Ayn

A Sketch

~ of the Origin and Evolution
of Quarantine Regulations

By
FREDERICK M. MASKEW

1 AN
FF b Tle
& &
Lg 4 & or
et FE wl
=
=) /

{ . {Yrid
1 = Nem”

Published by the
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
HORTICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS
1925

ah
 
AGRIC.
LIBRARY

Frederick Maskew entered the Plant Quarantine Service as a
County Horticultural Inspector in Los Angeles County, February,
1898, where he served until 1906, when he entered the Federal
service to engage in fumigation experimental work. In 1907 he
began service with the California State Commission of Horticul-
ture as Quarantine Inspector in charge at San Diego, later going
to Los Angeles, where he stayed until 1911, being then appointed
Chief Deputy Quarantine Officer of the State with headquarters
at San Francisco, until he retired from active service in 1920.

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
FOREWORD

The following pages contain what was intended by Frederick
Maskew to be a foundation upon which to build a complete and
informing History of Plant Quarantines. It represents a task
which to many would have heen tedious, irksome labor, but which
was to Frederick Maskew a pleasant communion with the earlier
pioneers in a work he loved above all else.

In presenting this work to the County Horticultural Com-
missioners of California, Mr. Maskew had in mind not only
the desire to leave a cherished possession with true friends, but
he had the hope that his ambition to prepare a complete History
of Plant Quarantines might be realized through the co-operation
of his friends.

To his friends and associates the preparation of this work
seems but to add to the imposing monument he erected to himself
through his work as Quarantine Officer; a work, the recognition
of which is truly more than national.

L:d:S.

 
PLANT QUARANTINE
UP TO 1890

First Record of a Plant Pest Quarantine and
First California Legislation.

During the decade following 1870 a remarkable event, or
rather a series of events, occurred which attracted world-wide
attention to the financial losses resulting from the introduction
and spread of insect pests. A minute organism known to science
as phyllovera vastatriz was found to be attacking the cultivated
grapevines and greatly reducing the yield of the vineyards in
such widely separated countries as Australia, California, France,
Spain, Portugal, Russia and probably all other wine producing
states of Europe. The importance of the wine industry and the
influence of organization resulting from extensive plantings soon
caused scientific bodies and horticultural societies in both hemi-
spheres to become diligent in their efforts to devise a means of
controlling this pest, and the prolific discussions on the results
of these efforts and of the principles of farm sanitation in gen-
eral, quickly moulded public opinion in the matter of seeking
prevention and protection through legislative action, and laid
the foundation for the system of plant quarantine regulations that
prevails throughout the world today.

No doubt local rules, regulations, etc., concerning the move-
ment of vineyard debris were common in the infested grape grow-
ing communities of Europe, yet Australia appears to have been
the first country to pass an act in which the word quarantine
appears in connection with the control of insect pests. Dr. J. I.
Bleasedale, Secretary of the Viticultural Commission of Calif-
ornia, during the year of 1880 reported the following action as
having been taken by the State of Victoria during 1877:

“Three years ago Phylloxera was discovered in a small vine-
yard near Gelong, Victoria, —the first established vineyard dis-
trict of that State. As it was at that time confined to only one or
two other small properties there was no difficulty about tracing
its origin. Five years previously Mr. Dardell, the proprietor of
the vineyard, had paid a visit to France and had brought back
with him a small parcel of plants or cuttings. Thus the pest was
introduced. No sooner was it ascertained to be the true Phyl-
loxera wastatrix than the legislature, then in session, passed a
stringent act for the suppresion of it, giving power to quaran-
tine, and even to eradicate vines and destroy vineyards. * * *
Some remedies were tried for a time and failed. Then the ulti-
mate means were had recourse to, and one vineyard at least,

3

580709
88 ee ee
ey at jr, 00 ’
ef; 0%, £33 * ag

. * 9 .
eco

belonging to Mr. Wyatt was rooted up. But it spread to other
vineyards and continued to spread, and a select committee of the
legislature was appointed to inquire into all matters affecting its
development and arrest.”

For several years the spread of Phylloxera vastatrix and the
question of how best to control and prevent the same, had been
a vital one to the vignerons of France. The French Academy of
Sciences, with its customary acumen, sensed the real danger that
threatened the national industry, and came to the assistance of
the vineyardists by appointing a Phylloxera Committee in 1872.
Their annual reports from that time up to and including 1879
are eloquent of the diligence with which the learned members of
this committee sought for a satisfactory means of control for
this pest.

Apparently the remedial measures (which were legion) that
had been advocated and employed by the committee had not
accomplished the desired purpose, and attention was directed
toward the necessity of obtaining, and suggestions were made out-
lining, legislation of a regulatory nature in connection with the
situation, with the result that a regulation of France with refer-
ence to Phylloxera was proclaimed in October, 1878. Districts
were divided in respect to the exchange of suspected debris of
vines, as follows:

“Districts very much infected; free importation, but without
the right to export the debris of vines or stakes, except into dis-
tricts of the same class.

“Districts moderately infected; too sick to be authorized to
export everywhere, but still curable, or appearing to be such,
and consequently not permitted to import except from districts
free from disease, or reputed such; in such districts liberty of
exchange from one commune to the other.

“Districts little infected; subjected to the same laws as the
preceding class, regulated, however, by the prefect in their inter-
nal exchange from one commune to the other.

“Districts uninfected; authorized to export freely, but im-
portation necessarily strictly regulated.”

It is difficult at first thought to visualize a vineyard in Russia,
yet the southeast littoral of the Crimea, with the Black Sea at its
feet and the protecting slopes of Yaila-dagh behind, furnishes
an environment in which the vine produces in abundance, and
the local wine enjoys a high reputation. To these vineyards came
the Phylloxera in the latter part of the decade, and in a short
time its destructive work became of so much importance as to
cause the appointment of a Phylloxera Committee of the South
Crimea, Russia. The members of this committee investigated
the situation with much thoroughness, both at home and abroad,
and at Yalta, on January 24, 1881, reported to the Imperial Rus-
sian Horticultural Society that, as a result of their labors, they
had come to the following conclusions:

4

 
“1. It is desirable to prohibit the import from foreign coun-
tries of grapevines, and all plants in general proceeding from
localities where the grapevine is cultivated, and to grant free
entry to plants coming only from such localities where the grape-
vine is not raised.

“2. The import from foreign countries of vegetables and
fruits to remain unrestricted, but subjected to the condition that
the fruits be wrapped in paper, and not in leaves, as is done now.

“3. Import of fruit and plants from Crimea to be entirely
forbidden.

“4. The establishment of a quarantine is considered im-
possible.”

Apparently no legislative action was sought to support the
suggestions made by the committee at this meeting.

In California the work of insect pests on cultivated crops
commenced to attract attention early in the decade, however, the
right to priority in awakening public interest in the matter must,
here as elsewhere, be yielded to Phylloxera. During August,
1873, an insect ‘was found on the roots of grapevines by H.
Appleton and O. W. Craig, in the vineyard of the latter situated
two miles north from Sonoma Town on the west side of Sonoma
Creek. Samples of these roots were brought to the notice of
the Vinicultural Society at a meeting held in Sonoma, August
23, 1873, and the following extracts taken from the minutes of
the club show what action was taken in the matter.

“Club Room, August 23, 1873.

“Mr. A. F. Haraszthy stated that within the last few days
an insect, supposed to be Phylloxera vastatrix, had been found
upon the roots of vines in Sonoma Valley. That he had known
of vines manifesting every symptom of the disease, as described,
for many years in Sonoma Valley; that the spread was but slow,
and that young vines planted in the place of those that had died,
seemed to do well, and be free from the disease.

“On motion, duly made, seconded and passed, a committee
consisting of William McPherson Hill, A. F. Haraszthy, O. W.
Craig and A. S. Edwards was appointed by the Chair to visit
such vineyards in Sonoma Valley as they deemed necessary, to
fully ascertain whether the said insect could be found, and also
obtain all information possible in relation thereto, and all mem-
bers of the club were particularly requested to furnish said
committee all the information they possessed, and every facility
in their power for the thorough investigation of the alleged
presence and mode of attack of said insect.”

That this committee realized the importance of the subject
they were detailed to investigate, and that they acquitted them-
selves with credit in the matter is made clear by the tenor and
language of the comprehensive report submitted by them to the
assembled members of the club on August 30, 1873, and as a
subsequent result of the discussions that followed:

“The Secretary was directed to correspond with Professor

3
C. V. Riley, State Entomologist of the State of Missouri, upon
the subject, and to send specimens of the insect, as found here,
with such explanations as to its mode of attack, etc., as he may
be able to do.”

The Secretary appears to have carried out his instructions in
this instance, as the minutes of the Vinicultural Club under date
of January 3, 1874, carry the following item:

“The letter from Professor Riley, State Entomologist of the
State of Missouri, to whom were sent specimens of the insects
found upon the roots of grapevines in Sonoma Valley, and sup-
posed to be Phylloxera wastatrix, acknowledging their receipt
but stating that they did not arrive in good order and that he
was unable to find any of the insects, and wishing further speci-
mens, was read.”

This pest of the vineyards was now a live issue in the
Sonoma Valley—the paramount topic of discussion at all times—
and it is not difficult to visualize the situation that developed
at the local club following the reading of this letter. The
majority of the members present were producers of wine grapes,
pioneers in an industry new to them and in which their fortunes
were involved. They had become satisfied that the insect was
the dreaded Phylloxera, and that the pest was spreading. Facing
a calamity, and being practical minded men, their thoughts natur-
ally focused upon a direct plan of action against the invader,
and no doubt the prevailing sentiment of the meetings was crys-
tallized in the following vigorous motion:

“Mr. Snyder moved that a committee be appointed to
acquaint the legislature (by means of petition, etc.) of the ravages
of the Phylloxera, and demand from it that some remedies and
material be forthcoming so that a series of experiments may be
inaugurated. Carried.”

In this record is the first instance we have been able to
find in which the idea of legislative action was associated with
the matter of controlling insect pests in the State of California.
In the meantime, the horticulturists of the state were being con-
fronted with similar problems. In the citrus growing regions
of the south enterprising orchardists seeking to improve on the
old established varieties by the importation of more desirable
ones, had also introduced a serious pest, Chrysomphalus aurantii,
the Red scale of the orange. In the central part of the State
Aspidiotus perniciosus, known as the San Jose scale—introduced
long before—had now become well established and was commenc-
ing to disturb the growers of deciduous fruits. It is asserted
that Carpocapsa pomonella, the Codlin moth, was brought into
the Sacramento Valley in an importation of five barrels of apples
from states east of the Rocky Mountain in 1873, and its appear-
ance in the orchards was first noted in 1875, an event which
attracted and held the attention of a most remarkable man.

Matthew Cooke was engaged in the manufacture of fruit
boxes in the City of Sacramento, having founded the business

6

   

 

9,
in 1874. To him, apparently more than to any other person
in the State at that time, the possibilities of injury and loss as
a result of the introduction of the Codlin moth became evident.
This interest on the part of Mr. Cooke was logical, and he very
naively states the case in the following language: “Naturally
its injury would affect my business, and thus I was drawn to
a consideration of means to protect it.” It appears that Mr.
Cooke had taken some interest in the study of economic ento-
mology prior to this time, and thus in a measure had a founda-
tion from which to start his investigations. These were pursued
with ever-increasing persistence, and in 1878 the results of his
inquiries were appearing in the columns of the Pacific Rural
Press and the Sacramento Record-Union, together with an oft-
reiterated complaint that “very few persons in this State,
especially of those who should manifest the deepest interest, pay
any attention to economic entomology.” Meanwhile the business
of manufacturing fruit boxes went on as usual.

During 1879 the California State Horticultural Society was
organized and Matthew Cooke had now a forum from which
to expound his doctrines and some very able coadjutors to assist
him in his constant propaganda. Convinced by his investiga-
tions that legislation was required to prevent the spread of insect
pests he labored assiduously toward the consummation of that
end. It would appear, however, that the viticulturists of the
State were better organized, and thus in a stronger position to
compel the attention and secure the support of the legislators in
the matter of promoting their industry than were the horticul-
turists, as the following act is the first legislation in California
applied to that purpose:

“CHAPTER LXI11
“An Act for the Promotion of the Viticultural Industries of
the State.
(Approved April 5, 1880)

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. There shall be appointed by the Governor a Board
of State Viticultural Commissioners, to consist of nine members,
two to be appointed from the State at large, and one to be ap-
pointed from each of the seven viticultural districts, which shall
be constituted as follows:

“First—The Sonoma District, which shall include the Counties
of Sonoma, Marin, Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte,
Trinity and Siskiyou.

“Second—The Napa District, which shall include the Counties
of Napa, Solano and Contra Costa.

“Third—The San Francisco District, which shall include the
City and County of San Francisco, and the Counties of San
Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito and
Monterey.

“Fourth—The Los Angeles District, which shall include the

7
Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, San Bernardino, and San Diego.

“Fifth—The Sacramento District, which shall include the
Counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Colusa, Butte, Tehama,
and Shasta.

“Sixth—The San Joaquin District, which shall include the
Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Tulare,
and Kern.

“Seventh—The El Dorado District, which shall include the
Counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa,
Placer, Nevada, Yuba, Sierra, Plumas, Lassen, Modoc, Alpine,
Mono, and Inyo.

“Sec. 2. The Commissioners, excepting the two appointed
from the State at large, shall be residents of the districts from
which they are appointed, and shall be specially qualified by prac-
tical experience and study in connection with the industries de-
pendent upon the culture of the grapevine in this State. They
shall each hold office for the term of four years, excepting that,
of the nine first appointed, four, to be determined by lot, shall
retire at the end of two years, when their successors shall be
appointed by the Governor.

“Sec. 3. The Board shall elect from among their own number
a President, a Vice-President, and a Treasurer, and they shall
appoint a Secretary, who shall not be one of their number, and
whose salary shall not exceed one hundred dollars per month.
And the Board shall determine and fix the amount of bonds that
shall be given by the Treasurer and Secretary for the faithful
performance of their duties.

“Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Board to meet semi-
annually to consult and to adopt such measures as may best
promote the progress of the viticultural industries of the State.
It shall be their duty to select and appoint competent and qualified
persons to deliver at least one lecture each year in each of the
viticultural districts named in Section One of this Act, for the
purpose of illustrating practical viticultural topics, and imparting
instruction in methods of culture, pruning, fertilizing, ferment-
ing, distilling and rectifying, treating diseases of the vine, raisin
drying, etc., for the better instruction of the people interested
therein, as the requirements of each district may show to be
necessary and important, and to disseminate all such useful
knowledge relating to viticulture, by printed documents or cor-
respondence, as may be within their power to do. The Board
shall devote special attention to the study of the phylloxera and
other diseases of the vine, and shall make such recommendations
in their semi-annual reports as they may deem best for the pro-
tection of vineyards.

“Sec. 5. The Commissioners constituting the Board shall
serve without compensation, and shall be allowed only their actual
transportation expenses to and from their places of residence when
attending the semi-annual meetings of the Board.

8

 

 

 
“Sec. 6. The office of the Board shall be in the City of San
Francisco, and shall be kept open to the public, subject to the rules
of the Board, every day, excepting legal holidays, and shall be in
charge of the Secretary during the absence of the Board.

“Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to attend all
regular meetings of the Board, and to preserve records of pro-
ceedings and correspondence; to collect books, pamphlets, periodi-
cals, and other documents containing valuable information relat-
ing to viticulture, and to preserve the same; to collect statistics
and other information, showing the actual condition and progress
of viticulture in this State and elsewhere; to collect information
concerning lands suitable for viticulture, and to impart to the
public, upon proper demands being made, information concerning
the localities of such lands, prices, cost of cultivation, and means
of transportation; provided, that he shall receive no fees for such
services; to correspond with agricultural and viticultural societies,
colleges, and schools of agriculture, and other persons and bodies,
political or private, and disseminate information, printed or other-
wise, as he may be directed by the Board of Commissioners; and
to prepare, as required by the Board, semi-annual reports for
publication.

“Sec. 8. And for the further promotion of viticultural interests,
it shall be the duty of the Board of Regents of the University of
California to provide special instruction to be given by the Agri-
cultural Department of the University in the arts and sciences
pertaining to viticulture, the theory and practice of fomentation,
distillation, and rectification, and the management of cellars, to be
illustrated by practical experiments with appropriate apparatus;
also, to direct the Professor of Agriculture, or his assistant, to
make personal examinations and reports upon the different sec-
tions of the State adapted to viticulture; to examine and report
upon the woods of the State procurable for cooperage, and the
best methods of treating the same; and to make analyses of soils,
wines, brandies, and grapes, at the proper request of citizens of
the State; also, to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the various
wines and spirits produced from grapes, showing their alcoholic
strength and other properties, and especially any deleterious adul-
terations that may be discovered. The Regents shall also cause
to be prepared, printed, and distributed to the public, quarterly
reports of the Professor in charge of this work, relating to experi-
ments undertaken, scientific discoveries, the progress and treat-
ment of the phylloxera, and other diseases of the vine, and such
other useful information as may be given for the better instruction
of viticulturists.

“Sec. 9. The Board of Regents of the University shall be
authorized to receive and accept donations of lands suitable for
experimental vineyards and stations, and shall submit in their
next annual report an economical plan for conducting such vine-
yards, and for the propagation and distribution of specimens of
all known and valuable varieties of grapevines.

“Sec. 10. There is hereby appropriated, for the purposes

2)
mention in this Act, the sum of seven thousand dollars, to be
apportioned as follows: For the necessary and contingent ex-
penses of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, four
thousand dollars, and for the University of California, three thou-
sand dollars; and the State Controller shall draw his warrants
upon the State Treasurer in favor of the Treasurers of the said
Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, and of the University
of California, for the amounts of four thousand and three thou-
sand dollars respectively, as hereby appropriated, upon proper
demand being made for the same; provided, that the said Board
of State Viticultural Commissioners shall, in the month of Decem-
ber, submit to the Governor annual statements, duly verified by
the oaths of the President and Treasurer, and attested by the
Secretary of said Board, showing in detail the manner in which
moneys received from the State have been expended, and also the
amount remaining unexpended, together with an estimate of ex-
penses for the ensuing year, beginning on the first day of July
next thereafter.

“Sec. 11. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage.”

