176 
FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
was to consist of members of this So¬ 
ciety ? and not to represent either nursery¬ 
men or growers; simply a committee of 
the Society. However, I have no objec¬ 
tion to the amendment. 
Mr. Blackman: I want to remark, Mr. 
President, that the orange growers, cit¬ 
rus growers in Dade County are so afraid 
that the Temple bill would not pass, that 
they organized a Society of their own, 
and a bill will be presented to the legis¬ 
lature this year similar to the Temple bill, 
but only effective in Dade County. That 
is the way we feel about it down there. 
Prof. Hume: Mr. Secretary, will you 
please take this chair; I feel that I must 
make some remarks. 
(Secretary takes chair.) 
Prof. Hume: I want to say this in re¬ 
gard to the matter of the bill as sent to 
the president by Mr. Temple. Mr. Tem¬ 
ple referred it to me for my action. I 
think that was his first letter to me. I 
replied to him that I did not think it was 
my place to act, because we have an ex¬ 
ecutive committee whose business it is to 
act for the Society when it is not in ses¬ 
sion. I turned it over to the executive 
committee. I wrote Mr. Temple in re¬ 
gard to it, and told him I believed there 
were some good things in the bill, and I 
also told him I thought there were some 
objections to it. 
Now, then, I had something to do, un¬ 
fortunately, with the nursery bill. Un¬ 
fortunately for the people of this state, 
and unfortunately for the people of other 
states, I am a nurseryman. I am, also, 
unfortunately, the president of your So¬ 
ciety, so I am placed in a peculiar posi¬ 
tion in regard to this whole matter; but 1 
will say this in regard to the nursery 
men; that the bill introduced by the nur¬ 
serymen has nothing to do with the bill 
you have before you for discussion. The 
nurserymen were suddenly placed where 
there was no provision made for the in¬ 
spection of nurseries, and the selling of 
nursery stock, running up perhaps more 
than half a million, 50 or 75 per cent, go¬ 
ing into other states and with no provis¬ 
ion made by which our product could be 
marketed—what was to be done? They 
left the horticultural law alone: they did 
not touch it. They formulated and in¬ 
troduced a bill which was in their interest, 
which provided for inspection of their 
nurseries which left it in the hands of the 
authorities which were there before, to 
make that inspection as rigid as they 
chose, but which gave the inspection, and 
that was all they were after. That bill 
was not a substitute for the original bill, 
it was a bill made for an emergency. The 
nurserymen were within their rights. 
I agree with Prof. Rolfs that the ex¬ 
ecutive committee did not handle the bill 
presented to them by Mr. Temple in the 
right way. I agree with Mr. Temple in 
his position. I agree that the Temple bill 
has many remarkable features in it. But, 
the nurserymen were in a box, and as 
business men they had to act, and act 
quick, and I believe they did right in that. 
Now, then, the bill they have presented 
does not interfere, nor would it interfere, 
with the workings of the other bill. The 
only difference in the nursery bill and the 
bill we are discussing now, is this: the 
nursery bill is a general bill. It is found¬ 
ed on the same lines as ninety-five per 
cent, of the similar bills of this country, 
and I can read into it word for word the 
bills of many other states. That bill was 
