FLORIDA ,STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
1 75 
these laws and found what is best and 
tendered it to you. It took time to do it, 
but when it was done we immediately re¬ 
ported it to your president and executive 
committee. Now, what? Your execu¬ 
tive committee tells me on the floor of 
this room that as they did not see fit to 
approve the Temple bill, and as the nur¬ 
serymen’s bill was presented to that com¬ 
mittee for their consideration, with the 
request that they approve it, that they 
could not recommend the other. Did it 
occur to them, as fair-minded men, that 
the square thing was to report that so- 
called “nursery bill” to the committee 
they have appointed, and ask their opin¬ 
ion on it ? That seems to have been lost, 
and I don’t like it. 
Mr. Tabor: I think there is another 
little side to that thing that should relieve 
the executive committee of some of the 
fault, and I will tell you what it is. I 
saw a letter from Mr. Temple to our 
president in which he said something like 
this: “Here is the bill that we have form¬ 
ulated ; we have done the best we could. 
It could not be presented before the leg¬ 
islature except with the Society’s sanc¬ 
tion, and it is ‘up to’ them to do what 
they please with it.” I understood that 
they were simply carrying out their ideas 
of duty in presenting this bill, had pres¬ 
ented it, and that they would not feel in 
any way interested, in their official ca¬ 
pacity as a committee, if the Society did 
not accept it. I submit for myself and for 
the executive committee that we had no 
thought of slighting them in not present¬ 
ing for their consideration the nursery 
bill. We could not amend their bill. The 
nursery men’s bill is so simple in com¬ 
parison with theirs it is almost nothing, 
and we had not the slightest idea that it 
was going to rankle or make them feel 
that we had overlooked them in any way 
by not presenting to their consideration,, 
the other bill. 
Prof. Rolfs: After considering the 
matter, I believe that I have not acted 
the way I would have if I had thought of 
it in the way Mr. Temple has presented it. 
As an executive committee we should 
have turned it back to the committee. I 
think Mr. Temple is right, and I am glad 
to stand corrected, and if it were to do 
over again, the matter would not have 
had the handling which it had. I assure 
you that the handling was not due to the 
influence of anyone else, but it was my 
fault, and not the other fellow’s fault. I 
want to confess frankly to Mr. Temple 
that I made a mistake there, and did 
what I should not have done. 
Prof. Blair: Would an amendment be- 
in order? It has been stated on the floor 
tonight that there are always two sides- 
to a question. This is a matter of ad¬ 
justing differences. There is a motion 
before us to appoint a committee to take 
this bill before the legislature. Would 
Mr. Stewart accept the amendment to let 
this committee represent both sides; say 
three from the nursery standpoint and 
three from the growers? We can thrash 
over this until midnight and never arrive 
at an end. A committee representing 
both sides can take it up and discuss the 
points better than we can. My amend¬ 
ment is simply that the committee rep¬ 
resent both sides. 
Mr. Stewart: I have no objection to 
the amendment, but I do not see where 
there are two sides to the question. The 
committee which I moved be appointed 
