132 
THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
many nurseries and florists establishments in dilTerent 
parts of the eountry were visited, for the purpose of get¬ 
ting their point of view. Further eonsultation also was 
had with the different speeialists in the employ of the 
(lovernment. The result of this further investigation 
was thereupon embodied in a ])roposed general plant 
(juarantine order, whieh is [)raetieally identieal will> 
<iuarantine 37, as finally issued. This form of proposed 
(luarantinc was, on August 29, 1918, sent to the trade 
journals, to the nursery and other societies represented 
at the hearing of May 28, 1918, to individuals who had 
manifested their interest by speaking at the hearing, and 
to others, with the request that they give it careful con¬ 
sideration, in view of a possible conference later for the 
purpose of discussing the various regulatiojis contained 
therein. Sueli a conference was called for October 18, 
1918, through a circular letter sent out about two weeks 
earlier. Another notice was sent out eight days before 
the meeting, suggesting that, because of the prevalence 
of influenza in Washington at that time, those who in¬ 
tended to present arguments or facts with reference to 
the proposed quarantine at the meeting should do so by 
mail, unless they had special reasons for attending the 
conference in person. 
Although the attendance at this conference in October, 
1918, was not so large as at that of May 28, 1918, there 
was present a eonsiderable number of prominent florists 
and ornamental horticulturists, as well as representa¬ 
tives of trade associations or State officials interested in 
the subject to he discussed. A very full presentation 
was made, chiefly by Mr. Eisele, representing the Henry 
Dreer nurseries, of the dissenting view of florists and 
horticulturists, who wished to eontinue the importation 
of the class of plants and plant products which would he 
prohibited under the proposed (juarantine. 
It was jiromised, at this conference, that the facts 
presented and suggestions made would he submitted to 
the experts of the Department and given careful consid¬ 
eration. This course of action was followed with the 
result that the Department was still convinced that no 
change in the proposed regulations was warranted in 
view" of the real (langer w"hich threatened the forests, 
farms, orchards, and gardens of the country through the 
introduction of pests and diseases by plant importation. 
Various objections to the (juarantine order under con¬ 
sideration have been brought to the attention of the De- 
jiailment in one way or another, both before and after 
the quarantine w"as officially issued and I w"ish to take uji 
the more inqiortant of these, so that the Department’s at¬ 
titude in reference thereto may he made more clear. 
Fikst: Certain ()hj(5Ctions have been made to the pro¬ 
cedure jireliminary to the issuance of the quarantine, 
such as those jiointed out sjiecifically in an “Apjieal” filed 
by the American Association of Nurserymen, on Feb¬ 
ruary 14. 1919. in wdiich it is stated that the notice sent 
out for the hearing of May 28. 1918. “misled” the trade 
as to the juirjiose and .scojie of the projiosed (juarantim' 
and that, in its final form, the (juarantine was in the na¬ 
ture of a “surjirise.” 
It is true that the notice sent out for the hearing of 
May 28. 1918. made sjx'cial reference to a limited form 
of restriction, namely, the exclusion of hailed jilants. 
etc., and importations from countries more or less un- 
knowui, hut it was also sjiecifically stated therein (1) 
that the Department w as considering the advisability of 
jilacing restrictions and prohibitions on “nursery stock 
and other plants and seeds from all foreign countries” 
necessary to jirevent the introduction of any tree, plant, 
or fruit disease, or any injurious Insects; (2) that the 
hearing was for tin; purpose of considering “such” re¬ 
strictions or jirohihitions; (3) that the particular sub¬ 
jects mentioned w"ere to he given “special consideration” 
hut that this did not limit the scope of the discussions; 
and (4) that the presentation and discussion of these 
jiarticular subjects should not he taken as limiting the 
ultimate action of the Department. Moreover, an exam¬ 
ination of the discussion as carried on at the hearing of 
May 28, 1918, makes it very clear that those who at¬ 
tended and spoke fully recognized that the discussion 
was not limited to these particular topics, since jirac- 
tieally the w hole field of plant and plant product restric¬ 
tion w"as embraced therein. This w"as also true of the 
letters received from those who could not attend the 
meeting. If these statements, so plainly a pail of the 
notice of hearing, w ere overlooked by any interested jiar- 
ties, they might, of course, say that they failed to appre¬ 
ciate the scope of the proposecl hearing but they certainly 
can not properly say that they w^ere “misled.” 
Neither does there seem to be any real ground for the 
claim of “surjirise” as to the final form of Quarantine 37. 
As show n above, no oflieial quarantine regulations were 
issued immediately after the hearing of May 28, 1918, or 
even after three months fuilher investigation by the 
Bureau of Plant Industry. Instead of issuing the quar¬ 
antine at such time, wdiich w ould have been entirely jus¬ 
tified, a projiosed form thereof w^as prepared and sent out 
in August, 1918. for consideration by all parties inter¬ 
ested and a conference for the discussion of the terms 
w"as called for October 18. As this proposed form w^as* 
almost identical w ith the (juarantine as actually promul¬ 
gated on November 18. 1918, one month after the con¬ 
ference w^as held and nearly six months after the hear¬ 
ing of May 28, 1918. at wdiich practically the wdiole sub¬ 
ject was (liscussed, it is difficult to see lunv there can he 
any room for the element of “surprise” with respect to 
the aetion taken. 
Second: Objection has been made to the legality of the 
quarantine order, such as that found in the “Appeal” of 
the American Association of Nurserymen, wherein the 
statement is made that Plant Quarantine 37 is of “doubt¬ 
ful legality.” This jioint w^as formally passed upon by 
the Solicitor of the Department on November 9. 1918. 
It is jiroper to point out that, in the discussion of this 
point as it ajipears in the “Appeal,” it is ajiparently as¬ 
sumed that the Department w"as necessarily hound to act 
only on such evidence as was presented at the hearing 
of May 28 or on that contained in the Department’s pub¬ 
lication entitled “A Manual of Dangerous Insects &c.'’ 
and. by (juoting excerpts from such evidence, alleged to 
he indelinite or not in point, it is argued that the action 
suhseijuently taken w"as unw^arranted. But this entire 
assunijition ignores the many years of investigation car¬ 
ried on by. or in coojieration with, the Dejiartment. or by 
individual scientists, w"ith referem^e to plant diseases and 
insect pi'sts resulting from importations, the special in¬ 
vestigation made during the summer of 1918 with re- 