An analysis of the provisions of this act develops the fact
that research and education were the dominant features provided
for, and that no provisions were made that could be construed as
regulatory or of a quarantine nature. Nevertheless it is concrete
evidence that public sentiment was making itself felt in the matter
of insect pests and plant diseases, and was, at least, a step toward
the desired end.

The following shows the officers and members of the Board
of State Viticultural Commissioners, appointed under the preced-
ing act:

Arpad Haraszthy, President,
Commissioner for the San Francisco District.
Chas. A. Wetmore, Vice-President,
Commissioner for the State at Large.
Chas. Krug, Treasurer.
Commissioner for the Napa District.

Ii DeTurk is Commissioner for the Sonoma District
RB. Blowers... Commissioner for the Sacramento District
George West............... Commissioner for the San Joaquin District
L. J. Rose... Commissioner for the Los Angeles District
G. G Blanchard... ........ Commissioner for the El Dorado District
J. DeBarth Shorh.............. Commissioner for the State at Large

John H. Wheeler, Secretary.
Chas. A. Wetmore,
Chief Executive Viticultural and Health Officer.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Executive... Chas. A. Wetmore, George West and I. DeTurk
AUGHNG.. hi ee ts herds nana R. B. Blowers
Finance... ili. is L. J. Rose and J. DeBarth Shorb

Phylloxera, Vine Pests, and Diseases of the Vine:
10

 

0

 
I DeTurk, George West, Chas. Krug, R. B. Blowers and
Chas. A. Wetmore.

On Conference with Board of Regents of State University:
Arpad Haraszthy, Chas. A. Wetmore and Charles Krug.
On Instructions for the Office of the Chief Executive Viticultural
Officer:

Arpad Haraszthy, Charles Krug and I. DeTurk.

On Horticulture:

George West, R. B. Blowers and J. DeBarth Shorb.

On Distillation, Counterfeits and Adulterations:

J. DeBarth Shorb, Charles Krug, and George West.
Office of the Board:

No. 11 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco

During the next ten years, 1880 to 1890, horticultural legis-
lation became a marked feature in the history of the State of Cali-
fornia, not only in the scope of the measures enacted but in
providing means for the enforcement of the terms of the same.
The original Board of Viticultural Commissioners entered upon
its duties with zeal and determination, and recorded the results
of its labors during the first year of office in a voluminous report.
Digesting the remarks of the several members, as set forth in
their individual reports, it becomes plain that they had met with
an experience similar to that of Matthew Cooke, and had learned
that more drastic measures than those embraced in the original
act were needed to prevent the spread of Phylloxera. From the
report of Mr. Charles A. Wetmore, Commissioner for the State
at Large, under date of December 22, 1880, the following excerpt
is taken:

“QUARANTINE REGULATIONS

“The Board, in my opinion, cannot impress upon the State
with too much earnestness the immediate importance of quaran-
tine rules and regulations to govern:

“First—The introduction of new vines and cuttings into the
State from Eastern States, Europe, or elsewhere.

“Second—The distribution of cuttings and vines from one
place to another within the State.

“Third—The disposition of fruit boxes and other things
connected with the vineyards liable to carry infection of disease.

“The disinfection of all cuttings, boxes, etc., ought to be
made compulsory by law. We are in especial danger, now that
importations of Missouri and Texas vines are becoming common.

“There should be appointed competent officers to regulate
and enforce such quarantine rules as may become necessary from
time to time. To such work should be added that of eradicating
disease; whether this should be done under one general State
management, or whether a law may be constitutionally passed
authorizing local district organizations to defend themselves
against invasion of disease and to eradicate it when found, I
am unprepared to say. One thing, however, is certain, that the

11
State cannot afford to delay taking action to prevent the spread
of disease, while means of eradicating it are still being studied.
The Government of the United States may be appealed to for
aid; ten per cent of the collections of internal revenue received
from the sale of brandy stamps would, if expended judiciously,
in a short time completely eradicate the Phylloxera, provided
the introduction of new germs were prevented by quaranune
rules. Nothing, however, could be more unjust than to punish
those whose vineyards are infected, with the entire burden of
disinfecting the State. The cost of suppressing a plague threaten-
ing human life is taxed upon all, because all are interested in
self-protection; the same principle should apply to vineyards,
orchards, etc.; the difficulty is in devising the form of legislation
necessary so that the costs may be equitably assessed and col-
lected. A liberal appropriation by Congress of part of the in-
ternal revenues collected from brandies in this State to be used
in preserving its sources of revenue, would relieve the question
of much of its difficulty, provided the State will create officers
to do the work and give them power to act and enforce strict
laws.”

Embodied in those few paragraphs quoted from Mr.
Wetmore’s report is the germ idea from which eventually de-
veloped the system of empowering acts embracing the functions
and defining the powers and duties of both the State and County
horticultural and viticultural officers of California.

In the meantime Matthew Cooke and his confreres had not
been idle. Apparently encouraged by the passage of the Viticul-
tural Act, yet disappointed in the tenor of its provisions, they
were busily engaged in preparing a bill in the interests of horti-
culture which would include some features of a regulatory and
perhaps of a quarantine nature. The State Horticultural Society
at its meeting in October 1880, appointed a committee consisting
of Professor C. H. Dwinelle of Alameda County, Dr. Behr of
San Francisco, A. T. Hatch of Solano County, W. H. Jessup of
Alameda and Matthew Cooke of Sacramento, to prepare a bill
for the protection of the horticultural industries of the State, to
be presented to the legislature which would meet in the month of
December following. The committee met at the office of the Hon.
J. N. Young, at Sacramento, early in the month of November,
and a bill was prepared which, in due time, was presented in the
Assembly by Mr. Young. About the same time a bill was pre-
sented in the Senate by Senator Baker of Santa Clara. These
bills were referred to a joint committee of the Senate and Assem-
bly. The chairman of this committee called a meeting and the
fruit growers were represented by A. T. Hatch, W. H. Jessup,
the late James B. Saul, and others. As the bills presented for
the protection of horticulture conflicted somewhat with each
other, and also with another bill (viticultural) before legislature,
the committee recommended that a new bill be presented. A new
hill was prepared, and on its being brought before the Senate was

12

 

 
oe

ad

passed to a second reading but amended to such an extent that it
was thought best to have it withdrawn. Later in the session the
Hon. William Johnston of Sacramento County, then Vice-
President of the Senate, had the viticultural bill, which had passed
the Assembly, amended in the Senate by adding Section 8. The
bill as amended passed, and is herewith reproduced in full:

“CHAPTER 1.1

“An Act to define and enlarge the duties and powers of the
Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, and to authorize the
appointment of certain officers, and to protect the interests of
horticulture and viticulture.

(Approved March 4th, 1881.)

“The People of the State of California, represented in Sen-
ate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. The Board of State Viticultural Commissioners,
in addition to the duties and powers provided for by the Act
entitled ‘An Act for the promotion of viticultural industries of
the State,” approved April fifteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty,
shall, in respect to diseases of grapevines and vine pests, con-
stitute a Board of Health. It shall, in addition to laboratory
work, cause practical experiments to be made to determine or
demonstrate the utility of known and new remedies against such
diseases and pests.

“Sec. 2. The Board shall elect of their own number, or
appoint from without their number, a competent person to serve
as Chief Executive Viticultural Officer, who shall perform also
the duties of Viticultural Health Officer, under direction of said
Board, and subject to removal from such office at any time by
the Board.

“Sec. 3. The Viticultural Health Officer shall have power,
subject to the approval of the Board, to prevent the spread of
vine diseases and vine pests, by declaring and enforcing rules
and regulations in the nature of quarantine, to govern the man-
ner of, restrain, or prohibit the importation into the State, and
the distribution and disposal within the State, of all vines, vine
cuttings, debris of vineyards, empty fruit boxes, or other mate-
rial on or by which the contagion of vine diseases and germs
of vine pests may be introduced into the State, or transported
from place to place within the State; to declare and enforce
regulations approved by the Board for the disinfection of vines,
vine cuttings, vineyard debris, empty fruit boxes, and other sus-
pected material dangerous to vineyards, while in transit, or about
to be distributed, or transported into, or within the State; to
classify the vineyards and viticultural regions of the State, ac-
cording to the degree of health, or vine disease prevailing therein,
and to change the same as circumstances may require to be done,
subjecting each class to such varying rules and regulations, respect-
ing the introduction or transportation of vines, vine cuttings,
and other material liable to spread contagion of disease among
vines, as may, in the opinion of the Board, become necessary and

13
expedient for the preservation of vineyards. Such rules and
regulations shall be circulated in printed form by the Board
among the vine growers and fruit dealers of the State, shall be
published at ieast thirty days in two daily newspapers of general
circulation in the State, not of the same city or county, and shall
be posted in a conspicuous place at the county seat of each county
affected by their provisions.

“Sec. 4. The Viticultural Health Officer may appoint local
resident Inspectors in any and all of the viticultural regions of
the State, whose duties shall be to report to him concerning the
health of grapevines, the progress of vine diseases and pests, and
all violations of the rules and regulations of the Board; to certify
to the proper disinfection of vines, vine cuttings, empty fruit
boxes, and other transportable articles required by the Board to
be disinfected before transportation, or while in transit, or after
delivery at any point of destination, the methods of disinfection
to be determined and approved by the Health Officer and the
Board; to seize upon and destroy all vines, vine cuttings, debris
of vineyards, empty fruit boxes, and other material liable to
spread contagion, which may be found in transit, or delivered
after transportation, not certified to as required by the Board;
provided, that the same may be exempt from such destruction if
the cost of disinfection by such Inspector shall be provided for
by the owner or agent in charge thereof, as may be prescribed for
such cases of negligence, carelessness, or violation of quarantine
rules, and to keep a record of all proceedings as such Inspectors;
provided, that there shall be no compensation for such services
of inspection, excepting a fee, not to exceed one dollar for each
certificate of disinfection, in case of compliance with quarantine
regulations, and not to exceed five dollars for each certificate of
disinfection after seizure for non-compliance; provided, however,
such inspection may be employed at the option of the owners of
property requiring disinfection to disinfect the same. All vines,
or other articles absolutely prohibited of importation or trans-
portation, may be promptly destroyed by any Inspector discov-
ering the same transported or in transit, in violation of regula-
tions, and the cost of such seizure, together with a fee of ten
dollars, shall be paid to such Inspector out of any fine that may
be collected from the party or parties guilty of such violation.
Willful violation of the quarantine regulations of the Board shall
be considered a misdemeanor, and punishable by a fine of not
less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars. When-
ever required for the convenience of vine or fruit growers, or
fruit dealers, a resident Inspector shall be appointed upon peti-
tion of any three neighboring vine or fruit growers, or dealers
in grapes, to reside in their vicinity, if not already provided for;
and there shall be not less than two Inspectors appointed for each
county which is subjected to such quarantine regulations, and
they shall each be subject to removal at the will of the Viti-
cultural Health Officer, if incompetent, or they fail to perform

14

 

%®)

 

 
their duties, or are unreasonably distasteful to vine growers and
grape dealers.

“Sec. 5. It shall be also the duty of the Chief Executive
Viticultural Officer to personally visit, examine, and report upon
the several viticultural regions of the State; to prepare docu-
ments for publication, as required by the Board, relating to any
and all branches of viticultural industry, including treatises for
the instruction of the public; to supervise the preparation of
reports for publication, and especially report upon the practic-
ability and means of eradicating diseases from vineyards, and to
superintend experiments with known and new remedies.

“Sec. 6. All printing heretofore ordered by the Board shall
be paid for out of the appropriations heretofore made for its
use. All printing required hereafter shall be done by the State
Printer.

“Sec. 7. The salary of the Chief Executive Viticultural
Officer shall be fixed by the Board, not to exceed one hundred
and fifty dollars per month, for services while engaged as such
officer, and his actual traveling expenses shall be allowed, not to
exceed five hundred dollars per annum.

“Sec. 8. The Board of State Viticultural Commissioners
shall also appoint an officer, who shall be especially qualified by
practical experience in horticulture for the duties of his office,
to perform similar duties respecting the protection of fruit and
fruit trees as are provided for in this Act in reference to grape-
vines, with like powers; and the salary and traveling expenses
of such officer shall be fixed by the said Board at the same
amounts provided for in the case of the Chief Executive Viti-
cultural Officer; and the said Board shall have power to estab-
lish such quarantine rules and regulations as are required for
the protection of fruit and fruit trees from the spread of insect
pests.

“Sec. 9. There is hereby appropriated for the uses of the
Board of Viticultural Commissioners, as set forth in this Act,
and in the Act providing for its organization, out of any moneys
in the State treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of ten
thousand dollars for the year commencing July first, eighteen
hundred and eighty-one, and ten thousand dollars for the year
commencing July first, eighteen hundred and eighty-two; and
the State Controller will draw his warrants upon the State
Treasurer in favor of the Treasurer of the said Board for the
said sums, or any part thereof, when they become available, upon
proper demand being made for the same by said Board; pro-
vided, that no claim shall be paid out of said appropriation until
the same shall have been presented to and approved by the
State Board of Examiners.

“Sec. 10. This Act shall take effect and be in force from
and after its passage.”

The provisions of this act were based largely upon the
experience gained by the members of the Board of Viticultural

15
Commissioners in the pursuance of their official duties during
the preceding year. Under the spur of Wetmore’s insistent de-
mands and Cooke’s eloquent pleadings, police powers were granted
to be used in following up persuasive effort. Provision is also
made for the enforcement of sanitary regulations. Here we find
the word quarantine legally applied to rules and regulations con-
nected with the subject of vines and vineyards, fruit and fruit
trees, and particularly “empty fruit boxes,” all of which is prima
facie evidence that the vigorous campaign of these two apostles
of the doctrine of plant quarantine had at last influenced the
trend of public opinion to such an extent that the legislators
were willing to both listen to and act upon the subject of the
spread of insect pests, and the penalty clause was thought to be
the saving feature.

Section 8 of this act was inserted as a compromise measure
in behalf of those who were at the time endeavoring to have
passed by the legislature a “bill for the protection of the horti-
cultural industries of the State,” and the following statement
taken from the report of the president of the Board of Viti-
cultural Commissioners made to the Governor under date of
December 28, 1880, illuminates the situation that existed and
brought about the compromise :

“k Xx x Even now,” states President Haraszthy, “I have
warnings of a plan to have this Board which has accomplished
so much, as the subjoined documents show, merged into a gigantic
other Board, whose interests are not in common with the viti-
cultural interest and never can be so made; whose efforts would
be ill placed, and whose action would remain without fruit. What
could be done where there are so many varied interests? Even
were there one far-seeing, hard working vine grower in this
huge Board, what could he do, even with autocratic powers, in
his department? * * x”

The plans of the horticulturists, under the dominance of
Matthew Cooke and several other members of the State Hor-
ticultural Society, must have been of a very ambitious and far
reaching nature to have caused a person of such caliber and equi-
poise as Arpad Haraszthy to express his concern at their actions
in such terms as those, and the same conditions probably had
some influence in bringing about the remarkable interpretation
placed by the members of the Board on the authority granted to
them in Section 8 of their empowering act.

16

 

 
Beginnings of State Commission of Horticulture and
Creation of County Boards of
Horticultural Commissioners.

At a special meeting of the Board of Viticultural Commis-
sioners held in San Francisco on March 10, 1881, Mr. West, a
member of the Board, presented the following resolution which
was unanimously adopted :

“Whereas, This Board has been empowered by the legis-
lature to appoint a Horticultural Officer, and is authorized to
declare quarantine rules and regulations for the preservation of
fruit trees from insect pests;

“Resolved, That before taking any definite action in relation
to horticulture, there shall be organized under the auspices of
this Board, an Advisory Board of Horticulture, to consist of
eleven members to be selected and appointed as follows: Each
District Commissioner shall nominate one member to represent
the horticultural interests of his viticultural district, and each
Commissioner for the State at large shall nominate one mem-
ber for the State at large, and the Executive Committee of the
State Horticultural Society shall be invited to nominate two
members for the State at large. The members of said Advisory
Board of Horticulture shall be selected among citizens of this
State, especially qualified by practical experience and study in
horticultural pursuits. The nomination shall be made to the
President of this Board, who shall immediately notify the persons
selected, and request them to convene in this city, at the office of
this Board on the fifth of April next, for the purpose of per-
manent organization and consultation. Said Advisory Board shall

be requested to co-operate with this Board, and to make such

recommendations relating to the horticultural interests of the
State, and the appointment of a horticultural officer, as they may
think proper. Said Advisory Board shall have the privilege of
using the general meeting room at the offices of this Board where
suitable accommodations shall be provided for their meetings,
and the Secretary of this Board shall keep a record of their pro-
ceedings, and issue all notices of their regular and special meet-
ings, which shall be held at their offices at such times as shall
not conflict with the work of this Board, in accordance with the
will of said Advisory Board; provided, however, that they shall
not hold less than four regular quarterly meetings. In case of
any vacancy in said Advisory Board, caused by the failure of
the Executive Committee of the State Horticultural Society to
nominate, within thirty days after being requested to do the
same, such vacancy shall be filled by a vote of a majority of the
members, nominated by members of this Board.”

17
At this same meeting Commissioner Charles A. Wetmore was
unanimously elected Chief Executive Viticultural Officer, and also
Health Officer of the Board.

On April 5th, 1881, the day appointed by the Board of State
Viticultural Commissioners for the organization of an Advisory
Board of Horticulture, the meeting was held at 111 Leidesdorff
Street, San Francisco, with Mr. Arpad Haraszthy presiding.

The nominations made to the President of the Viticultural
Commissioners consist of the following names:

A. Cadwell ............... Commissioner for the Sonoma District
W.W. Smith... Commissioner for the Napa District
M.T.Brewer........... Commissioner for the Sacramento District
W.B. West... Commissioner for the San Joaquin District
Felix Gillet.................... Commissioner for the El Dorado District
Albert S. White............ Commissioner for the Los Angeles District
S.F..Chapin.............; Commissioner for the San Francisco District
Chas. H. Dwinelle.................... Commissioner for the State at Large
Matthew Cooke...............i... Commissioner for the State at Large
Chos, B1. Shinn... inc. Commissioner for the State at Large
Ellwood Cooper.-...........co0ee Commissioner for the State at Large

These all accepted the nomination and were appointed by
President Haraszthy of the Viticultural Commission. The Board
organized for business, Matthew Cooke was elected as choice for
Chief Executive Horticultural Officer and Mr. Ellwood Cooper
was appointed a committee of one to present the name of Mr.
Matthew Cooke of Sacramento to the Board of Viticulture, as
the choice of the Horticultural Board for Chief Horticultural
Officer, and to recommend that he be elected and appointed as
such.

