ACALA COTTON IN CALIFORNIA 33 
one-variety districts. Counsel for the association were" appointed 
and were instructed to investigate the legal difficulties and the con- 
stitutionality of a State law providing for the growing of only one 
variety of cotton within a district. 
On October 19, 1924, the California Cotton Growers' Association 
held another meeting at Riverside, and the association's counsel 
presented their findings. It was their opinion that the community 
itself did not have authority to declare a one-variety district, but 
that such authority was vested in the State legislature by the State 
constitution, and that the legislature could not delegate this author- 
ity. On this basis they believed that a State law which named the 
variety to be grown and the districts in which it was to be grown 
exclusively would be constitutional. The following resolution was 
then prepared and unanimously adopted : 
Resolved; That Messrs. Wing and Whitlock, counsel for the association, be 
instructed to draft a bill providing for the growing of cotton of one variety 
only in such districts of California as may be shown to be practically agreed 
upon the desirability of such a bill and the variety of cotton to be grown within 
the district. 
Further, to make provisions in the bill for the inclusion of other districts 
when the growers in those districts manifest a desire to be included within its 
provisions. 
Said bill is also to permit a change in the variety of cotton grown within a 
district when the advancement in the science of growing cotton shows it to 
be desired. 
In order that said advancement may be accomplished, the bill is to permit 
experiments with other varieties of cotton to be carried on only by the United 
States Department of Agriculture and the California State Department of Agri- 
culture. 
A special feature of the bill is the keeping of cottonseed pure. One neces- 
sary point in the accomplishment of this is to provide in the bill that all gins 
in the restricted districts shall confine their ginning to the one variety grown 
in that district. 
Kepresentatives from all the cotton-growing districts of the State 
were present at this meeting, and the districts to be included in the 
bill were considered. The Coachella Valley in Riverside County 
was already growing Acala exclusively, and since the Palo Verde 
Valley, another cotton district of the same county, was nearly all 
planted to Acala and had presented a petition to be included in the 
bill, the entire county of Riverside was included. The cotton-grow- 
ing counties of the San Joaquin Valley were now growing Acala 
almost exclusively and were also to be included. Delegates from the 
Imperial Valley stated that while they considered such legislation 
very desirable, the growing of one variety had not yet developed in 
their county to the point where they could be included in the bill. 
Only districts or counties that were already practically united 
in growing Acala were to be included in the bill, which was designed 
to protect only those districts that were already applying the one- 
variety principle, and did not aim to force districts not united in 
the production of one variety into such a system. On this basis the 
law would be popular and could be enforced, but to make such a law 
apply to a district where a large element had not agreed on the best 
variety /to grow would be undesirable, and under these conditions 
the law, for obvious reasons, would be much more difficult to enforce. 
The bill was eventually drawn and introduced in the State legis- 
lature on January 16, 1925, by Mr. Murray, of Riverside, Calif. It 
