6 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
NURSERYMAN APPOINTED 
On Board of Control In Virginia—Hope That License and Inspec¬ 
tion Lavs Will be Changed [By Legislature This 
Winter — W. T. Hood’s Efforts for 
Reduced Charges. 
Concerning the Virginia license and inspection law, W. T, 
Hood, of Richmond, Va., says in a communication to the 
National Nurseryman: 
At the Virginia horticultural meeting held at Lynchburg, 
December 1902, the question was very much agitated, and 
several of the fruit growers seemed to think that they did not 
have the relief that they should have on account of the state 
law not being enforced as they thought it should be. Our 
state entomologist stated that they did not have the money 
to carry on the work as it should be, as the state had only 
been appropriating $1,000 per year; and, I think, for 1901 an 
additional $1,000, and for the year of 1902 the state auditor 
considered there was not any appropriation, but the state 
institution at Blacksburg had furnished the money for inspec¬ 
tion of the nurseries of the state for 1902, and what other 
inspection that they could do for the orchardist when called 
on. The fruit growers seem to think that the nurserymen 
should be taxed to pay their inspection also; one of the nurs¬ 
erymen present, who was also a fruit grower, thought the 
nurserymen should pay a tax of $25 each for the inspection 
of their nurseries. (I will say there were very few nursery¬ 
men present at the meeting.) 
MR. HOOD OPPOSED IT. 
I opposed the motion, as most of the nurseries in the state 
grew only a few trees, and they could not afford to pay this 
special tax; but if they are going to tax the nurserymen, 
they should not tax them more than $5 each, and if the in¬ 
spection was more than one day at a nursery, the nursery_ 
should pay a per diem for each day’s inspection above one 
day. I also thought that the state should make a much larger 
appropriation for the work, and that a committee was ap¬ 
pointed to go to Richmond to see if there could not be a 
larger amount appropriated for the inspection work. 
OPPOSED TAKING OUTSIDERS. 
Four or five nurserymen met the committee. A couple of 
papers were drawn up by the fruit growers or some one else. 
One of the papers was by one of our state senators, who is 
one of our largest fruit growers, and in his paper he wished 
to tax the nurserymen in the state, and those that do business 
from outside the state. I opposed the taxing of those out¬ 
side, also did not suppose it could be done as it had been de¬ 
cided by Supreme court that it could not be done; but we 
spent part of two days and one night with the committee 
trying to make what change we could in the old bill, and 
there as a clause put in that each nurseryman of the state 
should pay $10 for inspection, and that they would ask the' 
legislature to appropriate $6,000 additional for the work of 
inspection. This bill was not presented, but the present one 
was passed at the last days of the legislature, and it has not 
been satisfactory to nurserymen who handle agents in the 
state, nor to those that have to buy from outside the state 
such stock as they are short of. 
HOPE FOR CHANGE IN LAW. 
* We hope there will be some change in the law made this 
Winter. At the Virginia State Horticultural meeting which 
met in Pulaski City, December 4th, the question was again 
agitated by the fruit growers and what few nurserymen 
were present (which I think was not more than six.) While 
the inspectors have about 100 nurseries to inspect in the 
state, there are few of them that attend the horticultural 
meetings, unless held in their immediate neighborhood. 
“Our state entomologist has been criticised by those out¬ 
side of the state, also those of us inside the state have not 
been satisfied with the law. I will say, that for myself I 
think that they have been of great help both to the fruit 
grower and the nurserymen, and while the nurserymen of the 
state have had very heavy losses from what they term crown 
gall on apple trees, I think in the end it will work out to our 
good if the law is enforced; or, in other words, if the people 
can be educated to know what a good tree is, and will be 
willing to pay a fair price for a good tree instead of buying 
the cheap trees that is sold in this state by most nurserymen. 
NURSERYMAN ON THE BOARD. 
“We have succeeded in having a nurseryman, J. B. Wat¬ 
kins, appointed by the governor on the Board of Control of 
the Blacksburg Institution which passes on the inspection 
work of the state, and hope that he will look after the inter¬ 
ests of the nurserymen. While I hope that he may have some 
changes made, think it is very doubtful if he will be able to 
have all of the tax taken off.” 
j NO AUTHORITY TO DESTROY. 
According to a recent decision by Attorney General U. S. 
Webb, the state commissioner of horticulture of California, 
has no authority to seize and destroy trees and vines in 
orchards or vineyards, which may be affected with contagious 
or infectious diseases. He states that the act of 1897 pro¬ 
viding for county boards of horticulture and vesting them 
with authority to abate nuisances has no reference to tree or 
vine diseases, but applies to insect pests, such as codling 
moth and others. 
WESTERN WHOLESALE ASSOCIATION. 
At the semi-annual meeting of the Western Association of 
Wholesale Nurserymen, in Kansas City, last month the neces¬ 
sity of providing a fund to punish dishonest dealers and 
salesmen.was urged by A. Willis, Ottawa, Kan. It was re¬ 
ported that there is a growing demand for fruit trees on the 
Pacific Coast and that the number of persons growing fruit 
exclusively is increasing. It was also reported that farmers 
generally are giving more attention to fruit culture and are 
getting good prices for apples, peaches and plums. 
F. H. Stannard, Ottawa, Kan., was elected president; E. R. 
Taylor, Topeka, Kan., vice-president; E. J. Holman, Leaven¬ 
worth, Kan., secretary-treasurer. 