On April 6th, 1881, at a regular meeting the Board of Viti-
cultural Commissioners, on the recommendation of the Horti-
cultural Board, unanimously elected and appointed Mr. Matthew
Cooke as Chief Executive Horticultural Officer.

At that same meeting, on motion of Mr. Blanchard, seconded
by Mr. Shorb, the Viticultural Board unanimously decided to de-
nominate the new Board as the Board of State Horticultural Com-
missioners. In this fashion and by these methods the State Com-
mission of Horticulture of California was created on April 6th,
1881, and continued in active existence until July 21st, 1919, a
period of 38 years, 3 months and 15 days.

The Secretary in his minutes of the meeting of March 10th,
1881, explains the situation in the following language: “This
action was taken in order to create, semi-officially, a Horticultural
Board similar in character to the Viticultural, and to insure the
most efficient and intelligent action in horticultural matters satis-
factory to the horticulturists of the State. This Advisory Board
will be provided with officers and secretary without any additional
expense to the State.” There were, however, contemporaries who
viewed this action in an entirely different light, and alleged that

18

$

x
it was a very astute move on the part of the Viticultural Board
to anticipate and block future attempts along the lines so bitterly
opposed by their president in his annual report of the preceding
year. :

Whatever the real cause of this course of action may have
been, the thing was done, and, in addition to a Board of Viti-
cultural Commissioners created by an act of the legislature, we
have a Board of Horticultural Commissioners created by the
former Board, and, what is more to the point, we have a legally
appointed Viticultural Health Officer and a Horticultural Health
Officer armed with authority to promulgate and enforce quaran-
tine rules and regulations. The former ideas, words and deeds
of these two officers is sufficient warrant for us to realize that
they entered upon their new duties with a zeal and purpose
commensurate with their belief in the necessity of this work.

In the meantime further action had been taken in this matter
of controlling and preventing the introduction and spread of insect
pests. The columns of the horticultural press and of the daily
and weekly newspapers of that period freely discussed the many
factors that entered into the problem; the immensity of the terri-
tory to be covered; the different features of the work, also, the
vital question of whether counties in which infested localities
occurred should not deal with the situation individually rather
than charge the State as a whole with the cost and responsibility,
and probably the necessity, of making the matter of prompt dis-
infection one of vital community interest, all of which influenced
public sentiment to a great extent, and finally crystallized into
the following concrete result, as set forth in an act to protect
and promote the horticultural interests of the State, approved
March 14, 1881:

“CHAPTER LXXV.
“An Act to protect and promote the horticultural interests of
the State.

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. Whenever a petition is presented to the Board
of Supervisors of any county, and signed by five or more per-
sons who are resident freeholders and possessors of an orchard,
or both, stating that certain or all orchards, or nurseries, or trees
of any variety, are infected with scale bug, codlin moth, or other
insects that are destructive to trees, and praying that a commis-
sion be appointed by them, whose duty it shall be to supervise
their destruction, as hereinafter provided, the Board of Super-
visors shall, within twenty days thereafter, select three Commis-
sioners for the county, to be known as a County Board of Hor-
ticultural Commissioners. The Board of Supervisors may fill any
vacancy that may occur in said Commission by death, resignation,
or otherwise, and appoint one Commissioner each year, one month
or thereabouts previous to the expiration of the term of office
of any member of said Commission. The said Commissioners shall

19
serve for a period of three years from the date of their appoint-
ment, except the Commissioners first appointed, one of whom
shall serve for one year, one of whom shall serve for two years,
and one of whom shall serve for three years, from the date of
appointment. The Commissioners first appointed shall themselves
decide, by lot, or otherwise, who shall serve for one year, who
two years, and who three years, and shall notify the Board of
Supervisors of the result of their choice.

“Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the County Board of Hor-
ticultural Commissioners in each county, whenever they shall be
informed by complaint of any person residing in such county, that
an orchard, or nursery, or trees, or any fruit packing house,
storeroom, salesroom, or any other place in their jurisdiction, is
infested with scale bug, codlin moth, red spider, or other noxious
insects liable to spread contagion dangerous to the trees or fruit
of complainant, or their eggs or larvae injurious to fruit or fruit
trees, they shall cause an inspection to be made of the said prem-
ises, and, if found infected, they shall notify the owner or owners,
or the person or persons in charge or possession of the said trees,
or places, as aforesaid, that the same are infected with said insects,
or any of them, or their eggs or larvae, and shall require such
person or persons to disinfect the same within a certain time
to be specified. If, within such specified time, such disinfection
has not been accomplished, the said person or persons shall be
required to make application of such treatment for the purpose
of destroying them as said Commissioners shall prescribe. Said
notices may be served upon the person or persons owning or hav-
ing charge or possession of such infested trees, or places, or articles,
as aforesaid, by any Commissioner, or by any person deputed by
the said Commissioners for that purpose, or they may be served
in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. If the owner
or owners, or the person or persons in charge or possession of
any orchard, or nursery, or trees, or places, or articles, infested
with said insects, or any of them, or their larvae or eggs, after
having been notified as above to make application of treatment
as directed, shall fail, neglect, or refuse so to do, he or they
shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and any
such orchards, nurseries, trees, or places, or articles thus infested,
shall be adjudged, and the same is hereby declared a public nuis-
ance, and may be proceeded against as such. If found guilty,
the Court shall direct the aforesaid County Board of Horticul-
tural Commissioners to abate the nuisance. The expenses thus
incurred shall be a lien upon the real property of the defendant.

“Sec. 3. Said County Board of Horticultural Commissioners
shall have power to divide the county into districts, and to appoint
a local Inspector for each of said districts. The duties of such
local Inspectors shall be prescribed by said County Board.

“Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of said County Board of Com-
missioners to keep a record of their official doings, and to make
a report to the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners on or

20

S
+

before the first day of November of each year, who shall incor-
porate the same in their annual reports.

“Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Commissioners at large,
appointed by the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for
such purpose, to recommend, consult, and act with the County
Board of Commissioners, in their respective counties, as to the
most efficacious treatment to be adopted for the extermination
of the aforesaid insects, or larvae, or eggs thereof, and to attend
to such other duties as may be necessary to accomplish or carry
out the full intent and meaning of this Act.

“Sec. 6. Each County Commissioner and local Inspector may
be paid five dollars for each day actually engaged in the perform-
ance of his duties under this Act, payable out of the county
treasury of his county; provided, that no more shall be paid for
such services than shall be determined by resolution of the Board
of Supervisors of the county for services actually and necessarily
rendered.

“Sec. 7. Each of said Commissioners may select one or more
persons, without pay, to assist him in the discharge of his duties,
as he may deem necessary.

“Sec. 8. If any County Board of Commissioners, after hav-
ing received complaint in writing, as provided for in Section 2
of this Act, shall fail to perform the duties of their office, as
required by this Act, they may be removed from office by the
Board of Supervisors, and the vacancy thus formed shall be filled
in the same manner as provided for in this Act.

“Sec. 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to
affect vineyards or their products.

“Sec. 10. This Act shall take effect immediately.”

All of the provisions of the two foregoing acts were now in
full force, and it would appear from a casual reading of the text
of the same that almost every contingency had been provided for;
however, the final test of the value of any law is the ability to suc-
cessfully execute all of its provisions. The two determined
“Health Officers” charged with this duty soon found the under-
taking a most complex one, and particularly was this so in the
case of the Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer.
Deriving his authority from the Viticultural Commission he was
empowered to declare and enforce rules and regulations, and to
appoint and remove local inspectors subject to the approval of the
Board, yet he was required to consult with and accept recommenda-
tions in relation to the same from the State Board of Horticulture.
His salary was provided for in the act, but the salary of the
inspectors upon whom he depended to enforce the rules and regula-
tions he had declared, was contingent upon the collection of fees
for certification and fines for violations. The legislature had also
provided the legal machinery for the creation of organizations in
each and any county in the State, to perform duties similar to
the ones he was ordered and prepared to discharge, and had also
provided for the salary of both commissioners and inspectors in

21
this instance. Naturally the State Horticultural Health Officer
found it a difficult matter to recruit inspectors for his service
under these conditions.

The County Commissioners of Horticulture who were sub-
sequently appointed to office did not find it a simple matter to
proceed in the eradication of insect pests under the law. Very
few persons were found willing to lodge a complaint against
their neighbors, and it was imperative, under the terms of the
act, that such a complaint should be made before an official exam-
ination could take place to determine whether or not insect pests
existed that might spread contagion dangerous to the property
of the complainant, and even with the existence of such a nuis-
ance established, the method provided for its abatement was full
of complications and developments which might necessitate a
court action, with all the delays incident to such procedures.
The County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners were ordered
by law to report to the Board of Viticultural Commissioners, and
by the same authority the State Board of Horticultural Com-
missioners were ordered to “recommend, consult, and act with
the County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners.”

Under such general conditions as the foregoing, Matthew
Cooke, after six years of intensive training and efforts, went
into action as the first Chief Executive Horticultural and Health
Officer of the State of California on April 6, 1881. No person
better qualified for the position could have been found in the
State at that time. He knew the situation from Siskiyou to
San Diego, and, primed with this knowledge of existing con-
ditions, concentrated his efforts on securing the appointment of
County Horticultural Commissioners. So well did he succeed in
this direction that during the first twelve months twenty-one
counties had appointed boards, as provided by law. To appre-
ciate this result it is necessary to grasp the fact that the prin-
ciples of economic entomology were practically unknown in the
State, nor was there even a chair, much less a professor of
entomology, at the State university during that time or at any
time preceding it.

At a meeting of the Horticultural Board on June 30, 1881,
a system of quarantine rules and regulations was presented by
Mr. Cooke for adoption, but the same were laid over for future
discussion. At this meeting the Chief Executive Horticultural
Officer was authorized to appoint local resident inspectors in any
part of the State where needed, yet there is no evidence to show
that any quarantine regulations were enforced during the year
1881, in fact, Cooke himself is authority for the statement:
“The State Board of Horticulture did not think it advisable to
enforce quarantine regulations in 1881. They therefore, had
prepared, by the Chief Horticultural Officer ‘A Treatise on the
Injurious Insects of California and Remedies for Their Ex-
termination.” * * * Quarantine regulations were issued, to
be enforced after January 1, 1882, as follows:

22
“HORTICULTURAL QUARANTINE RULES

“To all whom it may concern: Be it known, that I, Matthew
Cooke, Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer of the
Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, being duly authorized
and instructed by said Board, do declare the following quaran-
tine rules and regulations for the protection of the horticultural
interests of the State, and due notice thereof is hereby given as
provided by law, to-wit: Thirty days of publication in two daily
newspapers of general circulation in the State, and by posting
notices in all counties to be affected by these rules. All parties
concerned therein are required to conform thereto, subject to
penalties provided for by law, for any infraction or evasion of
said rules and regulations:

QUARANTINE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF FRUIT AND FRUIT TREES

From insect pests, namely, insects injurious to fruit and
fruit trees, authorized and approved by the State Board of Viti-
cultural Commissioners of California. In pursuance of an Act
entitled “An Act to define and enlarge the duties and powers of
the Board of Viticultural Commissioners, and to authorize the
appointment of certain officers, and to protect the interests of
Horticulture and Viticulture,” approved March 4, 1881, the
Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer may appoint
local resident Inspectors in any and all of the fruit-growing
regions of the State, whose duties shall be as provided in section
four of an Act entitled “An Act to define and enlarge the duties
and powers of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners,
and to authorize the appointment of certain officers, and to pro-
tect the interests of Horticulture and Viticulture,” provided, that
there shall be no compensation for such services of inspection,
excepting a fee, not to exceed one dollar for each certificate of
disinfection, in case of compliance with quarantine regulations,
and not to exceed five dollars for each certificate of disinfection
after seizure for non-compliance ; provided, however, such inspec-
tion may be employed at the option of the owners of property
requiring disinfection, to disinfect the same. And, also, said local
resident Inspectors will be entitled to such other fees as are pro-
vided for in cases of conviction and seizures.

1. All tree or plant cuttings, grafts or scions, plants or trees
of any kind, infested by any insect or insects, or the germs
thereof, namely, their eggs, larvae, or pupae, that are known to
be injurious to fruit or fruit trees, and liable to spread contagion;
or any tree or plant cuttings, grafts, scions, plants, or trees of
any kind, grown or planted in any county or district within the
State of California, in which trees or plants, in orchards, nurs-
eries, or places, are known to be infested by any insect or insects,
or the germs thereof, namely, their eggs, larvae, or pupae, known
to be injurious to fruit or fruit trees, and liable to spread con-
tagion, are hereby required to be disinfected before removal
for distribution or transportation from any orchard, nursery, or

23
place where said tree or plant, cuttings, grafts or scions, plants,
or trees of any kind are grown, or offered for sale or gift, as
hereinafter provided.

2. All tree or plant cuttings, grafts or scions, plants, or
trees of any kind, imported or brought into this State from any
foreign country, or from any of the United States or Territories,
are hereby required to be disinfected immediately after their
arrival in this State, and before being offered for sale or removed
for distribution or transportation, as hereinafter described; pro-
vided, that if on examination of any such importations by a local
resident Inspector or the Chief Executive Horticultural Officer,
a bill of health is certified to by such examining officer, then dis-
infection will be unnecessary.

3. Fruits of any kind, infested by any species of scale insect
or scale insects, or the germs thereof, namely, their eggs, larvae,
or pupae, known to be injurious to fruit and fruit trees, and
liable to spread contagion, is hereby required to be disinfected, as
hereinafter provided, before removal off the premises where
grown, for the purpose of sale, gift, distribution, or transportation.

4. Fruit of any kind, infested by any insect or insects, or
the germs thereof, namely, their eggs, larvae, or pupae, known
to be injurious to fruit and fruit trees, and liable to spread con-
tagion, imported or brought into this State from any foreign
country, or from any of the United States or Territories, are
hereby prohibited from being offered for sale, gift, or distribu-
tion, or transportation.

5. Fruit of any kind, infested by the insect known as codling
moth, or its larvae or pupae, is hereby prohibited from being
kept in bulk, or in packages or boxes of any kind, in any orchard,
storeroom, salesroom, or place, or being dried for food, or any
other purposes, or being removed for sale, gift, distribution, or
transportation.

6. Fruit boxes, packages, or baskets used for shipping fruit
to any destination, are hereby required to be disinfected, as here-
inafter provided, previous to their being returned to any orchard,
storeroom, salesroom, or place to be used for storage, shipping,
or any other purpose.

7. Transportable material of any kind, infested by any
insect or insects, or the germs thereof, namely, their eggs, larvae,
or pupae, known to be injurious to fruit or fruit trees, and liable
to spread contagion, is hereby prohibited from being offered for
sale, gift, distribution or transportation.

8. Tree or plant cuttings, grafts, scions, plants, or trees of
any kind, may be disinfected by dipping in a solution composed
of not less than one pound (1 lb.) of commercial concentrated
lye to each and every two (2) gallons of water used as such
disinfectant, or in any other manner satisfactory to the Chief
Executive Horticultural and Health Officer. :

9. Empty fruit boxes, packages, or baskets, may be disin-
fected by dipping in boiling water, and allowed to remain in said
boiling water not less than two minutes; said boiling water used

24

 
as such disinfectant to contain, in solution, not less than one
pound (1 1b.) of concentrated potash, or three-fourths (34) of
one pound (1 lb.) of concentrated lye, to each and every twenty
gallons of water, or in any other manner satisfactory to the
Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer.

10. Fruit on deciduous and citrus trees infested by any
species of scale insect or scale insects, or the germs thereof,
namely, their eggs, larvae, or pupae, may be disinfected before
removal from the tree, or from the premises where grown, by
washing or thoroughly spraying said fruit with a solution com-
posed of one pound (1 1b.) of whale oil soap and one fourth of
one pound of flour of sulphur to each and every one and one
quarter (174) gallons of water used as such disinfectant, or in
any other manner satisfactory to the Chief Executive Horticul-
tural and Health Officer.

11. Owners of fruit of any kind grown in any orchard,
nursery, or place in which trees or plants are known to be infested
with an insect or insects, or the germs thereof, namely, their
eggs, larvae, or pupae, known to be injurious to fruit and fruit
trees, and liable to spread contagion, and all persons in possession
thereof or offering for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation,
are hereby required to procure a certificate of disinfection before
removal for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation.

12. Any tree or plant cuttings, grafts, scions, plants, or
trees of any kind, empty fruit boxes, fruit packages, or fruit
baskets, or transferable material of any kind, offered for sale,
gift, distribution, or transportation, in violation of the quaran-
tine rules and regulations for the protection of fruit and fruit
trees, approved by the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners,
may be seized by the Chief Executive Horticultural and Health
Officer, or by any of the local resident Inspectors appointed by
him; said seizure to be the taking possession thereof, and hold-
ing for disinfection, or for an order of condemnation by a Court
of competent jurisdiction.

13. Any person violating the above quarantine rules and
regulations shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction there of shall be punishable by a fine of not less than
twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars.

MATTHEW COOKE,
Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer.
Sacramento, November 12, 1881.”

“VITICULTURAL QUARANTINE RULES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

“Board of State Viticultural Commissioners,

Office of Chief Executive Viticultural Officer,

No. 111 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco.

“To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Charles
A. Wetmore, Chief Executive Viticultural and Health Officer of
the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, being duly author-
ized and instructed by said Board, do declare the following quar-

25
antine rules and regulations for the protection of the viticul-
tural industries of this State; and due notice is hereby given, as
provided by law, thirty days of publication in two daily news-
papers of general circulation, not of the same city or county, in
this State, and by posting notices in all counties affected by these
rules. All parties concerned therein are required to conform
thereto, subject to penalties provided for by law for any infrac-
tion or evasion of said rules and regulations:

“Rule 1. All cuttings of grapevines made in this State for
sale, gift, or distribution outside of the vineyard or vineyards
where the same were grown, and intended for new plantations,
shall be made solely of the wood of the preceding year’s growth;
all older wood to be carefully and thoroughly removed before
leaving the vineyard where made, and to be immediately destroyed
by fire, if removed from such cuttings, wherever seized by any
duly authorized Inspector for any invasion or infraction of this
rule. The reason for this rule is, that the Winter egg of the
phylloxera vastatrix is, according to the best authorities, found
only on the old wood.

