76 
THE NATIONAL NUESERYMAN 
tive slatement llial 
“about three years ago (i. e. 1915) there came into 
our state at Riverton, New Jersey, in the soil about 
the roots of Japanese Iris a Japanese beetle.” 
In the estimation of the Chairman of the Federal Iloili- 
eultural Board, this evidence is so convincing as to dan¬ 
ger of importing plants with earth halls, not only Iroin 
Japan hut from “all foreign countries and localities” 
that he says in his memorandum to Congress found at 
p. 2466 Congressional Record of January 30, 1919, 
“It is wmrthy of note that this beetle, in the opinion 
of the experts of this Department and of the State of 
New Jersey who have investigated the matter, was 
brought in by the Dreer Nurseiy with importations 
of Iris from Japan. The insect first appeared in the 
heart of the Dreer Nurseries, and has spread from 
this centre over an area of approximately 25,000 
acres . . . .” 
What are the facts in this case? In August, 1916, 
Mr. II. B. Weiss, Chief Inspector of New^ Jersey and his 
assistant discovered an unknown insect, later reported to 
he the Japanese beetle, in the corner of a branch nur¬ 
sery two and one-half miles from the main Dreer Nur¬ 
series. By examining the records it was shown that in 
1911, five years prior to the discovery of the beetle, some 
Japanese Iris had grown in this particular locality of 
said nursery, adjacent to this nursery where the bug 
was discovered is a fifteen acre uncultivated field 
abounding in smart weed, the food the bug greatly en¬ 
joys, and next to this field is the old Parry nurseiy aban¬ 
doned for many years. The flight of the beetle, state¬ 
ments of the Government experts to the contrary not¬ 
withstanding is not over two hundred yards. When dis¬ 
turbed the beetle does not fly, but “freezes.” It is the 
conviction of experienced horticulturists that this beetle 
originated in the old Parry nursery, and not in the branch 
nurseiy in which Japanese Iris had been planted five 
years previously. 
The economic loss to horticulture caused by this beetle 
has amounted to five dollars. 
In our understanding of the value of scientific deduc¬ 
tions, the conclusions of the Federal Horticultural Board 
in the case of the Japanese beetle are without merit. 
They require as much credulity as it would take to es¬ 
tablish the truth of Psychic Phenonema by the seances 
of a Palladino. The nurserymen enquire, as they think 
the !;5ecretary must, if the other proof upon which the 
Board rests its reasons for Order No. 37 is of the same 
circumstantial, unscientific and improbable character as 
this Japanese beetle evidence. 
B. The only other evidence offered at this hearing 
on May 28th, 1918 to support Quarantine Order 37 is the 
Board’s reference to the aforesaid “Manual of Dangerous 
Insects.” 
While this Manual is an admirable and well arranged 
catalogue of insect pests liable to he introduced into the 
United States, it does not, nevertlieless constitute a de¬ 
fense of Quaratdine Order No. 37. Many of the pests 
mentioned are admittedly lialile to he introduced on 
other materials than plants. Many of the insects or 
spiders arc found in the Orient. Australia, or little 
known countries. There are not sufficiently specific 
charges against countries of Eurojie like Holland, Bel¬ 
gium, France and England from which this country de¬ 
rives 90% of all its importations. Moreover, there isi no 
evidence or claim that these pests cannot be detected by 
inspection either in the foreign countries or on entry to 
this country, in the manner proposed in a later title of 
this statement. For example, there is not a single charge 
as to trees and plants against Canada, Newfoundland, 
and many other countries, nor against the Kentia palm 
which is only grown on a single Island. Many of the 
pests listed have nothing to do with plants, trees and 
shrubs, nor are these articles charged as liable carriers 
of the insects. 
Inasmuch as Order 37 excludes nursery stock from all 
foreign countries and localities it is necessary, we repeat, 
under the limitations of the Secretary’s power to quar¬ 
antine, to prove that specific countries or localities are 
infected or infested with “tree disease or injurious in¬ 
sect new to and not theretofore widely prevalent in the 
United States.” 
The nurserymen cannot escape the conclusion that 
Order Number 37 is designed to avoid the statutory limi¬ 
tations of the authority to quarantine. In addressing the 
hearing of May 28, 1918 the Chairman of the Federal 
Horticultural Board stated, 
“From the fact that we know nothing or very little 
of the enemies, our inspectors are unable to make 
the same sort of inspection which they would of 
plants with respect to which they would know what 
to look for, and therefore there is much greater risk 
of diseases and insects coming in.” 
This rather clearly indicates an intention to quarantine 
* against something unknowu, “on suspicion” as we have 
heard the entomologists say in their propaganda, which 
is the. cause of this Quarantine Order No. 37. The Board 
has in effect made a new law,—has taken a short cut as 
to foreign quarantines, whereas, as to domestic quaran¬ 
tines, the Board had, in order to quarantine “on sus¬ 
picion,” to amend the Plant Quarantine Act. 
American nurserymen are as willing as other loyal 
American citizens to exclude foreign grown horticultural 
products if there is a real demonstration of the necessity 
to employ such drastic measures. They, however, are 
unwilling to stand silently by and see a quarantine order, 
such as No. 37, imposed which is unsupported by cred¬ 
ible or satisfactory evidence, or is clearly contrary to the 
law. If exclusion of foreign grown horticultural pro¬ 
ducts, for any reason not now authorized by the Federal 
Plant Quarantine Law is necessaiy, the nurserymen feel 
that the issues should be decided by the law-making 
power, not by a Board of administrative officers, whose 
orders may be issued or revoked at will, creating that 
instability wbich is a sure cause of preventing American 
Nurserymen from taking up at heavy expense and for 
long periods of time the difficult task of attempting to 
grow in America wdiat they now find it impossible to 
grow. 
2. As hereinafter referred to, the importer of orna¬ 
mental stocks is discriminated against, the importer of 
fruit stocks having free entiy of his merchandise. Does 
this appear to be the Equal Protection of the Laws as¬ 
sured to the citizens by the Federal Constitution? 
3. The Federal Horticultural Board at the hearing on 
May 28, 1918 ruled out any discussion as to the legality 
