THIRTY-FOURTH FRUIT-GROWERS ' CONVENTION. 13 



accepting reduction in ticket rates, although the railroads would will- 

 ingly grant either, in recognition of the benefit my office might be in 

 extending their fruit traffic. The fruit growers have not been told 

 these plain facts at their conventions before and I know they will 

 enjoy it, especially when I tell them in this Convention that I do not 

 regret having to pay my own way here to represent them officially, for 

 it is worth all the cost to again meet the people of the city where my 

 great citrus fruit triumph occurred twenty years ago. But it requires 

 money to go about over the State trying to adjust the difficulties of the 

 county commissioners, and pull together the cooperation and efficiency 

 contemplated by the law. Since last Convention week I have traveled 

 from Yreka to National City, from Siskiyou to San Diego, as the orators 

 put it. These visitations were made in conference with the supervisors 

 and horticultural commissioners regarding their relations and the 

 support of the latter 's work. In an intervening count}^ a new issue was 

 met. The supervisors in session stated that their grain farmers and 

 stockmen were complaining about the few hundred dollars the county 

 had appropriated toward the protection of orchards and stamping out 

 the greatest peril with which the State has yet been threatened. The 

 complainants were not getting their share of the county appropriations. 

 Let us see what grounds the}^ had for this idea. However, in presenting 

 the following figures it is foreign to my purpose to criticise a coordinate 

 department for securing large appropriations, and we should approve 

 here without reservation the full support of every institution that may 

 advance the welfare of those who get their living from the soil — a posi- 

 tion that should be taken by ever}^ patriotic citizen of the State. 



For the fiscal years 1907 to 1909, the State Agricultural Society 

 secured for maintenance and buildings $87,500, and for the State Fair 

 $5,000 and the gate receipts. The Dairy Bureau was given $11,000. 

 For cereal improvement $10,000 was appropriated, and for tobacco 

 culture $1,000. These items foot up $111,600 appropriated by the last 

 Legislature almost exclusively for the advancement of the interests of 

 the grain and stockmen. For the same fiscal years the State Horti- 

 cultural Commission was given $35,000 for support and $12,000 for the 

 Insectary building and parasitic research. There was certainly no dis- 

 crimination here in favor of the orchardists, for these figures show that 

 the farm and stock industries were granted' more than three dollars for 

 every dollar appropriated to the promotion and protection of fruit 

 growing. Neither were other landed industries nor the outdoor sport- 

 ing interests neglected, for the same Legislature voted $51,000 for the 

 use of the State Mining Bureau and $87,500 for the Fish Commission. 

 Summing up these items we find $253,100 were voted to the field, 

 mining, and inland fish interests, as against the $47,000 devoted to the 

 work the State Commission of Horticulture is expected to do in the 

 promotion and protection of an industry which has done more for the 

 State than any other enterprise. We should sit in admiration at the 

 feet of these interests, and while applauding their success in securing 

 funds, learn of them how all things come to those who do not wait. 



In the foregoing account no State funds appropriated to agricultural 

 education and investigation have been included. In the University and 

 California Polytechnic appropriations, it is impossible to segregate 

 what portions may be used for the different branches of agriculture, and 