“Rule 2. All cuttings of grapevines, and rooted grapevines,
imported from any region or country outside of this State,
intended for sale, gift, or distribution for plantation in this State,
shall be disinfected at the place of first consignment within this
State before being further distributed or planted, the method of
disinfection to be at the option of the owner or agent in charge
of the said cuttings or vines, according to any one of the follow-
ing methods, viz.:

“First—Dissolve sulpho-carbonate of potash in cold water;
proportions, ten pounds of sulpho-carbonate to one hundred gal-
lons of water; immerse cuttings and rooted vines fifteen minutes.

“Second—Dissolve Little's soluble phenyle by pouring upon
it cold water in the proportion of fifty gallons of water to one
gallon of the phenyle; immerse cuttings and rooted vines ten
minutes.

“Third—Take two parts heavy oil of coal tar, two parts
water, and one part carbonate of potash or carbonate of soda;
put in a covered vessel and heat gently to boiling point for one
hour ; replace water lost by evaporation; pour into suitable vessels
and agitate violently; dilute with fifty parts of cold water; im-
merse cuttings and rooted vines ten minutes.

“Fourth—Dissolve carbolic acid crystals in water, in pro-
portion to one pound of acid to twenty gallons of water; immerse
cuttings and rooted vines ten minutes.

“Fifth—Dissolve sulphide of potash in the proportion of
one pound to twenty gallons of water; immerse cuttings and
rooted vines twenty minutes.

“Sixth—Dilute one part of ‘liver of lime’ in twenty parts
of water; immerse cuttings and rooted vines ten minutes. (N.
B.: To make ‘liver of lime,’ take one pound quicklime, one
pound sulphur, one gallon water; mix; boil over quick fire to

26

$
one half of volume; agitate before using; dilute with twenty parts
of water to one part of ‘liver of lime.”)

“Any other efficacious method may be used, provided due
notice is given to this office and the same be approved.

INSPECTORS

“For the convenience and protection of all interested parties
throughout the State, there will be appointed local resident Inspec-
tors, as provided for by law, for each section or region where
vine growers desire the same, and upon the application of any
three such neighboring growers, or parties intending during the
coming season to plant vines, such application to be addressed
to this office, and to be accompanied, whenever practicable, with
nominations of suitable persons for the office of Inspector. The
other Inspectors required by law will be appointed by this office.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FURTHER PROTEC-
TION OF VINEYARDS

“All persons planting new vineyards within the State are
advised and strongly urged to consider all roots and cuttings sus-
pected, regardless of origin, and to thoroughly disinfect them,
thereby accomplishing the destruction of all possible germs or
insect pests upon them, as ‘well as also those of fungoid dis-
ease, which are becoming dangerous in all parts of the country.

CERTIFICATES

“For the further convenience of vine growers, certificates
shall be issued by an Inspector residing near the vineyard of the
applicant, or the person in charge of cuttings or rooted vines,
setting forth that the provisions of Rule Two have been com-
plied with, and shall be entitled to charge in each case not exceed-
ing fifty cents for such certificates made out in duplicate, one
certificate being sufficient to cover any quantity of cuttings or
rooted vines in the possession of the applicant that may be sat-
isfactorily shown to the said Inspector to have been disinfected.
Certificates of disinfection shall likewise be given any applicant
who desires the same, and who shall satisfactorily show to the
Inspector that cuttings and rooted vines, other than such as are
required to be disinfected by Rule Two, have been properly dis-
infected in accordance with the recommendations of this office.

INFECTED WRAPPINGS, ETC,

“Rule 3. All packages and the packing materials coming
into the State with imported cuttings and vines (referred to in
Rule Two) shall be disinfected at the time of disinfecting the
contents thereof, by immersing in or washing with any of the
solutions named in Rule Two, provided that the strength of the
same, in case of mere washing, shall be increased by the reduc-
tion of the water in the same to one-fourth the relative propor-
tions named. If not disinfected, such packages and packing
materials shall be destroyed by fire.

27
PENALTIES

“All infractions or evasions of these rules will be punishable
according to law.
CHARLES A. WETMORE,

“Chief Executive Viticultural and Health Officer.
“San Francisco, November 16, 1881.”

The foregoing quarantine rules are comprehensive in their
scope, and show a good grasp of the situation involved, also they
carry teeth, a very essential feature in documents of this char-
acter. To properly analyze the provisions of the same necessi-
tates an acquaintance with the general conditions of the period.
The prime purpose of these rules it is evident, was to prevent the
further introduction and spread of insect pests and plant dis-
eases, and the major portion of the text is devoted toward the
accomplishment of that end. In connection with this purpose
it had been demonstrated that the prevailing custom of return-
ing empty fruit boxes from the markets to the orchards was a
prolific source of the distribution of insect pests. This pertinent
subject was constantly up for discussion wherever the fruit
industries were represented, and, naturally, suggestions of relief
measures became common. Free packages, or containers that
could be sold with the fruit, commenced to be advocated, and
baskets in place of boxes were recommended and eventually used
for this purpose. Matthew Cooke was still engaged in the manu-
facture of fruit boxes, and, keeping in mind his original state-
ment concerning his interest in the project, this fact may in a
measure shed some light on the nature of the provisions of Rules
6, 9 and 12. We may assume that these particular provisions
were vigorously enforced for the reason that such a procedure
would be of special interest to the one responsible for their
origin and enforcement, and from the further fact that it pro-
vided the only source of revenue from which the State inspectors’
salaries could be derived. The provisions of Rule 13 were also
destined to play an important part in connection with empty fruit
boxes.

During the year of 1882 the Chief Viticultural and Chief
Horticultural Officers began to realize in ever increasing propor-
tions the effect of the fundamental principle, that strong public
sentiment in favor of any law is the first essential toward success-
ful execution of the provisions of the same. Armed with the
authority and endowed with a purpose of determination, they
found their efforts to execute repeatedly blocked by the opinions
and actions of dissenters. The fruit producers of the State
were by no means unanimous in their belief in the efficacy of
the remedial measures advocated, and were none too courteous
in expressing their opinion regarding the methods of applying
the same. The Chief Viticultural Officer sums up this situation
in the following succinct words: ‘* * * It is probably un-
dignified to refer to such coarse and brutal criticisms; but when-

28
ever public sentiment shall become so corrupted that honest gen-
tlemen cannot occupy positions of public trust and confidence
without suffering from such barbarous and brutal assaults, and
without privilege of reply, I shall be the first to decline to serve
the public in any capacity; and I make this simple declaration
for the benefit of a few others who have, in a small way, attempted
to injure the good reputation of members of this Commission.”

The Chief Horticultural Officer reports a great laxity on the
part of the fruit growers to petition for the appointment of
County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners, and draws com-
parisons between neighborly feeling and civic duty; calls atten-
tion to the apparent lack of good faith on the part of Boards of
Supervisors in not appointing boards where petitions had been
properly filed, and, what was still worse, instances of failure to
adequately provide for the payment of those appointed. A “free
package” was being agitated more vigorously than ever, and, in
consequence, disinfection of “empties” was becoming neglected

and the process combatted, in fact, the problem of fruit boxes,

with its many angles of incidence, was rapidly becoming the
dominant feature on the horticultural horizon.

Discussions upon this subject were endless. The fruit
growers, called together by the Chief Horticultural Officer and
assembled in convention at Sacramento, appointed a committee
on “fruit packages.” This committee reported as follows:

“REPORT ON FRUIT PACKAGES

“To the Board of State Horticultural Commissioners:

“Your committee appointed at a convention of fruit growers,
held at Sacramento, December fifth to eighth, on the subject of
‘disinfecting of fruit packages’ and ‘a cheap free package,’ report
jointly as follows:

“To make a perfect system, one of two plans must be
adopted; either that of providing at each station or landing
whence fruit is shipped, an apparatus for the purpose of fumigat-
ing or disinfecting, or a general location in the principal cities
where the packages can be treated in large quantities before
reshipping to the grower.

“Under the first plan, the cost of apparatus in so many
places would result in such a tax on the shipper as to be alto-
gether too expensive to be generally adopted, except under com-
pulsion, while at the same time, it does not prevent the spreading
of the pest during the journey to the proposed point of treat-
ment. Under the second plan, the obtaining of sufficient room
in cities to handle the immense number of packages accumulat-
ing daily, together with the extra cartage and the elaborate sys-
tem of accounts necessary to be kept between the commission
merchant and the manager of the disinfecting establishment,
would make it, while perhaps more efficient, quite expensive. It
is estimated that, under either plan, an average charge of one and

29
one-half cents per package will be necessary to cover the cost
every time it is disinfected.

“So far as the process of disinfection is to be observed,
your committee, after investigating the various plans proposed
and submitted, submit the following as the most economical,
while equally sure: That each package be placed in a close tank
and exposed to the action of live steam, at a minimum temper-
ature of two hundred degrees Fahrenheit, for a minimum period
of five minutes.

“Your committee is clearly and unanimously of opinion that
a free package system is preferable to any system of disinfecting
that can be adopted, numbering among its advantages:

“First—The saving on freight to market, on account of the
lesser weight of the free package, of one-half cent each on an
average.

“Second—The saving of cartage on return packages, for
which the commission merchant is willing to make an allowance
of one cent each.

“Third—The greater price that can be realized for fruit by
the commission merchant from the actual consumer, on account
of its being in clean, new packages, and the fact that canneries
are willing to pay an additional price if they do not have to
nail up and reship empties, both of whom have agreed that an
increased price can be realized of two and one-half cents on a
twenty-five pound, and five cents on a fifty pound package.

“Fourth—The saving of the cost of free disinfecting, which
we before stated to be one and one-third cents each.

“Fifth—We have figured closely, that with the advantages
already claimed, and the low prices at which free packages can
be procured, say, on the standard fruits that are marketed in
boxes, about fifty per cent of the cost of the present return
package, and for chests about twenty-five per cent, the fruit
grower will find, after a full trial of the free package system
for a term of years, that he has been at no actual additional
expense, and that he has by its adoption reached the only suc-
cessful method, outside of the orchard, of ridding it of pests.

“We find an ordinary free package of twenty-five to thirty
pounds weight of peaches, plums, or apricots can be furnished
for about six cents; one holding forty pounds, for Eastern ship-
ping, nine cents; one holding sixty pounds, regular apple size,
eleven cents; berry crates, with trays or baskets, holding forty
pounds strawberries, or forty pounds raspberries, or fifty pounds
blackberries, or sixty pounds currants, or sixty pounds cherries,
for twenty-five cents.

“As an illustration of the actual saving, by using the free
package in place of a return package, we submit the following

30
estimate of saving on a twenty-five pound box:

“Allowance by commission merchant for drayage....... 1 cent
*Cogt of disinfecting..............oio a. 115 cents
“Preichttomarket..........o onl 74 cent
“Increased value from consumer or canner.................. 2145 cents
“Loss in transit and wear and tear... 214 cents
MMotal 3 cents
R. B. BLoWERs,
“Wu. H. Jessup,
“A. T. Haren,

“A.D. Curren,
“Committee on Fruit Packages.”

Following the reading of this report an extended discussion
took place on all subjects involved in the same, more especially
regarding the use of free packages, which ended by the adoption
of the report as amended by Mr. Hatch, to the effect that dis-
infection be recommended instead of the free package system.

This action on the part of a complaint committee of fruit
growers in completely reversing the original position they had
taken in the matter of fruit packages, did not close the incident.
The fruit dealers refused to accept the decision as final, and
vigorously continued the fight for a “free package.” The tactics
employed by them in the new campaign did not meet with the
approval of Matthew Cooke, who expressed himself upon the
subject in the following terms: “* * * TUnfortunately for
those directly interested (the fruit growers) an issue was made
by the non-producers (i. e., buyers and dealers of fruit) under
the cloak of friendship for the fruit growers, but in reality for
personal gain, and for forcing the fruit growers to use the so-
called free package. The time may be stated about the first of
June, 1882. Lest any doubt should exist that such was the inten-
tion of the opposition to the disinfection of packages, the follow-
ing letter now in my possession, from a very extensive buyer of
fruit in San Francisco, to a member of the State Board of
Viticultural Commissioners, will perhaps be sufficient proof”:

“San Francisco, January 3, 1882.

“Dear Sir: The box factories tell me they are making a
larger quantity of peach baskets than ever before. Now this is
very bad, because the Fruit Growers Convention, through the
proper committee, particularly recommended the abolition of
baskets and the substitution of boxes; and furthermore, the basket
is as bad a package as can possibly be found for disseminating
pests. Why cannot the fruit grower help himself in this matter?
Nothing will do him good if he does not. You can show this
to Mr. Cooke if you think best. Will you get the sample of free

31
packages into shape and put them on show here, somewhere,
and oblige,
“Yours, etc.,

Finally states Mr. Cooke: “The above reveals the secret of
the opposition to disinfection of packages.”

All signs of the times presaged trouble for the quarantine
officers. An ominous feeling was in the air, and the members of
the State Board of Horticulture indicated their interpretation of
these conditions by the following resolution, which was adopted
at a meeting of the Board held on June 29, 1882:

“Resolved: That prominent fruit growers throughout the
State be invited to contribute to a fund to bear the necessary
expenses for legal counsel in sustaining horticultural quarantine.
Contributions to be sent at once to the Secretary of the Board
of State Horticultural Commissioners, John H. Wheeler, 111
Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco.” :

Regulations Found Unconstitutional and More
Adequate Legislation Provided.

As an outcome of this conflict of public opinion upon a
subject of common interest, the final test came quickly. A vio-
lator of the quarantine rules in connection with the disinfection
of empty fruit boxes, was arrested, charged with committing a
misdemeanor, and found guilty as charged. The opposition
brought the constitutionality of the law into the courts and, pend-
ing a decision, the enforcement of quarantine rules was aban-
doned. In January, 1883, the supreme court rendered a decision
in the case as herewith appended:

“63 CALIFORNIA REPORTS 21
“(In Bank.—January 12, 1883.)
“Ex Parte John Cox on Habeas Corpus.

“Constitutional Law—Delegation of Legislative Power—the
Act of the 4th of March, 1881, relating to the Board of State
Viticultural Commissioners, and providing that the officer therein
mentioned shall have power, subject to the approval of the board,
to make and enforce rules and regulations in the nature of quar-
antine for certain purposes, in so far as it declares that a willful
violation of the quarantine regulations of the board shall be a
misdemeanor, amounts to a delegation of legislative power, and
is unconstitutional. The legislature had no authority to confer
upon the officer or board the power to declare what acts shall

constitute a misdemeanor.
: “Young & Young, for Petitioner.

“W. A. Anderson, W. J. Tuska, S. H. Dwinelle, contra.

“Per Curiam.—The petitioner was convicted of a misde-
meanor, consisting of the violation of a rule and regulation of

32

¥)
FN
wa

hd

the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. The powers
attempted to be exercised by the officers and commissioners are
specified in the Act of March 4, 1871. (Stats. 1881, p. 51.)

“The Act declares that the officer shall have power, subject
to the approval of the board, to declare and enforce rules and
regulations in the nature of quarantine, to govern the manner
of, and restrain or prohibit the importation into the State and
the distribution and disposal within the State, of infected vines,
cuttings, and empty fruit boxes, etc.; the act also declares that
a willful violation of the quarantine regulations of the board
shall be a misdemeanor.

“For the purpose of local legislation, legislative functions
may be conferred upon and exercised by municipal corporations;
but the act before us is in no sense a conferring of powers for
municipal purposes. The legislature had not authority to confer
upon the officer or board the power of declaring what acts should
constitute a misdemeanor. The legislative power of the State
is vested in the Senate and Assembly. (Const. art. iv., sec. 1.)
That power could not, as to the case before us, be delegated to
the officer or board. The act before us does not say it shall
be unlawful to import, distribute, or dispose of infected articles,
but it attempts to confer upon the officer and board the power
to so declare. (Cooley on Const. Lim. p. 141, and cases cited.)

“The petitioner is discharged.”

This final decision of the supreme court proved a Waterloo
for Matthew Cooke as Chief Horticultural Officer, and marks
the period of his disappearance from quarantine annals. Nemesis
in the shape of empty fruit boxes had overtaken him. His har-
vest from all these years of careful preparation, of diligent study,
of persistent teaching, of patient labor, yielded only “dead sea
fruit;” his rules contested, his practices contemned, and the legal
fabric he had so long and assiduously labored to construct swept
away by the stroke of a pen; the satisfaction anticipated upon
the ultimate recognition of the worthy purpose to which he had
devoted his energies, changed at time of fruition to the sharp,
serpent sting of ingratitude. The chagrin at the position in which
he found himself placed must have been great indeed. Kindly
in disposition, consistent in purpose, tireless in endeavor, a
ponan in the domain of plant quarantine, he deserved a better

ate.

Viewed in the light of subsequent developments, the feature
of unconstitutionality which brought about the abandonment of
quarantine regulations was a fortunate occurrence for the hor-
ticultural interests of the State, in that it brought home to the
members of the State Board of Horticultural Commissioners a
realization of the impotence of the position they occupied. Their
existence as a Board was the result of an act of courtesy, not
of law. Created by the Board of Viticultural Commissioners,
without any legal sanction for such action, there was no authority
vested in the organization whereby rules and regulations, quar-

33
antine or otherwise, might be promulgated or enforced. Their
functions were purely advisory, with the exception of the Chief
Horticultural Officer, and now his occupation, like Othello’s, was
gone. In the matter of the introduction and spread of insect
pests the problems of the horticulturists were multiplying on
every hand. Codlin moth, San Jose scale, Peach moth, Red
scale and Cottony cushion scale were spreading over the State
rapidly, whereas the viticulturists were chiefly concerned with
a single organism, Phylloxera wvastatriz, and their fear of this
pest appears to have been mitigated as a result of investigation
and experiment.

