54 Slower (Brower 
Plant Quarantine Number 37. 
Comments and Suggestions by Prof. Donald Reddick. 
[ Written expressly for The Flower Grower. ] 
Y OUR EDITORIAL in the January 
issue expresses mildly the view 
held by a great many ornamental 
horticulturists and others on the 
enforcement of quarantine No. 37 of the 
Federal Horticultural Board. In the 
present day of a society of nations, the 
argument you use would seem to be 
sufficient to prevent the adoption 
or enforcement of such a regulation; 1 
but that very argument (referring then 
to our allies) was employed at hearings 
before the Board, at various times, ap- 
parently without effect. Other argu- 
ments were used, too, seemingly with 
as little effect. It may be worth while 
to recite some of the arguments. Pub- 
lic sentiment is very much aroused 
now and it is even possible that con- 
certed action might bring a speedy 
repeal of the regulation although those 
knowing about conditions in Washing- 
ton doubtless would be inclined to the 
idea that the only possible means of 
relief lies in Congressional action which 
would abolish the Board. 
1. It is contended that the plants 
absolutely prohibited fall in the class 
with luxuries. While it is true that 
some of these plants can be bought 
only by wealthy people, it is equally 
true that some of us enjoy certain 
plantings of our more fortunate neigh- 
bors as much, perhaps, as they do 
themselves. And in the cities and 
large villages, who can say that a well- 
kept park is not the property of the 
masses? The writer lived in one city 
once where the parks with their plant- 
ings of domestic and foreign trees, 
shrubs and other ornamental plants 
fell in the class of necessities. 
2. Secretary Houston says in his 
notice that “ there exist in and 
other foreign countries and localities 
certain injurious insects and fungus 
diseases new to and not heretofore 
widely distributed within and through- 
out the United States.” He does not un- 
dertake to mention a single example. 2 
The Chairman of his Horticultural 
Board, however, has mentioned at vari- 
ous times, 3 a number of examples 
of previous introductions. The list is 
a stock one and is recited with more or 
less conviction by various persons. It 
usually begins with San Jose scale and 
its embellishments and end depend 
largely on the imagination of the pro- 
1 Since the above was written the regulations have 
been amended twice, presumably due to pressure 
from the outside. The concessions represented in 
the amendments are not very great. 
2 Secretary Houston under date of March 28, 1919, 
has addressed an open letter to Mr. Winfred Rolker, 
of the New York Florists' Club Protesting Committee, 
explaining the motives back of the order Interested 
persons doubtless could obtain a copy of the letter on 
application to the Secretary. The Secretary does not 
presume to go back of the authority given him by 
Congress but those vitally interested might well look 
up the facts with respect to the Committee hearings 
on which Congressional action was based for the 
establishment of the Federal Horticultural Board. 
3 Under the caption, Service am! Regulatory An- 
nouncements, January, 1919, issued March 8. 1919, 
the Federal Horticultural Board presents some spe- 
cific cases. The pamphlet, probably, can be secured 
free on request. It is worth reading. 
mulgator. (This is not a facetious 
remark.) An answer to this statement 
of the Secretary might be a challenge 
to cite examples and proofs thereof. 
It is a fine answer because the only ex- 
amples that can be cited are of things 
that have happened. There is no evi- 
dence whatever that any of the insects 
or diseases mentioned in any list will 
be of consequence in North America. 
In fact most of the evidence is on the 
other side. The diseases and pests of 
Europe and America have been com- 
pared by various scientists and the 
most striking thing is that the troubles 
are different. A notable example is 
that of the dreaded potato wart disease. 
Trials made at numerous places in this 
country indicate that the disease will 
be of little or no consequence in most 
of our potato growing regions. Like- 
wise the Nun moth which is so injuri- 
ous in European forests is of no con- 
sequence in Canadian forests where 
it is now known to exist. This is ex- 
perimental evidence of a kind very 
meagre at present. But there is an- 
other kind of evidence which is nearly 
as good. There has been an unre- 
stricted flow of plants of all descrip- 
tions from Europe, in particular, to 
North America for nearly 300 years. 
