> 
FLORIDA ,STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
• i 
167 
Quaker’s meeting, but the spirit does not 
seem to move any of you. Some action 
I must be taken in regard to the report, and 
it is time somebody said something. 
Mr. Gillette: I move the report be 
laid on the table. 
Motion seconded. 
Mr. Temple: Mr. President, who 
seconded that motion? 
Prof. Hume : Mr. Griffiing. 
Mr. Temple : While I would not move 
the adoption of this bill, being a mem¬ 
ber of this committee and acting chairman 
of this committee, I feel it is perfectly 
proper that I should discuss it. Some of 
you who were here, perhaps remember 
well the strong arguments brought to bear 
in favor of a horticultural bill for the 
State of Florida. I myself spoke rather 
feelingly, because I had spent a great deal 
of money in fighting on£ of the pests that 
had been brought into this state. I felt 
I strongly then; I feel strongly now, in 
favor of some law that will protect the 
grower from the danger of having other 
diseases and insects brought into this 
state. We have the whitefly, and we 
know from recent discoveries that there 
are insects compared with which the 
whitefly is a joy and a delight. There is 
an orange worm that, if we ever get it 
started, will make us forget the whitefly 
altogether. We have imported from 
Cuba another whitefly, perhaps harder to 
fight because of its hairy covering which 
makes it impervious almost, to insecti¬ 
cides. Now, it seems shameful to me 
that when you appoint a committee to 
take up this matter, and present to your 
consideration a report that embodies al¬ 
most in toto a law which has been proved 
to be constitutional in the state where it 
was adopted, and protects them against 
pests and diseases, that it should be laid 
on the table, because it meets with the 
disapproval of some nurserymen of this 
Society. Gentlemen, it is an outrage. 
Mr. Gillette: Mr. President, there are 
always two sides to a proposition or ques¬ 
tion of any kind. It is true that I am 
interested in the nursery business. It is 
also true that there are probably thirty 
or forty individuals in the State who 
make their living out of the nursery busi¬ 
ness. I doubt if there is one of those 
men, and I think I speak advisedly, who 
is opposed to any reasonable inspection 
law, or any law which will provide pro¬ 
tection against insect pests. In fact, it 
is to the advantage of every nurseryman 
to keep them out. 
The law, however, which was published 
in the Grower* if put into effect in the 
State of Florida, would virtually pui 
every nurseryman in the state out of busi¬ 
ness. It may be constitutional, but law¬ 
yers in the state have said it is not; por¬ 
tions of it, at least. There are portions 
of that law which make statements of 
this kind: I haven’t it with me. In the 
first place, it says: “no nurseryman shall 
sell trees, five per cent, of which shall be 
untrue to name, without being liable to a 
fine of $500.00, or six months imprison¬ 
ment, or both.” I wish to submit to the 
members of this Society if that is a fair 
proposition for any business to work 
under. I do not believe there is a nur¬ 
seryman in .,the State of Florida who 
does not use every means possible to keep 
the varieties true to name. It is part of 
his stock in trade; it is one of his assets, 
and he would be an idiot to do other¬ 
wise. But we are helpless, to a certain 