Imbued with a belief almost prophetic of the ultimate hor-
ticultural supremacy of California, and spurred with a determina-
tion to secure adequate legal measures to protect and develop
the industry, a campaign for that purpose was inaugurated by
the existing organization. Nor did the members of the Board
labor alone in the endeavor. This was a constructive period in
the horticultural history of the State. Strong characters
abounded that were wont to express their convictions in no un-
certain terms and were not to be deterred in their purpose by
a single setback. Many elements were stirred into the matrix
that moulded public opinion, and generated the pressure that
forced the passage of the act that created the State Board of Hor-
ticulture in 1883.

The prevailing sentiment assumed a concrete form at the Fruit
Growers’ Convention held at San Jose in November, 1882, when
the following committee was appointed to prepare such bills as
were considered constitutional, and required for the protection
of the horticultural industries; Wal. J. Tuska, San Francisco;
L. M. Holt, San Bernardino County; F. C. Delong, Marin
County; S. M. Leib, Santa Clara County; G. M. Gray, Butte
County; A. T. Hatch, Solano County, and Honorable Wm.
Johnston and Matthew Cooke, Sacramento County.

The committee met at San Jose, December 27, 1882. Sub-
sequent to this meeting two bills were prepared by a member of
the committee—Wal. J. Tuska, Esq., attorney-at-law, San Fran-
cisco: one bill creating a Board of Horticultural Commissioners,
and the other to prevent the spread of insect pests, etc. These
bills were presented to the legislature as Senate Bills Nos. 2
and 3 by Senator Cox of Sacramento County, and Assembly
Bills Nos. 31 and 32 by Assemblyman Hollister of San Luis
Obispo County.

The bills were amended in the Senate. The work of amend-
ing to suit the views of senators was done by Senator Whitney
of Alameda. The bills, as amended, passed the Senate. In the
meantime the Assembly had passed the bill creating the Board
of Horticulture, appropriating for its expense Seven Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) per annum, the Senate bill
only allowing Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per annum,
The Assembly then took action on Senate Bills Nos. 2 and 3 and

34
both were passed. Senate Bill No. 2 to prevent the spread of
insect pests, etc., after passing both houses was mislaid or stolen,
so that it was not presented to the Governor for his approval.
The bill creating a Board of Horticulture (Senate Bill No. 3)
as passed by both houses was approved by the Governor on
March 13, 1883, and is herewith reproduced:

“CHAPTER [ XI]1.

“An Act to create and establish a State Board of Horti-

culture, and appropriate money for the expenses thereof.
(Approved March 13, 1883.)

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. There shall be a State Board of Horticulture,
consisting of nine members, who shall be appointed by the Gov-
ernor: two from the State at large, and one from each of the
seven horticultural districts, which are hereby constituted as
follows:

“First—The Sonoma District, which shall include the Coun-
ties of Sonoma, Marin, Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte,
Trinity and Siskiyou.

“Second—The Napa District, which shall include the Coun-
ties of Napa, Solano and Contra Costa.

“Third—The San Francisco District, which shall include the
City and County of San Francisco, and the Counties of San
Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito and
Monterey.

“Fourth—The Los Angeles District, which shall include the
Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, San Bernardino and San Diego.

“Fifth—The Sacramento District, which shall include the
Counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Colusa, Butte, Tehama
and Shasta.

“Sixth—The San Joaquin District, which shall include the
Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Tulare and
Kern.

“Seventh—The El Dorado District, which shall include the
Counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa,
Placer, Nevada, Yuba, Sierra, Plumas, Lassen, Modoc, Alpine,
Mono and Inyo.

“Sec. 2. The members appointed from each district shall
be residents of the district from which they are appointed, and
shall be specially qualified by practical experience and study in
connection with the industries dependent upon horticulture. They
shall each hold office for the term of four years, except that of
the nine first appointed, four, to be determined by lot, shall
retire at the end of two years, when their successors shall be
appointed by the Governor.

“Sec. 3. The Board shall appoint and prescribe the duties
of a Secretary, who shall not be one of their number, and elect
of their own number a Treasurer, both to hold office during the

35
pleasure of the said Board. The Treasurer shall give a bond to
the State, with sureties approved by the said Board, in the sum
of ten thousand dollars, for the faithful discharge of his duties.

“Sec. 4. The Board may receive, manage, use, and hold
donations and bequests for promoting the objects of its forma-
tion. It shall meet semi-annually, and as much oftener, and
at such places, as it may deem expedient, to consult and adopt
such measures as may best promote the horticultural industries
of the State. It may, but without expense to the State, select
and appoint competent and qualified persons to lecture in each
of the horticultural districts named in Section One of this Act,
for the purpose of illustrating practical horticultural topics, and
imparting instruction in the methods of culture, pruning, fer-
tilizing, and also in the best methods of treating the diseases of
fruit and fruit trees, cleansing orchards, and exterminating insect
pests. The office of the Board shall be kept open to the public,
subject to the rules of the Board, every day, excepting legal
holidays, and shall be in charge of the Secretary during the
absence of the Board.

“Sec. 5. For the purpose of preventing the spread of
contagious disease among fruit and fruit trees, and for the pre-
vention, treatment, cure, and extirpation of fruit pests and the
diseases of fruit and fruit trees, and for the disinfection of
grafts, scions, orchard debris, empty fruit boxes and packages,
and other suspected material or transportable articles, dangerous
to orchards, fruit, and fruit trees, said Board shall make regula-
tions for the inspection and disinfection thereof, which said
regulations shall be circulated in printed form by the Board among
the fruit growers and fruit dealers of the State, shall be pub-
lished at least twenty days in two daily newspapers of general
circulation in the State not of the same city or county, and shall
be posted in three conspicuous places in each county in the State,
one of which shall be at the County Court House thereof. Such
regulations when so posted shall be held to impart notice of their
contents to all persons within this State, and shall be binding
upon all persons.

“Sec. 6. The said Board shall elect of their own number,
or appoint from without their number, a competent person
especially qualified by practical experience in horticulture, for
the duties of his office, who shall be known as Inspector of Fruit
Pests (to hold office at the pleasure of the Board), whose duties
it shall be to visit the horticultural districts of the State, to see
that all regulations of said Board and provisions of law to pre-
vent the spread of fruit pests and diseases of trees and plants
injurious to the horticultural interests of the State, and all regu-
lations of said Board in the nature of quarantining infected or
infested districts, and also all rules and regulations of said Board
concerning disinfection of fruits, trees, plants, grafts, scions,
orchard debris, empty fruit boxes and packages, and other mate-
rial dangerous to orchards, fruit, and fruit trees are enforced.

36
He shall, also, whenever required, and under the direction of
the Board, and may also upon his own motion, and upon the
complaint of interested parties, inspect orchards, nurseries, and
other places suspected, or believed to be infested with fruit
pests, or infected with contagious disease injurious to trees,
plants, or fruits, and he shall report the facts to said Board. If,
upon report of said Inspector, or from well attested facts other-
wise before it, said Board shall be of the opinion that any
locality, orchard, district, or place is infested with fruit pests,
or infected with contagious disease injurious to trees, plants,
or fruits, and liable to spread to other localities to the injury
of other persons or places, said Board shall by an order entered
upon its minutes, so declare said and such infested or infected
district or place shall be under the quarantine regulations of
said Board. As soon, however, as in the opinion of said
Inspector the danger from such locality has ceased, he may sus-
pend said quarantine regulations, and shall immediately report
the fact to the Board, who may approve or disapprove his action.
He shall from time to time, and whenever required by said
Board, report to it such information as he may acquire from
observation, experience, and otherwise, as to the best modes
of diminishing and eradicating fruit pests and diseases from
orchards; and also suggestions in practical horticulture; the
adaptation of products to soil, climate, and markets, and such
other facts and information as shall be calculated to improve the
horticultural interests of the State.

“Sec. 7. The said Board, and, in case of necessity, during
the recess of the Board, the said Inspector may appoint such
quarantine guardians as may be needed to carry out the pro-
visions of this Act, whose duties it shall be to see that the
regulations of the Board and the instructions of the Inspector
are enforced and carried out; they shall also report to said
Inspector, or to the State Board, all infractions or violations of
said directions, regulations, and of the law in regard to quaran-
tine disinfection and destruction of pests, and precautions against
the spreading pests and diseases. The salary of quarantine guard-
ians shall not exceed two dollars per day, and shall be paid by the
owners of orchards and other places and localities under quaran-
tine regulations; and they may maintain an action therefor before
any Justice of the Peace in any township in which any quarantined
locality is wholly or in part situated. But in no case shall they
have any claim upon the State for such services.

“Sec. 8. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to attend
all meetings of the Board, and to preserve records of its pro-
ceedings and correspondence; to collect books, pamphlets, period-
icals, and other documents containing valuable information relat-
ing to horticulture, and to preserve the same; to collect statistics
and other information showing the actual condition and progress
of horticulture in this State and elsewhere; to correspond with
agriculture and horticulture societies, colleges, and schools of

37
agriculture and horticulture, and other persons and bodies, as
he may be directed by the Board, and prepare, as required by
the Board, reports for publication; he shall also act as assistant
to and obey the directions of the Inspector of Fruit Pests in
the exercise of the duties of his office, and shall be paid for his
services as such Secretary and assistant a salary of not to exceed
seventy-five dollars per month.

“Sec. 9. The Inspector of Fruit Pests shall receive as com-
pensation for his services not to exceed the sum of one hundred
and fifty dollars per month, and his actual traveling expenses
shall be allowed, not to exceed seven hundred and fifty dollars
per annum; the other members of the said Board shall receive
no compensation whatever.

“Sec. 10. The Board shall biennially, in the month of
January, report to the Legislature a statement of its doings,
with a copy of the Treasurer’s accounts for the two years pre-
ceding the session thereof, and abstracts of the reports of the
Inspector of Fruit Pests and Secretary. Said report shall not
exceed one hundred printed pages.

“Sec. 11. The Treasurer shall receive all moneys belonging
to the Board, and pay out the same only for bills approved by
it, and shall annually render a detailed account to the Board.

“Sec. 12. There is hereby appropriated for the uses of the
State Board of Horticulture, as set forth in this Act, out of any
moneys in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the
sum of five thousand dollars for the year commencing April
first, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, and five
thousand dollars for the year commencing April first, one
thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and the State Controller
will draw his warrants upon the State Treasurer in favor of
the Treasurer of said Board for said sums, or any part thereof,
when they become available, upon proper demand being made
for the same by the said Board.

“Sec. 13. This Act shall take effect and be in force from
and after its passage, and all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent
or in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.”

The provisions of this Act, when properly digested, reflect
very clearly the general sentiment of those most intimately con-
cerned with its preparation. The progressive element was de-
termined to obtain legal authority for the protection of the rapidly
developing fruit industry, yet, in the licht of recent experience
appeared to have had some dread of making the regulations too
drastic. The word misdemeanor does not appear anywhere in the
text. The opposition to this plan of establishing a State system
of orchard sanitation had not been entirely removed, nor its
influence with the legislature completely overcome, hence it was
necessary to proceed toward the desired end with much circum-
spection. From a police standpoint, the powers granted to the
Board in the matter of making and enforcing regulations are very
ambiguous. No mention is made in Section 5 of the power to

38
quarantine; the text simply makes provision for inspection and
disinfection, yet in Section 6 it is made the duty of the Inspector
of Fruit Pests to enforce and, at the proper time, suspend quar-
antine regulations. Success in execution is discounted by the
source provided for the salaries of the quarantine guardians,
and more so by the fact that no penalty is provided for violation
of the regulations.

, The saving feature of the act is the statutory authority
granted to the Inspector of Fruit Pests to “upon his own motion”
proceed to inspect.

However, the foundation was well laid, and a suitable super-
structure could be raised as events developed. The horticultur-
ists of the State had now a legally appointed body authorized to
protect and promote the industry, a permanent office with a
secretary created, and an executive officer appointed under pay.
The next move was the Governor’s, and his selection of the
members of the Board and their subsequent appointment is
sufficient proof of his belief and interest in the purpose of the
project.

OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

Ellwood Cooper, President.....................iii. Santa Barbara
Commissioner for the Los Angeles District
S. F. Chapin, Vice-President............iii iia San Jose

Commissioner for the San Francisco District
Gen. M..G. Vallejo, Sonoma... vi ibianins,
PME Commissioner for the Sonoma District
Hon. H. C. Wilson, Red Bluff... oo. il...
sir a Commissioner for the Sacramento District
G. N. Milco, Stockton..Commissioner for the San Joaquin District
Wm. M. Boggs, Napa............ Commissioner for the Napa District
N.R, Peck, Ophir... Commissioner for the Nevada District
Dr. Edwin Kimball, Haywards.......................0 iid
SRNR a Commissioner for the State at Large
Hon. A. F. Coronel, Los Angeles... icc ociiicincniinies
rei solitmrsn el ah dune casi Commissioner for the State at Large
A. H. Webb, Secretary
S. PF. Chapin, Inspector of Fruit Pests. ...................... San Jose

Office of the Board:
No. 40 California Street, San Francisco

The minutes of the meetings held by the Board during the
year of 1883 do not show that any regulations, quarantine or
otherwise, were promulgated. The Inspector of Fruit Pests spent
the most of his time during this period in making inspections
and experiments throughout the State, and in a lengthy report
records his findings upon these matters: “San Jose scale and
Codlin moth spreading; Woolly aphis common, and includes a
very pertinent item on the attention attracted by the presence
of the Cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchasi) in the orange
groves of the south.” He sums up the situation in the follow-

39
ing words: “* * * Of the work accomplished by the fruit
growers of the State thus far in the year it may truly be said,
that only encouragement is visible to those who are in earnest
about the great horticultural work of this favored State.”

In contrast to the optimistic view of the general situation
taken by the Inspector of Fruit Pests there is abundant evidence
to show that this same feeling was not universally entertained
throughout the State. There now being two laws upon the statute
books dealing with this problem of the control of insect pests,
much dissension developed upon the point as to where the proper
authority to direct such operations originated. Apparently there
were several grounds for this spirit of dissension. Under the
provisions of their empowering act, the State Inspector of Fruit
Pests or his quarantine guardians could legally “upon his own
motion” proceed to inspect orchards, nurseries, etc., and pre-
scribe for the treatment of the same, and if quarantine measures
were found necessary the owner must pay the guardian’s salary,
whereas the county commissioners and their inspectors could
not proceed upon such business unless a formal complaint had
been filed. This peculiar state of affairs was also taken advan-
tage of by recalcitrant boards of supervisors, who refused to
appoint county commissioners of horticulture and, in some in-
stances, to draw warrants for the payment of those previously
appointed on the grounds that the act providing for the same
had been superseded by a later act.

Reviewing the situation it is not difficult to deduce the
dominant factors that finally brought about an appeal to the
Attorney-General for a decision upon the subject:

THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON THE
VALIDITY OF THE COUNTY HORTICULTURAL
LAW

“Office of the Attorney-General of the State of California.
“San Francisco, September 3, 1883.
“S. F. Chapin, Esq., Inspector of Fruit Pests:

“Dear Sir: It is my opinion that the Act of 1881, entitled
‘An Act to promote the horticultural interests of the State,’ is
not repealed by the Act of 1883, entitled ‘An Act to create a
State Board of Horticulture,” there being no conflict between
the provisions of said acts. There is no reason why the county
boards of horticultural commissioners should not exercise all their
powers and discharge their duties under said act of 1881, so far
as the same do not conflict or are not inconsistent with the
powers conferred upon the State Board of Horticulture by the
Act of 1883.

“Very respectfully,
“E. C. MARSHAIL,
“Attorney-General.”

40

x 3
The Inspector of Fruit Pests continued his investigations
and experiments during 1884, and published his findings in one
or more bulletins which were freely circulated throughout the
State. However, while a better understanding of the principles
involved in the control of insect pests may have been established
as a result of this propaganda, there is no record that any quar-
antine regulations were issued, enforced or contested during that
period, nor that, despite the opinion of the Attorney-General,
there was much co-operation between the State and County offi-
cials. The members of the Board concerned themselves with
other factors of fundamental importance to the industry, and the
contents of their reports are evidence that they took a broad,
comprehensive view of the scope and purpose of the office to
which they had been called, and the minutes of their meetings
during this period contain statements which, in a measure, enable
us to anticipate a change in the provisions of the horticultural
law.

All omens were propitious for the proponents of plant
quarantine in California during the early months of 1885. The
legislature proved compliant to their requests for a larger appro-
priation, and also to their appeals for greater power of authority.
In the provisions of the following acts can be clearly traced an
epitome of the accumulated experience of the members of the
Board, and also of the Inspector of Fruit Pests, during the
past two years:

“CHAPTER VII,

“An Act to amend Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of an act
entitled ‘An Act to create and establish a State Board of Hor-
ticulture, and appropriate money for the expense thereof,” ap-
proved March thirteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-three.

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. Section eight of said act is hereby amended to
read as follows:

“‘Sec. 8. It shall be the duty of the secretary to attend
all meetings of the board, and to preserve records of its pro-
ceedings and correspondence; to collect books, pamphlets, and
periodicals, and other documents containing valuable information
relating to horticulture, and to preserve the same; to collect
statistics and other information showing the actual condition and
progress of horticulture in the State and elsewhere; to correspond
with agricultural and horticultural societies, colleges and schools
of agriculture, and other persons and bodies, as he may be directed
by the board, and prepare, as required by the board, reports for
publication. He shall also act as assistant to and obey the direc-
tions of the inspector of fruit pests in the exercise of the duties
of his office, and shall be paid for his services as such secretary
and assistant a salary of one hundred and fifty dollars per month,
to be paid as other State officers.’

41
“Sec. 2. Section 9 of said act is hereby amended to read
as follows:

“‘Sec. 9. The inspector of fruit pests shall receive as com-
pensation for his services the sum of two hundred dollars per
month, to be paid as other State officers, and his actual traveling
expenses shall be allowed, not to exceed one thousand dollars per
annum. The members of the board and secretary shall receive
their actual traveling expenses in attending semi-annual meetings
of the board.’

“Sec. 3. Section 10 of said act is hereby amended to read
as follows:

“‘Sec. 10. The board shall, biennially, in the month of
January, report to the legislature a statement of its doings, with
a copy of the treasurer’s accounts for the two years preceding
the session thereof, and abstracts of the reports of the inspector
of fruit pests and secretary.’

