The National Nurseryman. 
FOR GROWERS AND DEALERS IN NURSERY STOCK. 
Copyright, 1896, by the National Nurseryman Publishing Co. 
Vol. IV. 
MARYLAND LAW. 
Its Enforcement Outs Off the Market 
—Nurserymen State Their Case- 
Entomologist’s Bulletin. 
In our last issue we published a despatch from Harrisburg 
to the Philadelphia Times calling attention to the operation of 
the Maryland nursery law requiring certificates as to the 
freedom from insects or disease of all stock shipped into 
Maryland. The enforcement of this law has had the effect of 
cutting off the Maryland market from many growers and it 
caused the nurserymen of Pennsylvania to speak out. They 
found it necessary to pay for the cost of inspection of stock by 
a staff of agents appointed by the state secretary of agricul¬ 
ture, for the purpose of securing certificates. 
The controversy is the latest phase of a subject brought up 
by E. H. Bissell, of Richmond, Va., at the last annual meeting 
of the American Association of Nurserymen. Mr. Bissell, 
J. Van Lindley, Pomona, N. C., and others were anxious that 
the association should by resolution condemn the action of the 
Maryland legislature. Mr. Watrous thought the resident 
members should act, inasmuch as the law in question was not a 
national law. 
Finally the association adopted the following resolution : 
“ Resolved, that all laws enacted by states, discriminating 
against nursery products, shipped into such state from other 
states, are hereby condemned by this association as unfair and 
unjust to interstate commerce and in every way objectionable, 
and we ask the repeal of all such laws,” 
The Maryland law is very stringent. It was published in 
the August issue of The National Nurseryman. We give 
herewith the statement of the Maryland nurserymen at a meet¬ 
ing in Baltimore, an account of which is presented by the 
Baltimore American of October gth : 
MARYLAND NURSERYMEN REPLY. 
A meeting of representative Maryland nurserymen was held 
in this city yesterday, to take some action to contradict the 
prevalent opinion among nurserymen in other states that the 
nurserymen here had the Maryland trees and nursery stock 
law passed by the last legislature for the purpose of injuring 
the business of these foreign nurserymen. The law, as a 
matter of fact, was passed without the knowledge of the 
nurserymen, and they only desire to use it to prevent the ship¬ 
ping to this state of plants infected with San Jose scale, peach 
yellows, rosette or other dangerous insect or plant diseases. 
To correct this false impression the following resolution was 
adopted : 
“ In view of the fact that there has been some misunderstand¬ 
ing on the part of many nurserymen outside this state regard¬ 
ing the Maryland trees and nursery stock law ; be it 
No. II. 
“ Resolved, that we state positively that we had nothing 
whatever to do with the formulation and passage of the Mary¬ 
land trees and nursery stock law ; that we do not want to debar 
or exclude any nurserymen outside this state from doing busi¬ 
ness in our state ; and that we do not want to interfere with 
interstate commerce or any other legitimate business.” 
There are a number of imperfections in the present law, 
they say, and it is desired that these be corrected ; so that it 
was decied to call a meeting of the nurserymen and the horti¬ 
cultural people of the state before the next session of the 
legislature. At this meeting the present law will be discussed, 
and a draft of a new law will be prepared. 
Professor W. G. Johnson, the state entomologist, was present 
at the meeting yesterday, and brought to its attention a letter 
which he had received from Professor W. B. Alwood, the vice¬ 
director of the State Agricultural Experiment Station, located 
at Blacksburg, Va. The letter intimated that, in the opinion 
of the writer, the object of the law was merely to harass out¬ 
side nurserymen, and to prevent their doing business in this 
state. The letter also said that the writer might retaliate, if 
the provisions of the law were strictly enforced. Professor 
Johnson replied to this by stating that not only did the nursery¬ 
men not have anything to do with the passage of the law, but 
it was their desire merely to prevent the spread of plant 
diseases in this state, and not to prevent any nurseryman from 
doing business in this state. Professor Alwood stated in his 
letter that it might be that the scale was prevalent in Maryland. 
While this is so to some extent, it is also true that Professor 
Johnson has inspected the eighteen nurseries of the state, 
where there are some 14,000,000 growing plants, and has given 
them certificates of inspection, showing that they are free from 
disease, and he has filed these certificates with Governor 
Lowndes, at Annapolis. 
DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE. 
It was stated at the meeting that the law does not discrimin¬ 
ate against out-of-state nurserymen. It requires them (section 
58) to have certificates of inspection on each package, stating 
that the plants are free from disease, and if this certificate is 
not on the package, requires an inspection by the state entom¬ 
ologist, in default of which the package is to be burned. The 
burning is the only penalty attached to the violation of the law 
by out-of-state nurserymen. On the other hand, section 54 of 
the law provides for a penalty of one hundred dollars for each 
and every package that is shipped by a nurseryman in this 
state which has not on it a certificate that “ the whole and 
every part of such package has been examined by the state 
entomologist, and is entirely free from all San Jose scale, yel¬ 
lows, rosette, and every other insect or disease.” It was the 
opinion of those present at the meeting that a perusal of these 
two sections will convince any one that the nurserymen here 
do not wish to discriminate against any one. 
Professor Johnson stated that he had received a number of 
certificates from nurserymen out of this state, which said that 
their stock is free from disease. He was of the opinion that as 
ROCHESTER, N. Y., DECEMBER, 1896. 
