62 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
Legislation 
PROPOSED MISSOURI INSPECTION LAW 
A bill endorsed by a number of rural organizations in 
Missouri, and now being backed by the State Board of 
Horticulture, will probably be presented to the Legisla¬ 
ture, and will very likely become a law in Missouri this 
winter. It is briefly as follows: Nursery and orchard 
inspection is provided; nursery inspection is enforced. No 
nursery stock can be shipped without certificate. On the 
orchard side, the proposed law will inspect orchards, and if 
found to be infested with injurious insects or diseases, the 
owner will be ordered to clean up the stock, and failing to do 
so, the work will be done under the direction of the State 
Entomologist and the expense charged against the property. 
NEW YORK ORCHARDISTS RAISE PROTECTIVE FUND 
At the last meeting of the State Fruit Growers’ Associa¬ 
tion, a rather unusual and somewhat unique step was taken 
by this Association, avowedly for the purpose of encourag¬ 
ing honest nurserymen and discouraging dishonest ones. A 
resolution essentially as follows was passed: “That a pro¬ 
tection fund be established by the separation of $200 of the 
funds now in the treasury and that this amount be increased 
by ten cents for the annual dues of each member, beginning 
with 1911, such reservation to be continued until the fund 
shall meet $500, after which only such amounts shall be so 
reserved as shall maintain the fund at $500.’’ The protec¬ 
tion fund is to be used to protect members against unfair 
dealing by nurserymen, especially in the delivery of stock 
not true to name; and the executive committee is author¬ 
ized to prosecute or aid in the prosecution of the nurserymen 
in such cases in any manner it may elect, when such prosecu¬ 
tion is authorized by a majority vote, either verbal or 
written, of the executive committee. The resolution also 
provided for the rescinding of the motion upon brief notice 
at future regular annual meetings. 
NOVA SCOTIA FRUIT GROWERS FAVOR FREE TRADE 
IN FRUIT 
At a recent meeting of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers’ 
Assoeiation, the following resolutions were adopted: 
1. That the Nova Scotia Fruit-Growers’ Association 
commend the action of the Federal and Local Governments 
in desiring to remove restrictions on trade between Canada 
and the United States, recommending a free interchange of 
fruits, agricultural implements, fertilizers and insecticides. 
2. That the Dominion Government be urged to appoint 
at once a director, and begin tests on the Fruit Experiment 
Station lately established. 
3. That, in the opinion of the Association, the subject 
of Agriculture be added to the High School curriculum—at 
least, as an optional subject—with special teachers trained 
at the Agricultural College. 
4. That the Government take steps to make the annual 
exhibition more satisfactory than at present. 
NOTED CROWN-GALL CASE SETTLED 
In the spring of 1909, The New England Nurseries, Inc., of Bed¬ 
ford, Mass., sold and delivered to D. Roy Smith, at Pickering, N. H. 
a bill of nursery stock. Included in the list, were something over 
two thousand apple trees, which were accepted and planted. In due 
time the nursery demanded payment for the stock, and Smith 
refused to pay, claiming that the apple trees were so affected with 
crown gall as not only to be practically worthless for orchard pur¬ 
poses, but also to such an extent as to cause him great damage, by 
rendering his land, where the said trees were planted, unfit for the 
growing of apple or other fruit trees, and necessitating the removing 
of the trees in question and the soil in which they stood, at great 
expense. He, therefore, presented a counterclaim against the nur¬ 
sery for damage so resulting of over six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). 
Therefore, on December 30, 1909, the Nurseries and Smith 
entered into a formal written agreement for arbitration of their 
claims against each other, under Chapter 194 of the Revised Laws, 
agreeing that the judgment rendered upon the award of the arbitra¬ 
tors by the Superior Court of the County of Suffolk, of the Common¬ 
wealth of Massachusetts, should be final. 
The arbitrators chosen were Hon. J. L. Ellsworth, Secy. State 
Board of Agriculture; Frank W. Rane, State Forester, and Wilfrid 
Wheeler, Secy. New England Fruit Show Association. 
The points which the arbitrators were called upon to determine 
were as follows: 1. Was the stock so affected with crown gall and 
root gall as to be worthless for orchard purposes? 2. Was the soil 
so infected by the planting of the said trees as to be rendered unsuit¬ 
able for orchard purposes ? 
Five hearings were held during the year, for the taking of pre¬ 
liminary arguments and evidence, and one for the hearing of final 
arguments of council. The case was gone into in detail, a great deal 
of oral and documentary evidence being submitted by each side. 
Horticulturists and bacteriologists from various agricultural experi¬ 
ment stations, nurserymen, and fruit-growers from different sections 
appeared before the arbitrators. A large amount of correspondence 
and a number of publications on the subject of crown-gall and 
root-gall were also submitted as evidence. 
The arbitrators spent two days reviewing the evidence and the 
following is taken from their report: 
The arbitrators have gone into the evidence presented with great 
care and find some evidence that the stock was affected with crown 
gall and root gall, though it is difficult to judge of the extent of the 
presence of these diseases. The expert evidence submitted, how¬ 
ever, showed such a wide divergence of cpinion as to the harmfulness 
of these diseases as to render it an open question as to just what the 
effect of their presence was on nursery stock. 
We find therefore, that D. Roy Smith suffered no appreciable 
damage from the nursery stock in question being affected with crown 
gall or root gall, and that he is not entitled to set off any claim of 
damage on this ground against the claim of the New England Nur¬ 
series, Inc. 
The finding of the first question naturally carries with it the 
finding of the second. Here, again, there is such a conflict of opinion 
among acknowledged experts as to the effect on the soil, in regard to 
subsequent plantings, of the introduction of crown gall or root gall, 
as to make it impossible to determine what the effect of such intro¬ 
duction actually is. There seems to be less reason to suppose that 
future plantings of fruit trees can be affected with these diseases, 
because of infection of the soil, from former plantings, than to believe 
that the original trees are adversely affected by the presence of these 
diseases. There is surely no certainty that the soil would become so 
infected with these diseases as to render it unfit for orchard planting, 
or so infe ted as to require the removal of any portion of the soil 
before such planting. 
We find, therefore, that D. Roy Smith suffered no appreciable 
damage by reason of this soil becoming infected with crown gall or 
root gall from the stock furnished by The New England Nurseries 
(Inc.), and that he is not entitled to set off any claim of damage on 
this ground against the claim of the said company.” 
‘‘We find therefore, that the New England Nurseries (Inc.) is 
entitled to recover from D. Roy Smith the sum of $-.” 
