THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
93 
INSPECTION LAW£ NOT ENDORSED BY LEADING 
ENTOMOLOGISTS. 
i 
In October, 1907, W. B. Cole wrote to the nursery inspectors of 
about forty different states, asking for their personal views as ento¬ 
mologists on the following questions and received the following 
replies. The object in obtaining this data was to ascertain whether 
the nursery interests of the country are justified or not in asking for 
the repeal of the various state laws which now exist or amending 
the same to make them applicable to the present conditions. 
SYNOPSIS OF REPLIES. 
Owing to the widespread distribution of San Jose scale, and the 
general infestation of most orchard sections, which now exists, do 
you not consider it an unnecessary hardship and expense to the 
nurserymen of the country: 
rst To require the destruction of trees not infested with San 
Jose scale but in close proximity to infested trees ? 
No. of Answers. 
“Yes.”. 12 
“Yes, under most conditions.”. 1 
“Not necessary to destroy such trees, but should be 
sprayed.” .. 1 
“I do not assume right to destroy trees not infested.”. 1 
“I do not consider it necessary or proper to require the des¬ 
truction of trees not infested, under any circumstances.” 2 
No. 3 
Total. 20 
“Is useless as far as this pest is concerned.”'. 1 
“Would fumigate for other pests when present.”. 2 
“Compulsory fumigation of nursery stock, not subject to 
scale is likely to lead to deception and fraud.” . 1 
Total. 17 
5th To require nurserymen to give bond or license in excess of 
that of tiny other legitimate business, in order to sell through agents 
or otherwise in any state or county? 
No. of Answers. 
“Yes.”. 2 
“No.” . 1 
“Not ordinarily a great hardship.” . x 
“Am in favor of a bond.”. 1 
“Not in favor of a bond.”. 1 
“I do not approve of a bond.”. 1 
“It is an unwise discrimination.”. 1 
‘ ‘ Savors of discrimination. ”. 1 
“Not.more so than in other lines of business.”. 1 
“See no reason why nurserymen should be required to give 
excess bond or license in order to sell. ”. 1 
Total. 11 
(For some reason a number of state inspectors did not wish to 
express an opinion on this question.) 
IMPORTANT STATEMENTS BEARING ON 
THE INSPECTION PROBLEM. 
2d To require the destruction of slightly infested nursery stock 
which can be successfully treated either by spraying, dipping or 
fumigating ? 
No. of Answers. 
“Yes.”. 8 
“No/’ . 4 
“Foolish to do so.”. j 
“Not necessary.” . 1 
“ Yes, except for interstate commerce. ”. 2 
“Yes, under most conditions.”. 1 
“Would allow sale on fumigation.”. 1 
‘ ‘ Would superintend fumigation. ”. 1 
“No trees should be sold from an infected block until after 
thorough treatment, and results passed upon by official 
inspector.” . 1 
3d To require the destruction of permanent plantings of fruit 
and Ornamental trees or shrubs on nurserymen’s premises when same 
are no more a menace to growing nursery stock than neighbor’s 
trees, and when said plantings are sprayed and cared for so as to 
keep San Jose scale under control as far as possible ? 
No.jof Answers. 
“Yes.”. 6 
“Yes, under most conditions.”. 1 
“It may be.”. 1 
“Should not be destroyed.”. 1 
“Not necessary if properly sprayed.”. 1 
“Depends on conditions.”. 3 
“All infested stock should be properly sprayed.”. 2 
“Should be thoroughly treated.”. 1 
Total. 16 
- 
4th To require the fumigation of species or kinds of nursery 
stock not subject to the attack of San Jose scale ? 
No. of Answers. 
“Yes.”.*. 7 
“Yes, most emphatically.”. 1 
“No, evergreens and rhubarb would be all I would exempt.” 1 
“Yes, under most conditions.”. 1 
“Not necessary.” ..>. 2 
‘ ‘ Fumigation of nursery stock not infested is not required. ” 1 
“I see no reason for destroying any trees infested with San Jose 
scale unless so badly infested as to have seriously lowered the vitality 
of the trees. I believe that the requirement to spray or fumigate all 
trees before shipping is the best method that can be adopted to pre¬ 
vent the spread of pests from nurseries. My personal opinion is that 
inspecting nurseries once or twice a year is not at all effective in pre¬ 
venting the shipping of infested trees.” 
Mr. H. M. Williamson, Sec’y State Board of Horticulture, 
Portland, Ore. 
“The state (Ind.) laws do not recognize certificates of fumigation 
by any specific mention. However, I would accept a certificate of 
fumigation wherever I was satisfied that the work had been properly 
done. The policy of this office is a constructive and not a destruc¬ 
tive one. We destroy no stock that can possibly be saved.” 
Benj. W. Douglas, State Entomologist, 
Indianapolis, Ind. 
Dover, Del., Dec. 27, 1907. 
“In neighborhoods that are so thoroughly infested with San Jose 
scale that every orchard is more or less effected, no serious harm can 
come from planting slightly infested nursery stock, especially if this 
stock has been properly fumigated. Therefore, while such stock 
could not be certified, I would allow it to be sold in infested territory, 
the buyer being notified that it was infested but had been thoroughly 
fumigated. There are difficulties in the practical application of 
inspection laws and what would be allowable under certain condi¬ 
tions might be reprehensible under others; and for this reason the 
laws should be somewhat elastic, and men of clear judgment selected 
to execute them.” 
Wesley Webb, Cor. Secretary State Board of Agriculture. 
“Compulsory fumigation of stock not subject to scale is likely to 
lead to deception and fraud on the part of a few nurserymen.” 
H. T. Fernald, Inspector for State Board of Agriculture, 
Amherst, Mass. 
“It is true that San Jose scale has become widely distributed and 
it is a question how long we shall be justified in causing the destruc¬ 
tion of nursery stock when only slightly infested.” 
W. E. Britton, State Entomologist, 
New Haven, Conn, 
