Supervisors have appointed to these positions 

 men who were utterly devoid of any experience or other qualifications 

 for the work, but merely as political or personal rewards. Again, 

 other counties have appointed efficient men, but have curtailed their 

 expenditures to such an extent that it was impossible for them to do 

 effective work. These abuses should be promptly remedied. A very 

 general sentiment appears to exist among the growers to have the pres- 

 ent horticultural law amended to provide for a County Commissioner 

 of Horticulture instead of a board of three, as at present exists. We 

 believe that such a change would be of great benefit and should result 

 in a greatly increased efficiency over the present system. By limiting 

 the commission to one man we believe some of the present political 

 features would be eliminated. Especially would this be true if the 

 law should compel the applicant to secure from the State Commis- 

 sioner a certificate as to his fitness for the position before receiving 

 the appointment from his county. Such a law should insure the 

 appointment of competent men. The law should also provide that 

 in case such commissioner proved to be incompetent or careless in the 

 discharge of his duties he should be removed, upon the request, in 