“Sec. 4. Section 11 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“‘Sec. 11. The treasurer shall receive all moneys belonging
to the board, and pay out the same only for bills approved by
the chairman of the finance committee, and shall annually render
a detailed account to the board.’

“Sec. 5. (Section 12.) There is hereby appropriated for
the uses of the State Board of Horticulture, as set forth in this
act, out of any moneys in the State treasury not otherwise appro-
priated, the sum of ten thousand dollars for the year commencing
April first, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, and ten
thousand dollars for the year commencing April first, one thou-
sand eight hundred and eighty-six, and the State comptroller
will draw his warrant upon the State treasurer in favor of the
treasurer of said board for the said sums, or any part thereof,
when they become available, upon proper demand being made
for the same by the said board.

“Sec. 6. This act shall take effect immediately.

“Approved February 18, 1885.”

The salient points in the foregoing amendment may be
summed up in the following order. The appropriation for the
support and maintenance of the office is increased to $10,000 per
year; the salary of the Crop Pest Inspector is increased to $200
per month and the allowance for his traveling expenses increased
to $1000 per year, while the secretary’s salary is doubled. The
most encouraging feature of the act is the provision made for
the reimbursement of the members of the Board in the matter
of expenses incurred in attending the regular meetings. To
properly appreciate the importance of this last item it is essential
that the extent of the State of California should be fully realized.
No better voucher could be asked of the sterling qualities of the
members of the Board than the fact that for two years they had
given their services gratuitously, and also furnished their own
traveling expenses. To attend the officially designated meetings
- required, in some instances, a journey of five hundred miles or

42
more, and the expenses incurred in making the same was becom-
ing a burden, and may have been a factor in the occasional lack
of a quorum when important matters required decisive action.

“CHAPTER XXXVI,

“An act to prevent the spreading of fruit-tree pests and
diseases, and to provide for their extirpation.

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. It shall be the duty of every owner, possessor,
or occupier of an orchard, nursery, or land where fruit trees are
grown within this State, to disinfect all fruit trees grown on
such lands infested with any insect or insects, or the germs thereof,
or infested by any contagious disease known to be injurious to
fruit or fruit trees, before the removal of the same from such
premises for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation. Fruit
boxes which have been used for shipping fruit to any destination
are hereby required to be disinfected previous to their being
again used for any purpose; all boxes returned to any orchard,
storeroom, salesroom, or any place used or to be used for stor-
age, shipping, or any other purpose, must be disinfected within
three days after their return; and any and all persons failing to
comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor. All packages, known as free packages, must
be destroyed or disinfected before being again used.

“Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the owner, lessee, or occupier
of any orchard within this State to gather all fruit infested by
the insects as the codlin moth, peach moth, red spider, plum
weevil, and kindred noxious insects, their larvae or pupae, which
has fallen from the tree or trees, as often as once a week, and
dispose of or destroy the same in such a manner as to effectually
destroy all such insects, their larvae or pupae. It shall be the
duty of the inspector of fruit pests, or the quarantine guardian,
to inspect fruit packages, and all trees and plants, cuttings, grafts,
and scions, known or believed to be infested by any insect or
insects, or the germs thereof, or their eggs, larvae, or pupae,
injurious to fruit or fruit trees, or infested with any disease
liable to spread contagion, imported or brought into this State
from any foreign country, or from any of the United States or
territories, and if, upon inspection, such fruit or fruit packages
are found to be infested or infected, it shall be a misdemeanor
to offer the same for sale, gift, distribution, or transportation,
unless they shall be first disinfected.

“Sec. 3. Every person shipping fruit trees, scions, cuttings,
or plants, from any orchard, nursery, or other place where they
were grown or produced shall place upon or securely attach to
each box, package, or parcel containing such fruit trees, scions,
cuttings, or plants, a distinct mark or label, showing the name
of the owner or shipper, and the locality where produced. And
any person who shall cause to be shipped, transported, or removed

43
from any locality declared by the State Board of Horticulture
to be infested with fruit-tree or orchard pests, or infected with
contagious diseases injurious to trees, plants, or fruits, unless the
same shall have been previously disinfected, shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor. Disinfection shall be to the satisfaction of the
State Board of Horticulture, or the inspector of fruit pests.
When disinfected, the fact shall he stamped upon each box, pack-
age, or separate parcel of fruit trees, scions, cuttings, or plants;
and any person who shall cause to be shipped, transported, or
removed, any such box, parcel, or package, from any quarantine
district or locality, not bearing such stamp, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and may be punished by a fine, as provided in
Section 6 of this act. Any person who shall falsely cause such
stamp to be used, or shall imitate or counterfeit any stamp or
device used for such purpose, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

“Sec. 4. It shall be the special duty of each member of
the State Board of Horticulture to see that the provisions of
this act are carried out within his respective horticultural district,
and all offenders duly punished.

“Sec. 5. All fruit trees infested by any insect or insects,
their germs, larvae, or pupae, or infected by disease known to
be injurious to fruit or fruit trees, and liable to spread contagion,
must be cleaned or disinfected before the first day of April,
eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and on or before the first day
of April every succeeding year thereafter. All owners or occu-
pants of lands on which fruit trees are grown failing to comply
with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misde-
meanor, and fined as provided for in Section 6 of this act. All
fruit packages, trees, plants, cuttings, grafts, and scions, that
shall not be disinfected within twenty-four hours after notice
by the inspector of fruit pests or a duly appointed quarantine
guardian or any member of the Board of Horticulture, shall be
liable to be proceeded against as a public nuisance.

“Sec. 6. Any person or corporation violating any of the
provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and shall, on conviction thereof, be punishable by a fine of not
less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars
for every offense.

“Approved March 10, 1885.”

This is by all standards of comparison the most clear, com-
prehensive and complete law so far enacted for the purpose.
Every section of the Act is clear cut and definite in purpose;
every provision is expressive of a determination to prevent the
further introduction and spread of insect pests and plant diseases
into and throughout the State, and the terms employed display
a fuller knowledge of the various avenues open to such distribu-
tion and a clearer comprehension of the means required to prevent
the same; every sentence is redolent of the experince acquired by

44
former quarantine officers and alive with anticipations of future
contingencies; the duty of each and every individual embraced
within its compass is specifically indicated and a statutory penalty
provided, but no direct payment was provided for the services
of state quarantine guardians.

At the next meeting of the members of the State Board of
Horticulture and within a month after the approval of the act,
the following action was taken. The matter of appointing quar-
antine guardians for the different fruit sections of the State was
discussed at length, and also the efficiency and non-efficiency of
the law to pevent the spreading of fruit and fruit tree pests and
diseases, approved March 10, 1885, some members holding that
it would be impossible to get suitable and competant men who
would care to assume the responsibility of informing on, and if
necessary, proceeding to enforce the law against their own neigh-
bors, while Mr. Milco thought otherwise, and urged the necessity
and importance of immediate action by the Board in the appoint-
ment of quarantine guardians and a vigorous and determined
effort to enforce the law, that the people of the State might see
that the Board was endeavoring to do something in furtherance
of the duties they were appointed to perform. This view of the
question finally prevailed, and the following appointments were
made :

“Dwight Hollister, for the Sacramento River District; J. W.
Mansfield, for Road Districts Nos. 1 and 2, Napa County; E. P.
Foster, for the fruit district comprising the town of Ventura
in San Buenaventura County; W. W. Chapman, for the fruit
district contiguous to and including the town of Petaluma, in
Sonoma County; J. C. Weybright, for the fruit district com-
prising Calistoga and vicinity; John H. Guill, for the fruit dis-
trict comprising Chico and vicinty, in the County of Butte; Clin-
ton King, for the fruit district comprising Alameda Valley,
Alameda County; George D. Kellogg, for the fruit district of
Newcastle, Placer County; S. A. Wood, for the fruit district in-
cluding Penryn and vicinity, Placer County; A. T. Perkins, for
the Fruit Vale fruit district, Alameda County; H. G. Ellsworth,
for the Niles, Mission San Jose, Irvington, and Centerville dis-
tricts, Alameda County; W. H. Robinson, for the fruit district
adjacent to and including the City of Stockton, San Joaquin
County; Dr. G. Eisen, for the fruit district including the town
of Fresno, Fresno County; and John R. Sweetser, for the super-
visoral district comprising the town of Novato, Marin County.

“In the matter of quarantine guardians for the City of San
Francisco, it was assigned to the Inspector of Fruit Pests and
the Advisory Committee for future action.”

45
Statewide Interest Aroused and Public Sentiment
Moulded Through Fruit Growers Convention.

Looking at the foregoing appointments from a geographical
standpoint it will be found that the districts to which quarantine
guardians had been appointed were created, with one exception,
in that part of California situated north of Tehachapi, and the
principal citrus growing districts of southern California had been
left to follow their own local devices in this matter of pest
extirpation. This geographical feature of the situation brings us
to a realization of the magniture of the undertaking involved.
The State Board of Horticulture had been vested with authority
over, and expected to exercise jurisdiction in certain matters
throughout an area comprising 100,000,000 acres of land surface, a
territory equal in extent to nine of the North Atlantic States.
To administer the provisions of the law with any measure of
success throughout such a domain, spreading its length through
nine and-half degrees of latitude, with all the meteorological fea-
tures that such an environment portends and in which were
growing all of the fruits and agricultural crops common to other
states, and many sub-tropical forms in addition, was, of a verity,
a problem of dimensions. The regulations to be enforced were
of a complex character, their legal aspect being intimately asso-
ciated with property rights and social amenities, and the tech-
nical one connected with minute organisms the correct names
of which—much less their structure or habits—were scarcely
known. Without scientific or judicial precedents for guidance,
but little public sentiment in favor of the project, with no
positive data upon the complete effect of the remedies officially
prescribed, and the entire process of procedure in a nebulous
state, surely the situation was one that called for all the imagina-
tion, all the energy and all the genius of a great executive.

Such a welter of conditions as developed and existed through-
out the State as a result of promulgating the foregoing regula-
tions, only those who took part in the same can know and com-
prehend. Wherever two or more persons were gathered together
in the fruit producing districts the prevailing topic of conversa-
tion at all times was concerned with “bugs,” remedies and regula-
tions. The tenor of the language employed was governed by the
disposition of the talker, but the substance of these endless dis-
putations and bickerings was invariably the same; habits of the
“bug,” composition of the remedy, legality of the law, behavior
of the inspector; doctrines and sects interminable, the habit of
prognosis chronic and contagious, and the result, confusion worse
confounded. Chapin, Inspector of Fruit Pests, traversing the State
inspecting orchards, haranguing the growers, preaching the gospel
of disinfection and distributing his printed official remedies; quar-

46

§;
antine guardians following up elucidating the formulas, striving to
convert conviction into conduct, hinting at legal process and
harkening to the common cry, “I can and will attend to my
own business;”’ Matthew Cooke of Sacramento operating an un-
official “bureau of information,” dispensing formulas and advice
once a month, and being called to account by Official Boggs for
reversing himself in print on the “use of coal oil;” Gray of Chico
advocating “lye,” and publicly explaining how he made and used
the same; Milco of Stockton claiming supremacy for “soft soap
and buhach;” Gary of Los Angeles promptly checking up on
the cost of this panacea and declaring, right out in meeting, “that
ends the matter, it would bankrupt us;” Kimball of Haywards,
apostle of “whale oil soap and quick lime;” Conger of Pasadena
exterminating them with “simple common soap and water,” and
exhorting others to do likewise; Thomas of Visalia pinning his
faith to “a solution of brine,” and proudly exhibiting to the un-
believers proof of what he had done; Brittan of San Jose, the
first man to fight the San Jose scale, said “potash,” and loudly
asseverated “I did exterminate on my orchard the San Jose
scale;” Cooper of Santa Barbara using and endorsing “whale oil
soap and tobacco;” Frey of Newcastle dividing his allegiance
between “milk and coal oil” and “whitewash and salt;” Compere
covering trees in the Cohn orchard with a tent and “fumigating
with sulfur;” McFadden of Los Angeles with a “carbolic cure
all” spraying the “Porcupines” orchard, killing everything in
sight including the trees, and causing much editorial matter in
the paper, and Craw and Coquillett quietly at work in the Wolf-
skill orchards. Everyone crying in unison “Eureka” remedies
world without end, and the Board of Supervisors still offering a
reward of one thousand dollars for a remedy.

In considering the legal standing of the officials charged
with the duty of enforcing the provisions of the several acts
provided for the purpose, public opinion was at as much variance
upon the law in the case as upon the efficacy of remedies.
Whether the State quarantine guardians or the county commis-
sioners of horticulture were the proper persons to enforce the
law, was the paramount issue. This much disputed point fur-
nished abundant grounds for procrastination and increased the
general confusion, nor was the situation much improved when
both such bodies of officers were appointed in the same county.
The act authorizing the appointment of State quarantine guardians
furnished full authority to act, but failed to provide pay for the
action. The act authorizing the appointment of county com-
missioners provided the pay but did not furnish authority to act
unless under complaint. Consequently, there was little legal action
without pay, and less action where the pay was contingent upon
arousing the enmity of a neighbor.

Eventually a compromise was effected and a service carrying
dual authority created. Boards of supervisors—in districts where
public clamor was strongest, or insect pests most abundant—ap-

47
pointed county commissioners of horticulture, and these commis-
sioners in turn appointed local inspectors from the number of
quarantine guardians already appointed in accordance with the
law relating to the extirpation of fruit pests. The service of the
guardians was paid in this way and, at the same time, they were
given a legal standing which would enable them, without any
warning or complaint, but by virtue of their own authority, to
go on the premises of any person and examine fruit trees or any
other trees that might harbor insect pests, directing that the same
be treated in such a manner as might be prescribed, providing
the parties in charge had failed to previously treat the infested
trees. Los Angeles County took the lead in this procedure by
appointing a County Board of Horticultural Commissioners in
July, 1885, and provided a generous fund for the support and
payment of the same, Ventura, San Diego and Kern Counties
soon following this example.

The fight against the invasion by insect pests in the State
of California concentrated for the time being in the citrus grow-
ing regions of the southern part of the State. During the years
of 1885 and 1886 there was a great contest as to who should
retain the ownership of the orange groves in this locality—the
proprietors of the same and their posterity, or the Cottony cushion
scale and its immediate progeny. The danger from this imported
pest became so imminent that common differences of opinion
on ways and means—no matter how radical—were soon overcome
by the imperative need of prompt, universal action, and objection
to process or method was overruled by necessity. Probably there
was never so much energy, skill and ingenuity expended in a
given period on a similar area to accomplish the control of a
single species of insect pest as occurred at this time. The incen-
tive to application, both of mind and muscle, was great; to the
owner his future livelihood, to the official his public duty, and
to the outsider a reward of $1000 for a successful remedy. Men
of recognized ability and indomitable will entered the arena in
this contest; the clergy, and federal, state and county officials
collaborated in the general effort; money was freely spent in
experiment, notices to clean up were fearlessly served, and despite
a few episodes of which the “Widow May” and her “sawed off
shot gun” was a type, the public began to respect and obey cur-
rent horticultural regulations, yet the campaign ended without
any record to show a single instance in which a specific plant
quarantine order was issued, enforced or contested.

Reviewing this period 1885-1886 the conclusion is reached
that the process of evolution was proceeding rapidly. All of those
concerned or connected with the production of fruit, with the
extirpation of insect pests, with the concoction of remedies for
that purpose, and with the execution of horticultural regulations
in the State of California during that time, were passing through
a momentous instructive course of practical philosophy, with
experiments going on, out of which all emerged with a clearer

48

&;
comprehension of the general principles of economic entomology.
Public sentiment on the proposition as a whole was succintly
expressed by that astute old nurseryman, Mr. Thomas Garey,
in the following statement made at Los Angeles in November,
1885: “This whole scale bug business is a matter of experiment
in the State of California, and will be for a long time. One man
is using one solution, and another man is using another; one
man a certain emulsion, another another, and so on, and so the
matter is experimental. We will be in this experimental stage
for a considerable length of time, and there is this about that:
In this matter of experiment we must be careful not to ruin
our orchards, nor to bankrupt ourselves.”

There were no legislative changes in the horticultural stat-
utes of California during the biennial of 1887-1888, nor do we
find in the record any reference to the issuance of any plant
quarantine orders by the State Board of Horticulture during
that period.

The efforts of the State Board of Horticulture to further
amend the horticultural statutes of California at the legislative
session of 1889 met with success. A capable pilot had taken the
helm in this ventue, and with consummate skill steered the bills
through a tortuous passage to the haven of fulfilment. Baptiste
Martin Lelong was a remarkable man in many ways, fine of
presence, resourceful, energetic, endowed with the knack of
initiative and possessing a wealth of practical experience. Ap-
pointed as a member of the State Board of Horticulture in No-
vember, 1886, he later resigned and was elected Secretary of the
Board in April, 1887. Lelong knew the modus operandi of
securing legislation in all of its minute and peculiar details; a
master of the ritual and orthodox he made ample preparation
for the rites. Adopting a definite policy and keeping the ulti-
mate goal clearly in view he was ready to seize every favorable
conjuncture, press every change of circumstance into the service
of the end aimed at, and with equal facility determine and
eliminate the non-essentials.

