the national nurseryman. 
<55 
well done by a printing house which has accommodated us and 
our very capable secretary. I would not want to do the print¬ 
ing for what it has been done for the Association.” 
LEGISLATION. 
Chairman C. L. Watrous presented in detail a report of the 
committee on legislation. The work of the committee in 
Washington in connection with the federal bill relating to the 
transportation of nursery stock in interstate commerce was de¬ 
scribed. Readers of the National Nurseryman have been 
informed of this work from time to time. The report showed 
the hard work that was necessary to restore the bill to some¬ 
thing like its original shape after Mr. Daniels of California had 
amended it to suit the wishes of his constituents. It was only 
by threatening to kill the bill as it then stood that the legisla¬ 
tive committee of the American Association succeeded in 
bringing Mr. Daniels into line. It would have been better to 
have no bill at all than to have the bill as amended by the 
Californians, said Mr. Watrous. 
“ The committee has no doubt,” continued Mr. Watrous, 
“ that a bill Agreed upon by nurserymen, horticulturists and 
entomologists, can be passed in the near future. The opposi¬ 
tion in congress is very slight. An attempt should be made 
to introduce a new bill in which the nursery interests shall be 
fully represented. There seems to be little doubt that a bill 
of some sort will be passed in the near future. Unless the 
nurserymen look out for their interests, other inteiests will be 
cared for, much to our disadvantage, and we will be stabbed 
again in our tenderest part when our backs are turned.” 
Mr. Albaugh suggested that if the word “fruit” were in¬ 
serted af er the words “fruit trees and shrubs” in the bill the 
California men would soon come to terms. Mr. Wilson said 
it was the suggestion by the committee that the nurserymen 
would insist that fruit should be inspected in the same manner 
as fruit trees and shrubs that brought Mr. Daniels to time and 
resulted in the restoration of the bill to something like its 
original form. When that suggestion was made, the nursery¬ 
men’s committee was treated with the consideration which was 
its due. 
J. Van Lindley, North Carolina, moved that the committee 
on legislation be continued and that one or two southern nur¬ 
serymen be added to it. He suggested Robert C. Berckmans 
of Georgia. 
Mr. Pitkin, New York, thought the new president should 
appoint the committees and at the suggestion of Mr. Albaugh 
the motion of Mr. Van Lindley was changed to the form of a 
recommendation. President-elect Smith stated that he was 
glad to have the recommendation of the Association. 
THINKS BILL IMPRACTICABLE. 
Mr. Brooke—“ The Association is where it was four years 
ago when Prof. Alwood met us here in this city. I am satisfied 
in my own mind that this agitation has been a detriment to the 
nurserymen. We have not made any gain and we have spent 
quite a sum of money to forward the bill. It has developed 
that there is quite a separation between nurserymen and fruit 
growers. This is most unnatural and undesirable. I have 
believed that there were attempts by fruit men to place restric¬ 
tions on the nurserymen and the report of our committee bears 
out my opinion. If we could have secured the passage of the 
bill we would have been on the threshold of trouble. If a 
simple bill for inspection were before congress it would be all 
right. But this bill carries an appropriation of $100,000 annu¬ 
ally, and this Association must go back each year and plead for 
$100,000. There is nothing to the bill without the appropria¬ 
tion, and for this Association to try to get this amount each 
year is simply folly. I don’t believe any good will come by 
going to Washington. We couldn’t have had a better commit¬ 
tee, but there is too much legislation. Whether this is the right 
or the wrong bill I do not pretend to say; but if we continue 
work on it we shall put ourselves right in the way of more 
trouble.” 
Mr. Watrous 1 he bill provides that $100,000 shall be 
appropriated annually, or so much thereof as shall be needed 
to carry out the provisions of the bill. It would be a regular 
appropriation for a branch of the Department of Agriculture, 
I suppose, and this Association will not have anything more to 
do with it.” 
E. W. Kirkpatrick, Texas—“ It seems to me that the nur¬ 
serymen and the fruit growers have enough trouble without 
borrowing any. I agree with the member from Kansas (Mr. 
Brooke) that we have had an able committee at work, and we 
honor it for its ability. But we see antagonism by California; 
and are we to encourage that at heavy expense ? The ento¬ 
mologists say the San Jose scale is everywhere. Are we to go 
into the forests and the by-ways and hedges and seek it ? Why 
should there be a special law for a general disease ? California 
wants a law; we want a law; we cannot agree. Why not rise 
above petty jealousies ? Let us be a family of brothers.” 
Silas Wilson, Iowa—“We have all heard the story of the lion 
and the lamb. Should the nurserymen lie down and let Cali¬ 
fornia pass laws to injure us? We have offered to meet Cali¬ 
fornia more than half way. We are not demanding anything 
unfair. But when we lie down with the lion in a brotherly 
spirit we do not want to be on the inside.” 
Mr. Albaugh—“ There are restrictive laws in many of the 
states. A national law, it was hoped, would make conditions 
uniform. Now, when the state of California says it will con¬ 
duct inspections as it pleases, and that the national certificate 
is not worth a snap after the stock passes within the boundaries 
of that state, that is not a brotherly spirit. In Ohio we have 
passed a scale law, and I hope it is decent. If Mr. Brooke 
sends stock under certificate from Kansas it goes in Ohio. It 
is the same if he sends it to Mr. Rouse in New York state. 
But in California they do not propose to take any man’s word, 
not even that of the United States of America. ‘ We’re bigger 
than any of you,’ they say out there. 
“ Now, I do not like to play second fiddle, under such cir¬ 
cumstances. We are no more responsible for having the scale 
than is a child for having the measles. The scale came to us 
without our desire and without our help, and more than all, it 
came to us from California. It is thought that the United 
States of America, which has spent millions of dollars to main¬ 
tain American prowess on land and sea, recently, could afford 
to pay $100,000 annually to protect American industries. Are 
we going to walk up and, laying our necks on the block, say 
“ Here ends all ’ ? 
S4ys LAW IS NEEDED. 
N. W. Hale, Tennessee—“It is very important, indeed, that 
a committee be appointed to watch legislation. In the light 
of present conditions, we need a law to govern the transporta¬ 
tion of nursery stock.” 
Mr. Watrous—“I did not speak of the State of California^ 
but of one man, Mr. Daniels, formerly a resident of Minnesota 
and Wisconsin. I spent some of my blood and bones i n 