Considering the enormous quantities 
of material brought over it may be 
asked in all seriousness whether there 
is a single species of bug or fungus in all 
of Europe which has not been brought 
to this country thousands of times. If 
this is true, as seems likely, it would 
appear that all of those capable of estab- 
lishing themselves in this country have 
had ample opportunity to do so and 
for that reason there is no object in 
enforcing the regulation at this late 
date. 
3. The Secretary says ‘‘new to and 
not heretofore widely distributed within 
and throughout the United States.” 
This is a stock phrase but constant 
repetition of it does not necessarily 
make it fact. If the truth were known 
it is not improbable that several of the 
diseases and pests mentioned in lists 
do exist in this country. These very 
words were used only two years ago 
in connection with a corn disease. Sub- 
sequent examinations showed that it 
exists in several states ; and museum 
specimens show that it has been here 
for a long time. In other words the 
disease is of little or no consequence 
and, therefore, had not come to the 
attention of scientists. Would it not 
be well to find out what we have at 
home before making trouble with our 
neighbors? 
4. “ Which affect and are carried 
by nursery stock.” Not to mention in- 
numerable other ways. The packing 
material about various articles is likely 
to be a means of entrance of various 
fungi and insects, particularly when 
this material consists of excelsior, peat, 
sphagnum, wild grass, etc. Indeed, 
June, 1919 
the European corn worm is said to 
have been brought in on jute. Why 
not shut off the jute business? We 
should not traffic in a thing which is 
likely to be such a menace to an im- 
portant food crop. In other words 
there is not physical means of prevent- 
ing introductions of plant pests unless 
we wish to close the door to all foreign 
commerce. Likewise all our motor 
trucks, big guns, automobiles, camp 
equipment of every description, sol- 
diers’ uniforms and shoes should be 
subjected to disinfection because the 
earth adhering to them may harbor 
the germs of plant diseases or the eggs 
of noxious insects. It is fair to ask 
whether more earth will not be moved 
in this way from France to the United 
States during the next ten months than 
would come in balls of earth about 
plants in the next ten years ? 
5. Regulation 2. Field, vegetable 
and flower seeds are exempted. So far 
as diseases are concerned it is probably 
true that more parasites are dissemi- 
nated widely in or on or with seed than 
in any other way. The bacterium 
causing a blade blight of barley lately 
has been shown to remain alive for at 
least two years on perfectly dry seed. 
The fungus causing stinking smut of 
wheat is in the seed. In such familiar 
examples as bean weevils the insect or 
an egg is in the seed for a considerable 
period. Such things menace the food 
crops of the country, yet seeds are ex- 
empted. How much more danger lies 
here than in admitting ornamentals, 
especially in view of the fact that the 
majority of insects and plant parasites 
have highly specialized food habits and 
are often restricted to a single species ' 
or variety ! 
6. It is a question whether this at- 
tempt to exclude pests is not a menace 
to the permanent agriculture of the 
country. One of the examples put forth 
by the Federal Horticultural Board is 
useful in this connection. The grape 
Phylloxera is present in American vine- 
yards but has never been known to be 
destructive on American varieties of 
grapes. The European vine fell an easy 
victim to the pest and the vineyards of 
Europe had to be reconstituted on 
account of its introduction there. If 
we are inclined to feel secure in the 
protection offered by the quarantine 
let us consider what condition we 
would be in if some seemingly harm- 
less insect affecting wheat or corn or 
potatoes did by some means or other 
gain access to our shores. An insect 
affecting any one of these crops in the 
way that Phylloxera affected European 
grapes would mean a most serious 
calamity in this country. The efforts 
of plant breeders and agronomists 
to build up American agriculture by 
the production of new and disease re- 
sistant varieties may be brought to 
naught any day because of the acci- 
dental introduction of a foreign disease 
or insect. In many respects it might 
be better if we would seek out and in- 
troduce at once all the known diseases 
and pests of wheat and corn so we 
could make a beginning at permanency. 
It would not be wise, of course, to 
make a wholesale introduction of these 
