186 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
ures us were in conflict with Federal action have been with¬ 
drawn or modifled. 
As valuable as is the “clearing up” of some phases of the 
legal side of Quarantine measures, it is perhaps no more valu¬ 
able than will he the greater co-operation that is going to result 
between State and Federal Officials, as a result of a better under¬ 
standing. The States and the Government now know one anoth¬ 
er's prol)lems better, so that in the future it is not likely that 
Quarantines will he put up against our products without a more 
careful investigation of the situation, and then only, with the 
knowledge of the Federal Government, to supplement its action. 
Your Committee does not for one minute wish to give the im¬ 
pression that this Conference solved all our Quarantine problems, 
but it does mark a great step forward. 
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NURSERYMEN RETAINED 
AT WASHINGTON 
Legislative Committees, or at least the Chairman of such Com¬ 
mittees, feel the necessity of having someone with legal training 
to whom they may appeal for advice and counsel; also that there 
shall he someone familiar enough with the operation of the 
Government at Washington to quickly secure information con¬ 
cerning bills or regulatory pronouncements that affect our In¬ 
dustry. To And one person capable of performing both services 
was our aspiration. This seemed impossible until President 
Kelsey suggested Mr. Morten Q. MacDcnald. Members of the 
Legislative and Tariff Committee were consulted about retain¬ 
ing this gentleman’s services. Many did not approve, but your 
Chairman was physically unable to digest the Congressional 
Record and the volumes that came through from Congress daily. 
This Association wanted knowledge of what Congress or the 
Bureaus of the Department of Agriculture were doing. Mr. Mac¬ 
Donald knows how to qu ckly And these things out, so he was re¬ 
tained by your President and Chairman of this Committee at a 
salary of $25.00 per day together with his expenses when called 
from Washington. He has given inestimable service to date and 
the Chairman submits Mr. MacDonald’s bill of $75.00 for ser¬ 
vices rendered. 
FINE CO-OPERATION AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING 
A report of the year's work would not be complete without a 
cta'.ement that we have found on every hand in Washington 
helpful CO operation and a just attitude toward our Industry. 
We venture to suggest that there has never been a better under¬ 
standing, or a more cordial desire for co-operation than at pres¬ 
ent exists between Government, State Officials and Nurserymen. 
REPORT OF SPPICIAL COMMITTEE TO MEET THE PATHOL¬ 
OGISTS AND ENTOMOLOGISTS AT CINCINNATI 
IN DECEMBER 1923 
Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
Some eighteen months ago the American Phytopathological 
Society extended an invitation to the American Association of 
Nurserymen to meet them at their annual meeting held in Cin¬ 
cinnati, Ohio, December 1923, and to participate in a symposium 
on Crown Gall Inspection. Mr. Geo. Marshall and myself were 
appointed a special committee to represent the nurserymen in 
this discussion. The meet'ng was held at the University of Cin¬ 
cinnati. The discussion was attended by about two hundred 
Pathologists and Entomologists and beside Mr. Marshall and my¬ 
self other nurserymen in attendance were E. P. Bernardin, Par¬ 
sons, Kansas: Homer L. Reed, Louisiana, Mo.; Louis Hillen- 
meyer, Lexington, Ky. The discussion opened by the presenta¬ 
tion of four papers given in the following order; Crown Gall 
from the Horticulturists’ Viewpoint, hy Dr. M. J. Dorsey, West 
Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.; Crown Gall on Fruit 
Trees in Nursery and Orchard, by H. B. Chase with Mr. Mar¬ 
shall’s assistance; A Nursery Inspector’s View of the Crown 
Gall Problem, by Harry F. Dietz, Entomologist, Indianapolis, 
Ind.; and the fourth paper—Some Requisites of a Better Crown 
Gall Inspection, by Dr. I. E. Melhus, Pathologist, Ames, Iowa. 
Following the presentation of the four papers a general dis¬ 
cussion was had, participated in hy a number of leading Pathol¬ 
ogists, Entomologists and Botanists. 
Now, before preparing my paper, quite a voluminous corres¬ 
pondence was had with orchardists and nurserymen widely scat¬ 
tered over the United States and specimen Apple trees, galled 
and clean, of all ages were collected from eighteen different 
sources and from ten different states. The members gave us 
the finest kind of co-operation in sending in this material. Apple 
trees were selected because your committee felt that we should 
concentrate our efforts on Apple and leave other classes of trees 
and plants that are subject to Crown Gall for discussion at some 
future date. 