Speaking for himself in this particular instance Mr. Lelong
states: “The bill was introduced into the Assembly by Honorable
C. A. Storke, and in the Senate by Honorable E. H. Heacock.
I appeared before a joint meeting of the committees to which the
same was referred, and presented various petitions and memorials
in support of the same. The bill was very much amended, and
was reported back with the recommendation that it should pass
as amended. It passed the Assembly, and when transmitted to
the Senate was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. In
this committee it was again further amended and reported back
with the recommendation that it pass as amended. On the four-
teenth of February I received a copy of the approved bill, and
to my surprise a mistake appeared in the enrolled copy. The
word ‘twenty’ was substituted for the word ‘seventy’ and was
as such signed by the Governor. As the bill that passed the

49
Legislature contained the word ‘seventy,’ and as the bill signed
by the Governor did not contain the word ‘seventy,’ but in sub-
stitution thereof the word ‘twenty,’ the bill signed by the Gover-
nor had never passed the Legislature, and was therefore null
and void. I had a concurrent resolution introduced, which was
made a case of urgency and adopted by both houses, requesting
the Governor to request the Secretary of State to return the
bill to the Governor, and that the Governor return the same to
the Assembly for re-enrollment. The Secretary of State in his
reply, addressed to the Speaker of the Assembly, said:

“ ‘Referring to Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 44,
addressed by your honorable body to this office, requesting the
return of Assembly Bill No. 4 to the Governor, and by him to
the Clerk of the Assembly, I beg most respectfully, and under
the solemnity of my oath of office, to say that a bill passed by
both branches of the Legislature, approved by the Governor,
and in all respects properly authenticated and filed in this De-
partment, is a law of this State over which this office has no
control except safely to keep. If a Legislature can recall one
bill, it can recall another; and if for one purpose, then it can
for another purpose; and certainly with reeard to any bill passed
being destroyed prior to adjournment. While it is felt that no
harm could result from the return of Assembly Bill No. 4 for
the purpose as presented in said resolution, yet the principle is
deemed illegal and dangerous as a precedent.’

“The only recourse left for me was to have the bill re-
introduced and, if possible, re-enacted. Mr. Heacock introduced
the same bill in the Senate on the fourth of March, and the
following resolution:

“Resolved, That Senate Bill No. 655 presents a case of
urgency, and that the term in use in Section 16, of Article IV
of the Constitution, requiring that a bill shall be read on three
several days in each house, is hereby dispensed with, and it is
ordered that said bill be read for the first, second, and third times
on one day and placed upon its passage. :

“The resolution was adopted, and the bill, then being Senate
Bill No. 655, instead of Assembly Bill No. 4, was read the first
and second times, ordered engrossed. and read the third time,
and passed; and upon motion of Mr. Heacock was immediately
transmitted to the Assembly. In the Assembly, the bill was read
the first time and made a special order for March fifth, imme-
diately after the reading of the Journal. It was on that day,
bv direction of the Speaker, considered in the House in Commit-
tee of the Whole. After due consideration the Speaker presented
the following report:

«Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have had under
consideration Senate Bill 655—An Act to amend Sections 3, 6,
7. 8 and 12 of an Act entitled ‘An Act to create and establish
a State Board of Horticulture, and appropriate money for the
expenses thereof,” approved March 13, 1883, and an Act amenda-

50
tory thereof, approved February 18, 1885, and adding five new
sections to said Act, to be known as Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18,
and to repeal Section 9 of said Act, and to appropriate money
for the uses of the State Board of Horticulture—and now report
progress and recommend that the same do pass.

“The report was adopted, and the bill ordered to third read-
ing, and on motion of Mr. Shanahan the further consideration
of said bill was made a special order for March sixth, immediately
after the reading of the Journal. On March sixth the bill, being
the special order, was taken up and read the third time and
passed, and was on the same day transmitted to the Senate for
enrollment. It was transmitted by that body to the Governor
on the seventh day of March, and was by him signed on the
eighth day of March.”

The foregoing account of the vicissitudes of the bill with
the dual numbers, furnishes a luminous record of a dominant
purpose, and portrays the amount of ingenious persistence ex-
pended in the attempt to correct a simple error (and save the
bill). In connection with the latter sentence, there were cynics
who, at the time, endeavored to detract from the merits of this
performance by affirming that if the text of the act were closely
scrutinized the importance of the word “seventy” would be found
in its intimate correlation with the matter of salaries. However,
the act in its entirety follows:

“AN ACT

“To Create and Establish a State Board of Hortitculture.

“(Approval March 13, 1883; amended by an Act approved
March 8, 1889.)

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate
and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. There shall be a State Board of Horticulture,
consisting of nine members, who shall be appointed by the Gover-
nor; two from the State at large, and one from each of the
seven horticultural districts, which are hereby constituted as
follows:

“First—The Sonoma District, which shall include the coun-
ties of Sonoma, Marin, Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte,
Trinity, and Siskiyou. :

“Second—The Napa District, which shall include the counties
of Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa.

“Third—The San Francisco District, which shall include the
City and County of San Francisco, and the counties of San
Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and
Monterey. as

“Fourth—The Los Angeles District, which shall include the
counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, San Bernardino, and San Diego.

“Fifth—The Sacramento District, which shall include the
counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Colusa, Butte, Tehama,
and Shasta.

51
“Sixth—The San Joaquin District, which shall include the
counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Tulare, and
Kern.

“Seventh—The El Dorado District, which shall include the
counties of El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa,
Placer, Nevada, Yuba, Sierra, Plumas, Lassen, Modoc, Alpine,
Mono, and Inyo.

“Sec. 2. The members appointed from each district shall
be residents of the district from which they are appointed, and
shall be specially qualified by practical experience and study in
connection with the industries dependent upon horticulture. They
shall each hold office for the term of four years, except that of
the nine first appointed, four, to be determined by lot, shall retire
at the end of two years, when their successors shall be appointed
by the Governor.

“Sec. 3. (The Board shall biennially elect a President, a
Vice-President, a Chairman of the Finance Committee, and ap-
point from without their own number, a Secretary, who shall
be ex officio Horticultural Officer, and elect of their own num-
ber a Treasurer, who shall give a bond to the State, with sureties
approved by the Board, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, for
the faithful discharge of his duties.)

“Sec. 4. The Board may receive, manage, use, and hold
donations and bequests for promoting the objects of its forma-
tion. It shall meet semi-annually, and as much oftener and at
such places as it may deem expedient, to consult and adopt such
measures as may best promote the horticultural industries of the
State. It may, but without expense to the State, select and ap-
point competent and qualified persons to lecture in each of the
horticultural districts named in Section 1 of this Act, for the
purpose of illustrating practical horticultural topics, and imparting
instruction in the methods of culture, pruning, fertilizing, and
also in the best methods of treating the diseases of fruit and
fruit trees, cleansing orchards, and exterminating insect pests.
The office of the Board shall be kept open to the public, subject to
the rules of the Board, every day, excepting legal holidays, and
shall be in charge of the Secretary during the absence of the
Board.

“Sec. 5. For the purpose of preventing the spread of con-
tagious disease among fruit and fruit trees. and for the preven-
tion, treatment, cure, and extirpation of fruit pests and the
diseases of fruit and fruit trees, and for the disinfection of
grafts, scions, orchard debris, empty fruit boxes and packages,
and other suspected material or transportable articles, dangerous
to orchards. fruit and fruit trees, said Board shall make regula-
tions for the inspection and disinfection thereof, which said
regulations shall be circulated in printed form by the Board among
the fruit-growers and fruit-dealers of the State, shall be pub-
lished at least twenty days in two daily newspapers of general
circulation in the State not of the same city or county, and shall

52

oe
be posted in three conspicuous places in each county in the State,
one of which shall be at the county court house thereof. Such
regulations when so posted shall be held to impart notice of their
contents to all persons within this State, and shall be binding upon
all persons.

“Sec. 6. (Said Board shall appoint without their number
a competent person, especially qualified for the duties of his
office, who shall be known as Clerk of the Publishing and Quar-
antine Bureau of the State Board of Horticulture (to hold office
at the pleasure of the Board), who shall be qualified, by experience
and education as a compiler, to correct reports and essays; to
present in a logical order all the information to be published,
and shall give his whole time in such work, and such other duties
as may be required of him by the Board and by reason of his
official position, and shall have power to enforce all rules and
regulations regarding the spread of insect pests, quarantining
districts or nurseries found to be infected. He shall be paid for
his services as Clerk of the Publishing and Quarantine Bureau
of the State Board of Horticulture, one hundred and seventy-five
dollars per month, to be paid as other State officers.)

“Sec. 7. (The said Board, and in case of necessity during
the recess of the Board, the said Clerk of the Publishing and
Quarantine Bureau, may appoint such Quarantine Guardians as
may be needed to carry out the provisions of this Act, whose
duties it shall be to see that the regulations of the Board, and
the instructions of the Clerk of the Publishing and Quarantine
Bureau are enforced and carried out; said Clerk may appoint,
in case of emergency, a deputy, who shall have the same power
as his own, whose salary shall not exceed three dollars per day
for each day’s service performed, said services to be paid by
the State Board of Horticulture. The said Quarantine Guardians
shall report to the said Clerk, or to the State Board, all infractions
or violations of said directions, regulations, and of the law in
regard to quarantine, disinfection, and destruction, of insect and
other pests injurious to fruit, fruit trees, or vines, and precau-
tions against the spreading of all the aforesaid named pests and
diseases. The salary of Quarantine Guardian shall not exceed
three dollars per day, and shall be paid by the owners of orchards
and other places and localities under quarantine regulations; and
they may maintain an action therefore before any Justice of the
Peace in any township in which any quarantined locality is wholly
or in part situated, but in no case shall they have any claim upon
the State for such services.)

“Sec. 8. (It shall be the duty of the Secretary to attend all
meetings of the Board and of the Executive Committee, and to
preserve records of its proceedings and correspondence; to col-
lect books, pamphlets and periodicals, and other documents con-
taining information relating to horticulture, and to preserve the
same; to collect statistics and other information showing the
actual condition and progress of horticulture, in this State and

53
elsewhere; to correspond with agricultural and horticultural socie-
ties, colleges, and schools of agriculture and horticulture, and
other persons and bodies, as he may be directed by the Board;
and prepare, as required by the Board, reports for publication.
He shall appoint, subject to the approval of the Board, a com-
petent person as Clerk, and he shall be held responsible for the
acts of said Clerk. He shall be paid for his services as such
Secretary and ex officio Horticultural Officer, a salary of one
hundred and seventy-five dollars per month. His clerk shall be
paid a salary (as such Clerk) of fifty dollars per month, each to
be paid as other State officers.)

“Sec. 9. (Repealed.)

“Sec. 10. The Board shall, biennially, in the month of Jan-
uary, report to the Legislature a statement of its doings, with a
copy of the Treasurer’s accounts for the two years preceding the
session thereof, and abstracts of the reports of the Inspector of
Fruit Pests, and Secretary.

“Sec. 11. The Treasurer shall receive all moneys belonging
to the Board, and pay out the same only for bills approved by it,
and shall annually render a detailed account to the Board.

“Sec. 12. (Relates to appropriations which are provided by
the Legislature every two years.)

“Sec. 13. This Act shall take effect and be in force from
and after its passage, and all Acts or parts or Acts inconsistent
or in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

“Sec. 14. (The President (and in his absence the Vice-
President) and the two Commissioners for the State at large,
shall constitute the Executive Committee; said committee shall
have charge of the management of the affairs of the Board while
the Board is not in session. The members of said committee
shall receive their actual traveling expenses in attending quarterly
meetings of the Executive Committee. The other members of the
Board shall receive their actual traveling expenses (only) in
attending semi-annual meetings of the Board.)

“Sec. 15. (Vacancies occurring in any office shall be filled
by appointment made by the President of the Board, with the
consent of the Executive Committee, until the next meeting of the
Board.)

“Sec. 16. (The Board shall make and publish their reports
annually.)

“Sec. 17. (It shall be the duty of the County Boards of
Horticulture to make quarterly reports, in writing, to the State
Board of the condition of fruit interests in their several districts,
what is being done to eradicate insect pests, also as to disinfecting
and as to quarantine against new insects, and as to carrying out
of all laws relative to the greatest good of the fruit interest. Said
Board shall publish said reports in bulletin form, or may incor-
porate so much of the same in their annual reports as may be of
general interest.)

“Sec. 18. (The expenditures necessary to be made in ex-

54
periments in the different districts shall be determined by the
Board. On application of one or more of the fruit-growers in
such districts, the said Board shall select such person or persons
to make such experiments, and pay the expenses thereof. The
sum of not exceeding one thousand dollars, for traveling expenses,
shall be allowed when the Board or the Executive Committee shall
deem it necessary to send either the Clerk of Bureau or Secre-
tary to direct and supervise such experiments; provided, that not
more than one thousand dollars be expended in any one year for
such traveling expenses.)

“NOTE.—The amendments to the original Act appear in
brackets.”

Reading between the lines of the amendments incorporated
into this act, it becomes apparent that a new policy had been out-
lined and probably adopted by the State Board of Horticulture.
From the tenor of the new provisions, collection and dissemination
of information relating to horticulture was to take precedence of
actual inspection and police work. The office of Inspector of
Fruit Pests is abolished, that of Clerk of the Publishing and Quar-
antine Bureau created, and the clerical force augmented with
this end in view. No doubt the members of the Board com-
menced to realize their inability to enforce throughout the State
the police regulations of the Act of 1885, with the means at their
command. This condition was due largely to the peculiar provi-
sion made for the payment of their own horticultural police officers,
the quarantine guardians. They had learned by experience that
even the best of laws—excepting natural ones—are not self-
operative; that men would not enforce the current horticultural
laws under the conditions that applied to the same, and that failure
to enforce a law soon brings the same into ridicule.

Lelong, in his extraordinary seance with the legislature in
1889, made a supreme effort to change the method provided for
the payment of the state quarantine guardians, and place them
upon the same plane as other state officers in the matter of obtain-
ing pay for their services. The objection to such a procedure
was based upon the principle that “cities and mountain counties
where no fruit was raised” would be taxed to pay for service of
special benefit only to fruit growers in other counties. Sectional
feeling was strong in those days, the obstacle proved insurmount-
able, the legislators adamant, and he was compelled to recognize
the logic of the objection and accept the decision, which has
remained final. Another factor which may have had a deciding
influence in this change of policy was the probable advance knowl- -
edge that the amendments to the county commissioners’ act would
be enacted, and which, once enacted would, in their opinion,
provide the much desired machinery for the general enforcement
of horticultural regulations.

Reviewing the work of the State Board of Horticulture dur-
ing the decade, its greatest, in fact, the one great feature accom-
plished during that period, was the establishment and continuance

55
of the Fruit Growers’ Conventions and the regular publication
of the proceedings of the same. At thesz meetings the most
prominent and progressive fruit growers of the State gathered

together semi-annually, became acquainted with each other, and .

discussed the several requirements of the industry. Returning to
their own communities with a clearer idea of the general condi-
tions, they eventually created and moulded a public sentiment that
made itself felt among the law-makers, and also among those who
heretofore had considered horticultural legislation in the light of
something pernicious, and specially devised to interfere with their
own particular and individual business. This decided change in
public sentiment upon this matter is very clearly reflected in the
provisions of the following act:

“AN ACT
“TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE HORTICUL.-
TURAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE,

“(Approved March 14, 1881; amended by an Act approved March
19, 1889.)

“The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and

Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1. Section one of said Act is hereby amended so
as to read as follows:

“Section 1. (Whenever a petition is presented to the Board
of Supervisors of any county, and signed by twenty-five or more
persons who are resident freeholders and possessors of an orch-
ard, or both, stating that certain or all orchards or nurseries, or
trees of any variety, are infested with scale insects of any kind,
injurious to fruit, fruit trees, and vines, codlin moth, or other
insects that are destructive to trees, and praying that a Commis-
sion be appointed by them, whose duty it shall be to supervise
their destruction, as herein provided, the Board of Supervisors
shall, within twenty days thereafter, select three Commissioners
for the county, to be known as a County Board of Horticultural
Commissioners. The Board of Supervisors may fill any vacancy
that may occur in said Commission by death, resignation, or other-
wise, and appoint one Commissioner each year, one month, or
thereabouts, previous to the expiration of the term of office of any
member of said Commission. The said Commissioners shall serve
for a period of three years from the date of their appointment,
except the Commissioners first appointed, one of whom shall
serve for one year, and one of whom shall serve for two years,
and one of whom shall serve for three years, from the date of
appointment. The Commissioners first appointed shall them-
selves decide, by lot or otherwise, who shall serve for one year,
who shall serve two years, and who shall serve three years, and
shall notify the Board of Supervisors of the result of their choice.)

“Sec. 2. Section two of said Act is hereby amended so as

to read as follows:
“Section 2. (It shall be the duty of the County Board of

56
Horticultural Commissioners in each county, whenever it shall
deem it necessary, to cause an inspection to be made of any orch-
ard, or nursery, or trees, or any fruit-packing house, store-room,
salesroom, or any other place in their jurisdiction, and if found
infested with scale bug, codlin moth, or other insect pests inju-
rious to fruit, trees, and vines, they shall notify the owner or
owners, or person or persons in charge or possession of said trees
or place, as aforesaid, that the same are infested with said insects,
or any of them, or their eggs or larvae, and they shall require
such person or persons to disinfect or destroy the same within a
certain time, to be specified. If within such specified time such
disinfection or destruction has not been accomplished, the said
person or persons shall be required to make application of such
treatment for the purpose of destroying them as said Commis-
sioners may prescribe. Said notices may be served upon the per-
son or persons owning or having charge or possession of such
infested trees, or places, or articles, as aforesaid, by any Commis-
sioner, or by any person deputed by the said Commissioners for
that purpose, or they may be served in the same manner as a sum-
mons in a civil action. If the owner or owners, or person or
persons in charge or possession of any orchard, or nursery, or
trees, or places, or articles, infested with said insects, or any of
them, or their larvae or eggs, after having been notified as above
to destroy the same, or make application of treatment as directed,
shall fail, neglect, or refuse to do so, he or they shall be deemed
guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and any such orchards,
nurseries, trees, or places, or articles thus infested shall be ad-
judged and the same is hereby declared a public nuisance, and
may be proceeded against as such. If found guilty, the Court
shall direct the aforesaid County Board of Horticultural Com-
missioners to abate the nuisance. The expenses thus incurred
may be a lien upon the real property of the defendant.)

“Sec. 3. Section three of said Act is amended so as to read
as follows:

“Section 3. (Said County Boards of Horticultural Commis-
sioners shall have power to divide the county into districts, and to
appoint a local Inspector for each of said districts. The State
Board of Horticulture, or the Quarantine Officer of said Board,
shall issue commissions as Quarantine Guardians to the members
of said County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners, and to
the local Inspectors thereof. The said Quarantine Guardians,
local Inspectors, or members of said County Board of Horti-
cultural Commissioners, shall have full authority to enter into any
orchard, nursery, or place or places where trees or plants are kept
and offered for sale, or otherwise, or any house, storeroom, sales-
room, depot, or any other such place in their jurisdiction, to
inspect the same, or any part thereof.)

