THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
39 
about at a much earlier date and so have prevented the great 
loss now sustained by reputable men who were proceeding in 
a legitimate business with faith in the justice of governments. 
If the San Jose scale was really the cause of the exclusion 
act, a fair method would have been to have supplemented the 
Ontario scale act, passed in January, with such other measures 
for inspection as might be deemed advisable and defer action 
on the exclusion bill until some date other than the packing 
season. As a natural result of the new law, Canadian nurseries 
should have the busiest season in their history. 
THE FEDERAL BILL. 
During last month another obstacle against the passage of 
the federal San Jose scale bill was presented. The opposition 
of the florists having been allayed, Alexander Craw, horticul¬ 
tural quarantine officer at California, raised a criticism of the 
bill. Regarding Section i Mr. Craw says: 
So far as we know, there are not at present any available experts in 
Japan, Mexico or China, who could be trusted to recognize the evi¬ 
dences of infestation. The expression “dangerously injurious” should 
certainly not appear. It is not safe to leave it to the opinion of for¬ 
eigners whether a pest is dangerously injurious or not. Suppose the 
foreigners to act in perfect good faith, they will often be in error for 
the reason that a minor pest in 1 a foreign country often becomes a very 
serious pest in the United States. Thus the San Jose scale in its native 
country attracts no attention, and would be passed as a minor pest, not 
dangerous to horticulture, 
“The law should be so worded as to exclude from interstate 
commerce all the produce of infested nurseries, whether visibly 
infested or not,” says Professor T. D. A. Cockerell, entomolo¬ 
gist of the New Mexico Experiment Station, who, in endorsing 
Mr. Craw’s criticism, says: 
It has been objected by some entomologists that the most careful 
inspector is not infallible, and that when an entomologist affixes his 
certificate to stock, he runs the risk of injuring his reputatation, should 
the stock afterwards be found to be infested. This objection seems to 
the writer to have no weight, as the stock is only asserted to be 
“apparently” free, and the inspection given would at least detect bad 
cases of infestation and prevent the utter carelessness which has been 
so common in some quarters. The same objection might be urged 
against all expert testimony whatever, which, whether medical, legal 
or entomological, is but human, and therefore liable to he erroneous. 
Professor Cockerell says also: “It is probable that no bill 
could be framed which would be satisfactory to all parties, and 
the present one is admittedly a compromise. Yet it is believed 
by its promoters to represent a real and substantial advance 
and therefore to deserve the support of all horticulturists.” 
This is exactly the position taken by President Irving Rouse 
of the American Association of Nurserymen, who, when Mr, 
Craw’s criticism reached him, immediately sent a vigorous 
letter to Congressman Charles A. Barlow, of California, through 
whom the federal bill was introduced in congress, telling him 
that the bill had been prepared carefully and to the satisfaction 
of all interests, being endorsed by a California representative, 
and that the nurserymen had agreed to leave out of the ques¬ 
tion of interstate regulation the subject of fruits in deference 
to the wishes of those interested in California’s chief industry. 
Congressman Barlow caused copies of President Rouse’s letter 
to be sent to Mr. Craw and to prominent horticulturists 
throughout California. 
_ • 
W. R. Gray, Vienna Nurseries, Oakton, Va., January 15, 
1898 : “We enclose $1 to renew subscription to the National Nurs¬ 
eryman. We could not get along without your journal.” 
THE NURSERYMEN’S POSITION. 
There is evidence that the position of the nurserymen on 
the subject of San Jose scale is not understood in some 
quarters. The last issue of the Florists' Exchange has the fol¬ 
lowing comment : 
In the discussion on the Canadian bill in the House of Commons, Sir 
Wilfred Laurier emphasized the fact that the measure “ was purely one 
of protection, and not one of hostility toward the United States.” 
According to the daily papers, some of our nurserymen are reported as 
thinking otherwise. It is, of course, rather unfortunate that their 
“ chickens have come home to roost” thus early ; but Canada’s action 
is but the natural sequence of what has been admitted by many to be 
an unnesessary internecine warfare among our own states, in which 
hostilities an unarmored scale has been the supposed formidable 
enemy, and “ certificatitis ” the most powerful munition of the hug 
war. 
The chairman of the legislative committee of the New York 
Florists’ club took exception to our congratulatory remarks on 
the result of the discussion on section 8 of the federal scale 
bill, which, according to the statement of Dr. John B. Smith 
of New Jersey, before the New York Florists’ club, ought not 
to have been appended to the bill. 
And now comes the California Fruit Grower , published in 
the state that gave the Eastern United States the San Jose 
scale, with these remarks : 
Not only do Alexander Craw, the horticultural quarantine officer at 
the port of San Francisco, and T. D. A. Cockerell, entomologist at the 
New Mexico agricultural experiment station, adversely criticise Con¬ 
gressman Barlow’s measure regulating the importation of trees, shrubs 
and fruits, but the principal florists’ and nurserymen’s journals are up 
in arms against it, and, it would appear, with reason. 
The principal florists’ and nurserymen’s journals are not up 
in arms against the bill. The bill as it stands to-day has been 
declared by the nurserymen and florists to be satisfactory, and 
so far as is known only two persons in the entire country crit¬ 
icise it; they are Messrs. Craw and Cockerell, of California 
and New Mexico. Congressman Barlow, who introduced the 
bill, has declared to all prominent California horticulturists 
and nurserymen that the bill is a good measure and should be 
- 
passed. 
Now, if there are any chickens that have come home to roost 
they belong to the horticulturists and entomologists, not to the 
nurserymen. Nurserymen did not start the agitation for 'a 
federal scale bill. They were drawn into it simply as a matter 
of protection to their interests, when a convention of horti¬ 
culturists and entomologists met in Baltimore in March, 1897, 
and declared that a bill must be introduced in congress to 
regulate the transportation of nursery stock. 
At St. Louis last June the nurserymen seeing that horticul¬ 
turists and entomologists were determined to propose federal 
legislation, and believing that it was better to have a uniform 
law than a number of widely varying laws, as was the pros¬ 
pect in the states, joined with the entomologists and horticul¬ 
turists in the support of the bill now before congress. 
Our friends on the Pacific coast and among the florists 
should not hold to the idea that the San Jose scale bill or the 
San Jose scale alarm was originated by the nurserymen. It 
would be strange indeed if the nurserymen should originate a 
measure that would restrict the transportation of their stock, 
or that they would agitate an insect alarm. But if there must 
be legislation, they ask that it be in such form as not to ruin 
one of the principal branches of the fruit industry. 