This material was sorted, classified and photographed. These 
photographs were used in connection with my paper. The ma¬ 
terial was then packed and shipped to Cincinnati with the idea 
that a committee from the Pathologists and our committee rep¬ 
resenting the nurserymen would attempt to go over this material 
tree by tree, agree what should pass the Inspectors and what 
should not and then photograph the various groups, the photo¬ 
graphs to be printed in a booklet which would serve as a guide 
for Inspectors, Nurserymen and Planters alike. The two com¬ 
mittees met the next morning early following the discussion and 
worked all day long, sorting and resorting, classifying, discard¬ 
ing and accepting, trying to get together to the satisfaction of 
all parties concerned. It was a most interesting session and 
never have I seen a committee more earnestly interested, willing 
to put aside their plans for that day and try to get at some defi¬ 
nite, clean-cut, positive method of handling the Crown Gall In¬ 
spection problem. After hours of work we found it impossible 
to select specific forms or types of Crown Gall that should pass 
the Inspector, other forms that should go in discard, so that a 
photograph would tell the story at a glance. It cannot be done 
because excessive callous causing an enlargement or swelling 
is so often confused with Crown Gall. Such trees are perfectly 
sound yet tens of thousands of them are rejected because of the 
difficulty of separating excessive callous from true type Crown 
Gall. A photograph will not, cannot determine the difference! 
between the two. True a series of such photographs would be 
a decided aid to Inspectors and others, but not a positive guide. 
As a result of this discussion and the full day’s work by the, 
joint committees, a resolution was finally agreed to and the next 
day it was adopted unanimously by the Phytopathological So¬ 
ciety with about 400 members present, and later by the American 
Association of Economic Entomologists without a dissenting 
voice. It is said to be the most liberal pronouncement of the 
Phytopathological Society on this question. The resolution is 
as follows: 
THE CROWN GALL RESOLUTION 
1. Owing to the wide distribution of Bacterium tumefaciens, 
the large number of its host plants, and the difficulty of detect¬ 
ing all affected plants, official inspection of nursery stock for 
the purpose of preventing the dissemination of the crown-gall 
organisms is unwarranted. The sole object of crown-gall inspec¬ 
tion is to prevent the sale and planting of stock which will not 
produce a normal crop. If it be assumed that all plants affected 
hy crown-gall are unfit for planting no method of official inspec¬ 
tion is adequate protection for the planter, because of the na¬ 
ture and wide distribution of the causual agent. Inspection reg¬ 
ulations should be framed with these things in mind and a clear 
distinction should be made between crown-gall and malforma¬ 
tions due to excessive callousing, cultivation injury, woolly aphis 
and nematode injury. 
2. The amount of injury done by crown-gall varies greatly with 
different species of plants, and in some cases, with different 
varieties of the same species. Also, it appears to vary some¬ 
what with the character of the soil, methods of culture and cli¬ 
matic conditions. Accordingly, it is impracticable to have uni¬ 
form inspection regulations for all kinds of plants or for all 
parts of the Unted States. 
3. In each state the extent of the injury done by crown-gall to 
the principal economic plants grown in the state should be ac¬ 
curately determined and the findings used as the basis of inspec¬ 
tion regulations. Generally speaking, the persons best qualified 
to do this are the plant pathologists and horticulturists of the 
Agricultural College and the Agricultural Experiment Station. 
They should be consulted freely by those in charge of nursery 
inspection. 
4. In general, the injurious effects of crown-gall have been 
over estimated, particularly in the case of the Apple. Crown- 
gall injury is least pronounced in the northern and northeastern 
portions of the United States. 
5. Crown-gall inspection should describe fully, and as accurate¬ 
ly as may be possible, the symptoms shown by plants to be re¬ 
jected. To say that “all plants visibly affected by crown-gall 
will be rejected” is not sufficiently explicit. Hair-splitting meth¬ 
ods of inspection are unnecessary and should not be permitted. 
Considerable tolerance should be allowed. 
6. Field inspection for crown-gall is unreliable. The only 
worthwhile inspection is that made at the packing shed or at 
the point of destination. 
7. Except as a penalty for law violation the rejection of an 
entire shipment because some plants in it are affected by crown- 
gall is unwarranted. 
S. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that this Society 
solicit the active cooperation of the American Association of 
Nurserymen in a research program that will ultimately answer 
the questions now involved, directly and indirectly, in a better 
