88 



of being criticised because they include in their budgets large 

 sums of money. At the same time, they have no choice as to 

 the amount, and it is for this reason that the Freeholders in 

 several counties in this State have felt, from time to time, that 

 if they are to bear the brunt of oritism, they might just as well 

 have the direct responsibility of determining the size of the 

 budget, and of spending it in accordance with the local needs as 

 they may appear to them. 



And so we find that Boards of Freeholders in possibly seven 

 or eight counties in this State, perhaps more, have instructed 

 their representatives in the Assembly, or the Senate, from time 

 to time, to introduce either amendments to or repealers of this 

 law, and as opposed to this movement there has been the effort, as 

 you know, to keep the law as it is. Now, looking at it fairly, look- 

 ing from the standpoint of the average member of the average 

 Board of Freeholders, is it really necessary to retain the manda- 

 tory feature? Why not meet the wishes of the Boards of Free- 

 holders and agree to the elimination of the mandatory clause in 

 this law ? What would happen ? Or, perhaps, I might put it this 

 way: Why should we, all of us, interested in the campaign 

 against a pest which is bound to be eliminated sooner or later, 

 why should we insist on retaining this particular clause? Is it 

 absolutely necessary to have it retained? 



You will bear in mind, of course, that the problem is not a 

 local one. You will bear in mind that the single county, no 

 matter how effectively it may do its work, may find itself in- 

 vaded by large numbers of mosquitoes coming from territory 

 which is without the limits of the county. 



In a second place, we know that the Boards of Freeholders 

 change from time to time as to political complexion, not only 

 that, but if there is no change in the political complexion of the 

 Boards of Freeholders, expediency may dictate to them the ad- 

 visability of withholding direct support, at least temporarily, for 

 mosquito extermination work. In other words, if the matter 

 were left in the hands of the average Board of Freeholders, 

 there would be no assurance of permanency or continuity in 

 mosquito extermination «work, even though the taxpayers in the 



