THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
37 
York state, threatening New York nurseries, was represented 
at the convention by M. J. Daniels of Riverside, member of 
the California State Board of Horticulture, and secretary of 
the Washington convention ; E. M. Wardall, Los Angeles, also 
a member of the state board, and member of the legislative 
committee of the convention which drafted this bill leaving 
out the words “or fruit’’ in sections relating to interstate com- 
merce ; James McLaughlin, member of congress from Califor¬ 
nia, who addressed the convention on quarantining trees in 
the Golden state; by H. K. Snow of the Tustin, Cal., Fruit 
Growers Association ; and by a paper sent across the country 
by B. M. Lelong, secretary of the California State Board of 
Horticulture, to be read at the convention, detailing the “ in¬ 
spection ’’ of trees, fruits and plants in that state, but making 
no mention, of course, of the failure of that “ inspection ’’ to 
prevent the San Jose scale from appearing on pear fruit for 
sale in the streets of three cities of New York state. 
In how many other cities of the country has California fruit, 
infested with San Jose scale, been exposed for sale undetected ? 
The arbitrary nature of this bill is well illustrated, too, in 
the provision for inspecting nursery stock subject to interstate 
commerce. Should this bill become a law property valued at 
hundreds of thousands of dollars might be destroyed within a 
few days. The bill provides that not a tree or plant shall be 
forwarded from a nursery to a point beyond the state boundary 
until it shall have been duly inspected and labeled by an in¬ 
spector appointed by the secretary of agriculture. If a nursery¬ 
man should have his stock dug and assorted and ready to ship, 
he must await the visit of the inspector before another move 
can be made. And if the inspector is delayed by many duties 
elsewhere the nurseryman’s stock may be ruined or so delayed 
as to prevent him from complying with his contracts. There 
may be a remedy for this annoyance in section 8 of the bill, but 
the language of the section is so vague as to leave opportunity 
for wide difference of opinion in its interpretation, and there 
might still be costly delay. 
So much for the bill itself. As to the subject under con¬ 
sideration, the San Jose scale, this journal has steadily called 
attention to the reports of the presence of the pest in various 
localities and to the necessity of continuing the watchfulness 
which has characterized the action of nurserymen generally in 
this matter. Entomologists have borne testimony to the 
promptness with which nurserymen have done all in their 
power to rid their nurseries of the scale in the few cases in 
which it has been discovered. And Mr. Lowe of the New 
York Experiment Station said a few weeks ago: “ Western New 
York nurserymen are to be congratulated upon the care which 
they have thus far exercised with regard to keeping this seri¬ 
ous pest out of their nurseries.’’ 
Nurserymen have not been slow to recognize the fact that 
their interests and those of the fruit grower are identical. 
Success in fruit culture causes a demand for more trees. The 
nurserymen are therefore surprised that horticulturists should 
meet and adopt such stringent measures without consulting 
the nurserymen. The action comes unexpectedly for there 
has been no attempt upon the part of nurserymen to ship stock 
known to be infested. On the contrary there has been cheer¬ 
ful acquiescence in the recommendations of entomologists in 
special cases. 
That great damage might be wrought by the extensive spread 
of the San Jose scale is admitted, but if we are to have a law 
in the matter, by all means let it be just ; let it not impose 
severe restrictions upon one class and at the same time allow 
another class to produce the result it is ostensibly intended to 
prevent. We do not believe the eminent professors of the U. 
S. Department of Agriculture and the experiment stations and 
the prominent fruit growers wish to injure the nurserymen. 
We prefer to regard the developments of the Washington con¬ 
vention as the result of the zeal of the entomologists and the 
fears of the fruit growers combined in somewhat hasty action 
which we have discussed plainly. And we hope that upon re¬ 
flection it will be deemed advisable to consult the nurserymen 
as to the provisions of an amended bill. 
It was the intention of those at the Washington convention 
to have the bill introduced at the special session of the fifty- 
fifth congress. But it will probably not be possible to intro¬ 
duce the bill until the regular session of congress next fall. 
In the meantime the nurserymen of the country will be kept 
posted upon the subject through the columns of their trade 
journal and at the annual convention of the American Asso¬ 
ciation of Nurserymen in St. Louis in June the matter will re¬ 
ceive careful consideration. Within the membership of this 
association of more than twenty years standing are men prom¬ 
inent and influential in local, state and national circles, and 
they will make their influence felt in a demand for just con¬ 
sideration at the hands of the national legislators. 
THE NURSERYMAN’S CASE. 
William C. Barry, of the firm of Ellwanger & Barry, Roch¬ 
ester, N. Y., the only nurseryman at the national convention 
of fruit growers and entomologists at Washington, attending 
as a nurseryman and in the nursery interests, with the single 
exception of E. H. Bissell, of Richmond, Va., other nursery¬ 
men being there as representatives of horticultural societies, 
was particularly anxious to state the case of the nurserymen 
to the convention, but found no disposition to regard the nur¬ 
sery interests. Indeed there was a spirit of direct antagonism. 
Mr. Barry attempted to show that such legislation as is pro¬ 
posed aims a serious blow at the nursery trade ; that the long 
financial depression following close upon a period of greatly 
reduced prices for nursery stock had left the nursery interests 
in no condition to withstand such adverse legislation which he 
was prepared to show was not only ill-advised, but unneces¬ 
sary. 
It was particularly urged by Mr. Barry that any law affecting 
nursery stock should be so framed as to be capable of the in¬ 
terpretation intended by the legislative body enacting it. The 
proposed bill, he contended, is so worded as to be capable of 
great misinterpretation in the hands of such inspectors unac¬ 
quainted with nursery stock as would be sure to be appointed 
under it in many cases. He endeavored to point out that ad¬ 
verse legislation could ruin the nursery industry just as it could 
ruin any other ; that the nurserymen of the country had labor¬ 
ed long to build up an industry which was at the foundation 
of horticulture upon which the welfare of the country very 
largely depended. 
But Mr. Barry’s argument was heeded little or not at all, and 
the legislative committee of the convention in executive session 
framed a bill which by reason of lack of knowledge of existing 
conditions or otherwise, is inimical to nursery interests. 
