22 
By such work as this the caterpillar has already apparently disap- 
peared iu a number of these dangerous woodland colonies, and the 
employees of the committee claim that it has been exterminated. 
A good idea of the activity of the committee and its employees may 
be gained from the following statement, showing the work done during 
the year 1896, and which is taken from the report of the State Board 
of Agriculture, published in January, 1897 : 
Work done during 1S96. 
Trees (fruit, shade, and forest) : 
Inspected 10, 718, 836 
Found to lie infested with caterpillars, pupse, moths, or eggs 57,723 
In whicn cavities have been cemented or covered 3, 408 
Burlaped 567, 025 
.Sprayed 4, 327 
Trimmed 90, S20 
Scraped 929 
Cut 132,391 
Acres of brush land and woodland cut and burned over 477 
Buildings: 
Inspected 21, 764 
Found to be infested 815 
Wooden fences : 
Inspected 43, 917 
Found to be infested 1, 318 
Stone walls : 
Inspected (rods) 18, 997 
Found to be infested 633 
Number of each form of the moth destroyed during the year by hand: 
Caterpillars 1,808,105 
Pupa> 441, 899 
Moths .- 44,291 
Hatched or infertile egg clusters 31, 501 
Unhatched and probably fertile egg clusters 884, 928 
OPPOSITION TO THE STATE WORK. 
As has been indicated in a previous section, there has always been 
more or less opposition to the passage of acts before the legislature 
involving these large annual appropriations for the gipsy-moth work. 
On several occasions the committee on agriculture of the legislatures 
has listened to persons opposed to the work. The arguments brought 
forth by such individuals have in no case interrupted appropriations, 
but it is safe to suppose that some of the delays in making appropria- 
tions and some of the reductions in the amount from the estimates 
submitted by the State board of agriculture have resulted in part from 
this opposition. The writer has made an earnest effort to learn the 
grounds for this opposition. He has talked with a number of individ- 
uals, some of them scientific men of high standing, but has been unable 
to find a person holding opposing views who was sufficiently well 
informed about the work actually being done by the committee to thor- 
oughly justify the expression of a positive opinion. In the main the 