“Sec. 4. Section four of said Act is hereby amended so as
to read as follows:

“Section 4. (It shall be the duty of said County Board of

57
Horticultural Commissioners to keep a record of their official
doings, and to make a report to the State Board of Horticulture
on or before the first day of October of each year, of the condi-
tion of the fruit interests in their several districts, what is being
done to eradicate insect pests, also as to disinfecting and as to
quarantine against insect pests and diseases, and as to carrying
out all laws relative to the greatest good of the fruit interest.
Said Board shall publish said reports in bulletin form, or may
incorporate so much of the same in their annual reports as may
be of general interest.)

“Sec. 5. Section five of said Act is hereby amended so as
to read as follows:

“Section 5. (Each member of the County Board of Horti-
cultural Commissioners, and each local Inspector, shall be paid
for each day actually engaged in the performance of his duties
under this Act, payable out of the County Treasury of his county,
such compensation as shall be determined by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors of the county, before entering into the
discharge of his or their duties.)

“Sec. 6. Section six of said Act is hereby amended so as
to read as follows:

“Section 6. (Said County Boards of Horticultural Commis-
sioners shall have power to remove any local Inspector who shall
fail to perform the duties of his office.)

“Sec. 7. (Repealed.)

“Sec. 8. Section eight of said Act is hereby amended so as
to read as follows, and to be known as section seven of said Act,
viZ..

“Section 7. (If any member of the County Board of Hor-
ticultural Commissioners shall fail to perform the duties of his
office, as required by this Act, he may be removed from office by
the Board of Supervisors, and the vacancy thus formed shall be
filled by appointment by the Board of Supervisors.)

“Sec. 9. Section nine of said Act is hereby amended so as
to read as follows, and to be known as section eight of said Act,
viz.:

“Section 8. (It shall be the duty of the County Board of
Horticultural Commissioners to keep a record of their official
doings, and to make a monthly report to the Board of Super-
visors, and the Board of Supervisors may withhold warrant for
salary of said members and Inspectors thereof until such time as
said report is made.)

“Sec. 10. A new section is hereby added to said Act, to be
known as section nine, and to read as follows, viz.:

“Section 9. All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

Sec. 11. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and

after its passage. :
“NOTE.—The amendments to original Act appear in brack-

»

ets.
38
The provisions of this act of 1889 are expressive of the force-
ful personality of Mr. B. M. Lelong who, more than any other
one individual, was responsible for its textual construction, and,
with the exception of the unfortunate change in the manner of
fixing the compensation of the commissioners and inspectors, was
the best legislation so far obtained for the purpose. The terms
of the act make it mandatory on the part of the Board of Super-
visors to appoint a Horticultural Commission on the presentation
of a petition properly signed, and definitely specify the time limit
allowed for such action. They also remove the former obstacle
to progress by eliminating the necessity of a complaint, and make
it the duty of the county horticultural commissioners to cause
inspections to be made of certain classes of property and speci-
fically outline both a technical and legal procedure to follow inspec-
tion. The State Board of Horticulture is ordered to issue com-
missions as quarantine guardians to county commissioners and
inspectors alike and, with a view to building up uniformity of
action throughout the State, the county commissioners are to make
each year, on or before a fixed date, a report of their official
actions, the results obtained by the same, and the general condition
of the fruit interests in the territory under their jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the apparent clarity of the provisions of
Section 1 of this act, it appears that some of the county super-
visors in the State were still obstinate, and by no means ready or
willing to accept a properly signed petition as the will of the
people, mandatory upon themselves, and eventually, as a means of
support of their theories and a possible avenue of escape from
the act of appointment of a Board of County Horticultural Com-
missioners, challenged the constitutionality of the act. The Sec-
retary of the State Board of Horticulture promptly referred the
matter to the Attorney-General with the following result:

“Office of the Attorney-General of the State of California.
“Sacramento, June 10, 1889.

“B. M. Lelong, Esq., Secretary State Board of Horticulture, San
Francisco.

“Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiry of eighth instant, I
have to say that I regard the Act ‘to amend an Act entitled, “An
Act to protect and promote the Horticultural interests of the
State,” ’ approved March 14, 1881. Statutes of 1889, page 413,
constitutional. It is a later Act than the other Act to which you
call my attention, approved March 7, 1889, Statutes of 1889, page
89, and if there is any conflict between the two Acts, the later Act
must prevail, but I do not wish to be understood as saying that
there is any conflict.

“I think the Board of Supervisors of Sonomo County, on
the presentation of a proper petition, as required by the Act of
March 19, 1889, should, within the time limited, select a County
Board of Horticultural Commissioners. Nor is it necessary for

59
me at this time to give an opinion whether everything in the Act
of March 19, 18R9, is constitutional.
Very truly yours,
“(Signed) G. A. JOHNSON,
“Attorney-General.”

Encouraged by this opinion a mandamus suit was brought
against the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County; and Hon.
John G. Pressley, Judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County,
on the 19th day of June, 1889, rendered the following decision,
in which the validity of the act directing the boards of supervisors
to establish county boards of horticultural commissioners is sus-
tained :

“E. A. ROGERS
“vs.
“THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of SONOMA COUNTY.

“John Goss, Esq., attorney for plaintiff.

“On the 19th day of March an act of the legislature was ap-
proved, entitled ‘An act to amend an act entitled “An act to pro-

tect and promote the horticultural interests of the state,” approved
March 14, 1881.

“This act (of March, 1889), provides that, ‘Whenever a
petition is presented to the board of supervisors of any county,
and signed by twenty-five or more persons who are resident free-
holders and possessors of an orchard, or both, stating that certain
or all orchards or nurseries, or trees of any variety, are infested
with scale insects * * * that are destructive to the trees
and praying that a commission be appointed by them, whose duty
it shall be to supervise their destruction, as herein provided, the
board of supervisors shall, within twenty days thereafter, select
three commissioners for the county, to be known as a county
board of horticultural commissioners.’

“The duties of the board so appointed are declared by the
act. It appears from the complaint that, in accordance with this
act, a petition was presented to and filed with the board of super-
visors, signed by this plaintiff and twenty-six other persons pos-
sessing the qualifications prescribed by the act, praying for the
appointment of a county board of horticultural commissioners
for Sonoma county, and a demand was made on the supervisors
that they carry into effect the provisions of the act, and appoint
the commissioners.

“Twenty days have expired since the filing of the petition and
the demand for action upon it, and still the board of supervisors
refuse and neglect to make any selections or appointment of com-
missioners.

“This action is brought for a writ of mandate compelling the
board of supervisors to make the selection and appointment as
required by them by the act.

“A demurrer has been interposed to the complaint, and in
support thereof it is contended:

60
“First—That the act of 14th of March, 1881, of which the
act of 19th of March is amendatory, was repealed by an act
approved 13th of March, 1883, which provides for the appoint-
ment by the Governor of a state board of horticulture, and that
in consequence of the act of 1889 being an amendment of a
repealed statute, it is nugatory.

“The act of 1883 does not, in express terms, repeal the act
of 1881, nor is that act elsewhere expressly repealed. It is a well-
settled legal principle that repeals by implication are not favored.
A subsequent act does not by implication, repeal a prior statute,
unless the subsequent one entirely covers the provisions of the
first, and so completely that every portion of the first is provided
for by the second. There must appear an intent to entirely sub-
stitute one for the other.

“Says Bishop in his work on Statutory Crimes, section 154:

“‘We have seen that every legislative act in affirmative
words is to be regarded, prima facie, as an addition to the mass
of law; for such on its fact it purports to be. Yet when it is
inconsistent with the former law, it must, as the last expression of
the legislature will, prevail. But repeals by implication, thus
explained, are not favored. And a legislative intent to repeal an
existing statute is never presumed. If two acts, seeming to be
repugnant, can be reconciled by any fair construction, they must
be, when no appeal will be held to take place.’

“The same principle is laid down by Judge Field in the case
of Pierrepont vs. Crouch, 10 Cal. 316.

“There are numerous other authorities to the same effect.

“Is there any apparent intent to substitute one of these acts
for the other, or such repugnance as would destroy the first?
Let us see. The first provides for a county board of horticulture.
The second for a state board. The first prescribes duties to be
performed by county boards of supervisors. The second pre-
scribes duties to be discharged by the Governor. The first pro-
vides for a board of three commissioners with local jurisdiction.
The second for a board of nine commissioners with a jurisdiction
coextensive with the state. The first authorizes boards created by
its authority to divide counties into districts. The second creates
districts composed of several counties. The first requires duties
to be performed by county boards which are not required by
the second, of the state board. For instance: The first pro-
vides for proceedings against persons who, after notice, fail or
refuse to treat infested trees as directed by the board, and a
destruction of trees by such board when directed by a court.
No such proceedings and destruction are provided for by the
second. There are other differences between the two acts which
might be pointed out, but these are sufficient to show that there
is no such similarity in the powers of the boards created by them
as would necessarily cause a conflict between these boards, or
would justify a court in holding that one act repeals the other.
I must, therefore, hold, that the act of 1881 was not repealed

61
by the act of 1883, and was in full force when the amendatory
act of 1889 was passed. The act of 1883 is an addition to the
i existing legislation, and not a substitute for the act of
1881.

“Second—It was contended that acts of the legislature which
provided that a duty imposed shall be performed within a certain
time are directory and not mandatory. I cannot assent to that
proposition. Where a court or board is directed by law to per-
form an act in a given time, the law, unless it declares the act
may not be done after the expiration of the time, is so far direc-
tory as that the act is valid though done after the time fixed,
but is not directory in the sense that the duty or act directed
may be entirely disregarded or omitted. The time is given that
the board may have ample opportunity to act intelligently and
with good judgment, but not to enable the board or officer of
whom the duty is required to disregard it entirely. I have no
doubt but that the board of supervisors is required by the law
in question to appoint a county board of horticultural commis-
sioners, and that it may be lawfully done after the expiration
of the twenty days given them in the act for deliveration.

“Counsel referred to some authorities from other states in
support of his contention. I do not think these authorities go
to the extent claimed by him, and if they did, there being no
such decision by our own Supreme Court, I would hold the law
in this state to be different. The purpose of the legislature was
to give the supervisors time to make judicious selections, and
not to justify or authorize an annulment of the legislative will

expressed by the statute.
“JOHN G. PRESSLEY, Judge.”

This decision appears to have had a most salutary effect, for
we find the supervisors of the following counties had complied
with the law and appointed Boards of Horticultural Commission-
ers before the expiration of the year 1889, as follows:

ALAMEDA COUNTY

AD Pryal, President... .onimninninnn iui Temescal

Wm. Barry... NEI ERR TR Alameda

AD. Crane, Secretary o.oo iieanivnniini diusncsnss San Lorenzo
BUTTE COUNTY

C.J]. Berry, President. ...ococioo iii srr rsinsdosens os Biggs

Ed Harkness oo aint Oroville

GM. Gray, Secretary... eisai tii isbsesons Chico
COLUSA COUNTY

J. R. Totman, President... Colusa

F.M. Johnson... ni ees Colusa

Frank W. Willis, Secretary... nl Colusa

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

J. D. Barber, President...........roorcrincrsnssscsrssnsnsesseserseas Rohnerville

Jacob Zehendrier... ii arena Rohnerville

AP. Compton, Secretary. ii... Rohnerville
KERN COUNTY

M. Wyatt, President..............icniiniiinsinissismstvsiinnns Bakersfield
CA Maul... ii Bakersfield
L.W. Burr, Secretary... Bakersfield
1.OS ANGELES COUNTY
A.B, Kercheval, President... nl Los Angeles
Geo. B. Mitchell... ci. laa Pomona
PF. Edward Gray, Secretary... Ln Alhambra
MENDOCINO COUNTY
C.R. Thomas, President... Ukiah
Mort. Baechtel. ig ol. Mendocino
Carl Purdy, ‘Seerefary...... Ukiah
NEVADA COUNTY
Jom Redda, President... Grass Valley
Hemry Waters... es, Nevada City
J.B. Vineyard, Secretary... i Anthony House
ORANGE COUNTY
H Hamilton, President... lini iii dinanield Orange
F.H Reith... in illinois iis Anaheim
S. W, Preble, Secretory... iii onin Tustin City
SAN BENITO COUNTY
GG: Brown, President... oon gid Hollister
EW. Bowman... ........ nail San Juan
J A. Schofield, Secretary... iii Hollister
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
I. BP. Muscott, President... 1. 5. Santa Barbara
Bradiord Morse... esis creates Riverside
W.E Collins, Secretory... iiiifonnininsiovsenion Ontario
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Joseph Hale, Prasident.........oociiviisiiniientinissimpiemanse Stockton
Geo. W. Wise. [iid in Consist Stockton
W. H. Robinson, Secretary... coi iiouimniiissinssonss Stockton
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Wim. |. McNulty, President... iis Woodside
Alex. Moore... mi imi Redwood City
Dr.L. D. Morse, Secretary..................co cimmisiiimataestrs San Mateo
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
TT. N. Snow, President i... ili Santa Barbara
RR. Machin...................... inl nin Lompoc
OW. M, Maulshy, Secretary... Santa Maria
SONOMA COUNTY
John M. Balhache, President..................i iii. Healdsburg
Mark IL. McDomld............iiniintnieniind Santa Rosa
E. A Bodoers, Secretary... ........c.ccuiiinmniniiins ining Santa Rosa
SUTTER COUNTY ;
R.C Kells, President.............iuiic iin 0 Yuba City
F.C. Gray... iii tani. Yuba City
H. P Sisbler, Secrefary.......in il niin Yuba City
TULARE COUNTY

BN. Wright, President... oi nniloicle denna, Visalia
CoM. Stone... i LR eR Hanford
N.W, Motherall, Seeretary..............iiininn sh Hanford
VENTURA COUNTY
N.-W. Blanichard, President... sine, Santa Paula
NoBSmith, can he Ventura
M.E. Isham, Secretary.............oviinnld San Buenaventura
YUBA COUNTY
GC. W, Harney, President... alan Marysville
Jos WW. Mills. aaa ht Marysville
E.W. Jolmson, Secretary... ible Marysville

The geographical distribution of the foregoing counties that
appointed horticultural commissioners is of greater significance
than the total number of the same, and may be accepted as
indicative of the change in public opinion that had taken place
throughout the State in the matter of orchard sanitation. The
age of gold had been succeeded by the age of wheat, and now
the horticultural age supplanting both was well begun, with
all the better features that same portends: smaller holdings of
land ; home-making influence; school building power; town-creat-
ing force; social, moral and political importance. The fact was
becoming patent that a local officer is more likely to be in touch
with the interest and sentiment of the community, and hence more
useful and efficient than an official representative governed by a
distant authority, and that the county board was the best and
safest charge into which the horticultural regulations could be
committeed.

The Secretary of the State Board of Horticulture in his
report dated November 4, 1889, makes the following statement:

“tx x * The work accomplished by the County Commis-
sioners above referred to, has more than returned value received
to the county by the appreciation in real estate, and thereby
increasing the tax roll of the county, thus producing what returns
to the County Treasury more in dollars and cents than is paid
out for the work. Again, it has caused to be returned to the
orchardist an increase in his receipts for the extra quality and
quantity of his fruits produced and sold. The facts and figures
for the above statements are before us as we write.”

During the year of 1889 still another act was passed by
the legislature, which was destined to exercise a great influence
in the mater of the control of insect pests by local or county
authorities. This was the County Government Act of 1889.

In Section 25 of this Act, defining the powers of Super-
visors, Subdivision 28 reads: “To provide for the destruction
of gophers, squirrels, and other wild animals, noxious weeds,
and insects injurious to fruit, or fruit trees, or vines, or vege-
tables, or plant life.”

Subdivision 33 reads: “To make and enforce within the

64

A
limits of their counties, all such local, sanitary, and other regula-
tions, as are not in conflict with general laws.”

Reviewing the conditions that developed in California dur-
ing the decade from 1880 to 1890, from the specific standpoint
of plant quarantine, we are forced to the following conclusions:

A careful study of the legislation on insect pests during
this period shows it to have been the intention of successive
legislatures to give extensive quarantine powers. In every act
relating to the State Board of Horticulture, or the organization
and powers of county boards, quarantine 1s mentioned as among

their duties, but they fail to define in what manner it shall =

executed. In that of 1889 relating to county boards, it is made
the duty of the commissioners to report to the State Board
“what is being done as to quarantine against insect pests and
diseases,” but no mention of any power to quarantine is made
in the act.

In the Act of 1889 relating to the State Board of Horti-
culture, Section 6 provides for a quarantine officer “* * *
who shall have power to enforce all rules and regulations (made
by the Board) regarding the spread of insect pests, quarantining
districts and nurseries found to be infected,” but not a word as
to how quarantine is to he effected. In both of these acts there
1s only an inferential intention on the part of the legislature to
confer quarantine powers. They stopped short of a clear
declaration.

In Section 6 of the Act of 1883 creating the State Board
of Horticulture, we find these powers clearly and weil defined.
It was there made mandatory on the Board, on the report of
the State Inspector or other well attested facts, to declare infested

districts under quarantine and subject to the rules and regula-

tions of the Board in that behalf. But here again the act failed,
for in the powers enumerated to make rules and regulations for
various purposes, quarantine is carefuily omitted. Nowhere in all
the other acts on this subject is there a well digested plan of
quarantine, accompanied by specific authority to enforce it, ex-
cept in the Act of 1881, defining and enlarging the duties and
powers of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, under
which the State Board of Horticultural Commissioners was first

yorganized. Nor do we find in the annals, or know of from
experience, a specific instance in which a plant quarantine—in
a proper sense of the word—was issued, placed or enforced
during this period.
 
 
RETURN MARIAN KOSHLAND BIOSCIENCE AND
TO — NATURAL RESOURCE LIBRARY
2101 Valley Life Sciences Bldg. 642-2531

 

LOAN PERIOD

 

 

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS.

 

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW.

 

DUE

 

 

 

RECDPUBL MAR 1

 

 

 

WON

 

U. C. BERKELEY

 

REC'D BIOS

MR29 HH A244
MR 20 07 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORM NO. DD 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN
24M 4-00 Berkeley, Californic

f BERKELEY, CA

FORM NO. DDO, 50m, 1/82

 

 
wii

 

027398103