THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
49 
settle it on due date than lie would if lie owed an open 
account to a merchant with whom he is friendly. 
“The experience with trade acceptances has so far been 
very gratifying, and as it is sound in principle it is bound 
to grow in popularity,” 
PERTAINING TO THE PLANT EMBARGO 
Dear Sir:— 
For some months I have read with close attention in the 
National Nurseryman and other trade papers, many ar¬ 
ticles and letters all arguing and protesting against Or¬ 
dinance No. 37 of the Federal Horticultural Board. 
These arguments have run all the way from “Poor 
bleeding Belgium” to “making the world safe for democ¬ 
racy,” and the terrible hardship that is to be inflicted 
upon our congressmen by denying them Bay tree porch 
ornaments and Orchid corsages for their wives. 
Not one of these writers to my mind has presented the 
subject in other than a partisan manner. The National 
Nurseryman in particular in its January issue about goes 
the limit in thisi respect in referring to the pests and di¬ 
seases that inspired ordinance No. 37 as imaginary foes. 
With the history of the San Jose scale, chestnut blight, 
blister rust, etc,, before him, I fail to see how he has any 
justification for such a statement. He also states that 
“insect and plant life are interdependent and left to them¬ 
selves the balance is maintained.” This statement if it 
is to apply to the whole subject should include fungeous 
diseases. 
Will he be good enough to advise his readers how long 
in his opinion it will take the San Jose scale and the fruit 
industry to become balanced without the help of scalecide 
and lime sulphur. 
The fact that there has been discovered a chestnut that 
is apparently immune from the blight should prove of ab¬ 
sorbing interest to owners of woodlands throughout the 
East, who have lost unnumbered millions by this scourge. 
The progeny of this lone specimen may during the course 
of the next few hundred years balance up matters. 
If the protestors are sure of the justness and rightness 
of their stand would it not he better to present some real 
arguments along analytical lines that will appeal to rea¬ 
son rather than to prejudice. 
I suggest a few points for discussion that may possibly 
help not only the trade hut the House and the Senate to 
acquire a more comprehensive view of the matters in¬ 
volved. 
1. Has the country as a whole during the last forty 
years, benefitted or suffered loss by the importation of 
nursery stock? 
2. Is it possible to detect all diseases and pests at 
the time of importation or before the material has been 
distributed to the public? 
3. Is the personel of the inspection service main¬ 
tained by the various States competent, and efficient? 
4. If not, can it be made so and how? 
5. The same questions in regard to the inspection 
service employed by the foreign countries from which 
we import. 
I am no lover of bureaucratic methods or regulation by 
fiat, nor can I stomach the clothing with cant a plain 
business proposition. 
Whether it is nominated in the regulations of its de¬ 
partment or not, the Federal Horticultural Board in com¬ 
mon decency and justice owe to the trade a clear concise 
statement of their reasons for putting into effect this 
drastic ordinance and an explanation of its apparent in¬ 
consistencies. 
The Hortcultural trade owes to its self a dignified 
judicial reasoned exposition of its claims. If it can not 
give this it is certainly in the rum class. 
Very truly yours, 
Garfield Williamson. 
THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA 
NURSERYMEN’S ASSOCIATION 
The annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Nurserymen’s 
Association was held January 15 at the Hotel Adelphi, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 
Mr. Adolf Muller, President of the Association was in 
the chair. 
There was a very good attendance, the nursery inter¬ 
ests of the state being well represented. 
The plant embargo came in for a good deal of attention 
and the meeting went on record as being unanimously 
opposed to it. Mr. Clark, of the Heniy A. Dreer Company, 
spoke on the Plant Embargo and convinced every one at 
the meeting that Regulation No. 37 of the Federal Horti¬ 
cultural Board was discrimatory, obnoxious and unwork¬ 
able to accomplish what it intended. 
The theoretical foolishness of the Plant Embargo was 
brought out in the animated discussion on the subject. 
Questions were asked why shiploads of fertilizer were 
allowed to come to this country fairly alive with insects? 
Whereas plants from localities where every possible 
means were taken to insure their being clean are to be for¬ 
bidden entry. 
What steps had been taken to insure the earth being 
brought over as ballast and dumped along the Jersey and 
Pennsylvania coasts being free from pests? 
It is unfortunate some of the government entomologists 
were not on hand to enlighten the nurserymen on these 
subjects. 
The subject of prices was brought up and showed 
nurserymen had begun to realize the necessity of looking 
closely after cost of production and its effect on the sell¬ 
ing prices, all seemed to agree that higlrer pidees w^re 
necessary unless they wanted to go out of business. 
Among the firms represented were: 
Bakestraw and Pyle, Kennet Square, Pa. 
Andorra Nurseries, Chestnut Hill, Pa. 
Adolf Muller, Norristown, Pa. 
Heniy A. Dreer Co., Philadelphia, ,Pa. 
William H. Moon Co., Morrisville, Pa. 
Cheltenham Nurseries, Cheltenham, Pa. 
Thomas B. Meehan Co., Dresher, Pa. 
Bertrand H. Farr, Wyomissing, Pa. 
A. E. Wohlert, Narberth, Pa. 
Conard & Jones, West Grove, Pa. 
Root’s Nurseries, Manheim, Pa. 
Henry F. Michell Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 
Joseph W, Thomas, King of Prussia, Pa. 
