THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
made formal objection to Quarantine Order No. 37. 
AN APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 
This statement of objections is an appeal to the Secre¬ 
tary of x\gTicultiire to review and revise the Quarantine 
Order No. 37 ostensibly promulgated by the Secretary 
under and by virtue of Section 7 of the Federal Plant 
Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912, but really the con¬ 
clusions of the Federal Horticultural Board. 
While this Plant Act provides for a public hearing 
which shall precede tlie promulgation of any Quarantine 
Order, yet in the case of this Order Number 37, the nur¬ 
serymen are not satisfied that the Board has given full 
and proper consideration to the manifest defects and to 
the serious consequences of this Order. Moreover, while 
it is true that the Board gave two hearings on this order, 
—as to the first hearing the nurserymen were misled, by 
the Board’s declaration of the purposes and probable 
scope of the Quarantine Order, and the hearing, over the 
objections of the nurserymen, was held at the height of 
their selling season when it was impossible to prepare 
their objections in a proper manner. It is believed to be 
proper and necessary to call particular attention to the 
first of the objections just stated. The Board, in its pub¬ 
lic notice of the hearing of May 28, 1918, stated that the 
real scope of the proposed quarantine was to exclude 
plants with earth halls about their roots, and imports 
from “little known and little explored countries.” In ad¬ 
dressing the hearing of May 28th the Chairman of the 
Board reiterated this purpose. The nurserymen were 
consequently taken by surprise when the Board included 
in its Quarantine plants and trees other than those above 
mentioned. 
ORDER NO. 37 IS OF DOUBTFUL LEGALITY 
1. This order forbids, except as to a limited class of 
seeds and nursery stock, the introduction into the United 
States of nursery stock and other plants and seeds from 
all foreign countries and localities. Authority for this ex¬ 
clusion order is based on Section 7 of the Plant Quaran¬ 
tine Act of August 20, 1912, which, in effect, provides, 
that, in order to prevent the introduction into the United 
States of any tree, plant or fruit disease or of any in¬ 
jurious insect new to or not theretofore widely prevalent 
or distributed within or throughout the United States the 
Secretary shall prevent the importation of nursery stock 
from any specified country or locality where such di¬ 
sease or insect infestation exists. 
It is assumed that the aforesaid limitations upon the 
authority of the Secretary in the promulgation of quar¬ 
antines are real not fanciful. To comply with this pro¬ 
vision the Secretary must have proof of the specific di¬ 
sease or pest, that such disease or pest is found in a 
specific country or locality and that such disease or pest 
is “new to or not theretofore widely prevalent or dis¬ 
tributed within or throughout the United States.” 
Has the Secretary, or rather the Federal Horticultural 
Board complied with these statutory requirements? 
So far as the nurserymen can ascertain, the proofs 
adduced for this sweeping exclusion order against all 
foreign countries are limited to the evidence taken at the 
liearing on May 28, 1918 and to a pamphlet styled and 
referred to as “A Manual of Dangerous Insects Likely 
to be Introduced into the United States Through Impor¬ 
tations.” 
rr jr 
/ o 
A. A stenographic report of the hearing of May 28th, 
1918 discloses this interesting information; just one in¬ 
sect, the European mole cricket (page 13) and two plant 
diseases (p. 66) The White Pine Blister Bust and the 
Poplar canker, are listed as coming from Europe and no 
attempt is made to specify from what countries of 
Europe. For all the evidence shows, the countries of 
England, Holland, Belgium and France, from which 
ninety per cent, of all foreign importations come are not 
at all a source of infection or infestation. And as to the 
White Pine Blister Bust we already have an entirely ef¬ 
fective quarantine. Though no evidence is given, we 
might add that the gypsy and hrown-tail moth were not 
introduced on nursery stock hut by a scientist who ac¬ 
cidentally liberated the pests in Essex County, Massa¬ 
chusetts. Moreover, the Hessian fly, the pink boll 
weevil, and the European corn borer were introduced 
independently of nursery stock. 
Again turning to the evidence of May 28, 1918, we 
find that all the alleged or possible trouble comes from 
the Orient, or little known countries, as follows: 
The Japanese beetle (p. 12) ; citrus canker, (p. 24); 
the Fizi and Serah sugar cane diseases (p. 27) though 
they are not found in this country, and we have a 
strict Federal Quarantine; 
one witness listed 189 Fungi (p. 30) which are unnamed 
as to varieties, and we are unadvised as to their harmful¬ 
ness, coming from Japan, Philippines, Java, Australia, 
and Indo China; Oriental Peach Moth (p. 37) ; hag moth 
from Japan (p. 61) ; chestnut blight (p. 66); Dr. Metcalf 
offered tfi list, but did not, several thousand diseases ex¬ 
isting in parts of the world little studied or explored 
(p. 67). 
Other evidence was given at said hearing which can 
well be ruled out as being too indefinite and unresponsive 
to the issues under consideration, as follows: 
A New Jersey entomologist testified (p. 13) that he 
discovered twenty species of foreign insects in soil about 
the roots of imported plants. It is not disclosed where 
these plants came from, when they came, whether the 
examination was made of the ])lants prior to contact with 
soil in this countiy, or otherwise, and, more important 
still, whether they were injurious insects or harmless. 
In the estimation of the government experts, this evi¬ 
dence is valueless. Mr. David Fairchild, expert of the 
Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Ag"’^ul- 
ture, picturesquely testified (p. 20) 
“It is not a question of hailed iilants from Bel¬ 
gium but from the upper Yanisei where we know 
nothing about the plants.” 
Doctor Beattie, of the same Department testifies (p. 28) 
“We get hundreds of suspicious diseases and in¬ 
sects that turn out to be nothing.” 
The Bamboo Smut was brought to the United States 
by the United States Department of x\griculture from 
what country we are not informed (j). 28). A nematode 
affecting bulbs is said to have come to the United States 
presumably from the Orient, though we are not advised 
(p. 29) and the same is true of the Leopard moth (p. 38). 
The case of the Japanese Beetle above referred to 
raises a doubt as to the value of the case against nur¬ 
sery stock. 
On page 12 of the Record a scientist makes the posi- 
