Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-05
HORTICULTURAL LITIGATION.

lug information In regard to litigation con-
nected with the horticultural interests:
Rsporter-Mr. Cooke. have you any OBJ.
| i.ction 70 informing the public as to the sta
tus of the litigation in the case of the People
va. A. Lusk & Co. of San Francisco?
Answer-Not in the least.
Rsp.-On what charges were A. Lusk & Co.
arrested?
A.-For violation of the quarantine rules
and regulations for the protection of horti-
culture of the Board of State Viticultural
| Commissioners.
Rep.-Whereiu did A. Lusk & Co. violate
| the law?
A.-By RETURNING LOT of boxes to J.'Bass-
ford, ST., of Vacaville, without being sdisin-
fected as required by quarantine rules.
Rsp.-In what court was this case brought !?
| A.-The Police Court of San Francisco,
presided over by Judge Rix.
Rep.-Whst action was taken there?
A.-PreYious to the case being brought
into Court, Messrs. Lusl, l. Co.'s counsel
agreed with Judge Dwinelle. counsel for the
| people, that this case should be made test
case of the constitutionslity of the law by
carrying it to the Supreme Court. How.
ever, the evening previous to the case coming
before the Court, the counsel of Lusk g. Co.
| WlbEGrcH from 6uch agreement.
Rep.-Did the case come before the Court ?
A.-Yes, sir. The counsel of Lusls & Co.
| filed demurrer, which was argued before the
! Court.
Rep.-On what grounds did hs argue the
| demurrer?
| Ale quoted several authorities, but the
| principal argument was that the Legislature
had exceeded its authority in granting an in
| dividual, the Chief Horticultural Officer, ex.
| traordinsry powers.
Rep-What were the arguments in cppo-
sition to the demurrer?
| A,-The people were represented by Judge
| Dwinelle and w. J. Tucker, who argued that
| the Legislature had not granted extraordinary
! powers TO the Chief horticultural Officer ;
| that the power was granted to the State
| Board of horticultural Commissioners, which
vas appointed by the Governor OF the State.
Rsp.-What was the decision given?
A.-The case was taken uEd3r advisement
| for one week, and, az near as l can reccllect,
| the decision was: :" [ nsvsr heard of such a
| law. and therefore | will sustain the demur.
rer," or words to that effect.
Rep.-Has thsre been any further action
| taken in the ease?
A.-Yes, sir. The case has bsen appealed
| to the Superior Court.
| Rep.-At what time do you expect a d..
cision?
Al cannot say.
Rep.-Did you expect SUCH a decision from
he Police Court?
Al cannot say that I WAS unpreparei
for such decision, az was informed that
| Mr.. Lusk stated on the Monday previous to
the decision being given that he would gain
the day. However, must say that the
opinion OF eminent members of the bar led me
TO believe the decision would have been in
support of the law.
Rsp.-What effect had TIE decision on the
work for the protection OF horticulture?
A.-S2n Francisco being the place where
the work could be done to the best advan-
tage, and the Police Court having Jurisdiction
of such case', the work had to be Suspended
until a decision of higher Court was deter.
miued on the merits of 3 case twice.
Rsp.-Whst amount of injury do you con-
slider such interference has been to the fruit
! interests?
At has virtually delayed the werk of
successfully destroying insect pests of the or.
chard one year in many localities.
Rep.-What object was wished to be OBJ
tanned in opposing the working of the law?
Al cannot answer this question more ap-
propriately tnsn repeating statement made
by Judge Dwinelle 10 the San Francisco Pc.
lice Court: "Ths only object he could see in
opposing this law was that there was more
profit selling and buying wormy scily, ETC..
fruit than by having to trade in clean fruit"
Rep.-Is there any market or especial line
of business where fruit infested by worms or
scale insects can be sold!
An answering this question without
explanation, might do an injustice TO par
ties having a large amount Of capital invested
| in business connected with horticulture
However, | wish to say that | have seen re-
| turns from San Francisco in 1881, allowing
ten cents per box for Bartlett pears, while
choice pears of that variety were selling from
Sl.50 to 81 per box. So that at least, I
know Of one firm in San Francisco that have
disposed of such fruit.
Rep.-Speaking of Bartlett pears, what
advantage do you consider is gained by pro-
ducing clean fruit?
A fruit-groEer having an early crop of
Bartlett pears for sale that are free from the
attack of codiing moths has the advantage of
q variety of markets-frst, the Eastern ship.
pers second, home product consumption,
and third, the packers.
Rsp.-1hen you claim that the fruit
grower gains an advantage in the disposal Of
the fruit from having it clean?
Al claim that the fruiS.grower has a
choice of markets and has something to say
about the price. For instance, if the fruit is
wormy, the shipper does not want it, neither
Is it sought for fer family use therefore.
there Is at least one place to sell infested
fruit, where it is taken at price generally
DclbW bldb u CIedu
Rep.-Haye A. Lusk d Co. at any time
previous to their arrest for violating the law
conversed with you on the subject?
Al have conversed with Mr.. Iusk only.
Rep.-What grounds did he take in oppos-
ing the law?
A-That the Law was unconstitutional, &C.
cordiag to the decision of the Supreme Court
on the cubic air ordinance.
Rep.-Did Mr.. Lusk, in showing opposi-
ton to the law, do it openly,
Ale may have done some of it 10 an
open, straightforward manner, but | regret
to say that, like many other men who are
only endowed with limited reasoning power,
he used some personalities, 30 far as 1 was
individually concerned. For instance, Mr..
Lusk would meet fruit-grower, and, talking
over the subject, he would say, "This will
cost you go coo. and Cooke will get the half
4 OF 1t. The whole thing is scheme to make
money" However. he has not, SO far as /
have heard, dared to sign his name to any
paper where such an assertion was made.
Rep noticed an item in a San Fran.
cisco dealers paper, stating that the wholesale
fruit dealers of that city have subscribed a
purse to pay Mr.. Lusks expenses in defend.
ing the suit. Were the dealers combined in
opposition TO the law, as represented in the
; item referred to?
A.-As to who the wholesale fruit dealers
referred to are, the statement is not clear,
as the fruit sent to San Francisco is gener.
ally handled by commission merchants. And
, In justice to them, at least to the leading
firms in the business, think the item re.
, ferred to was an imposition on the reporter
Rep.-Were the fruit-growers generally
opposed to the enforcement of the law?
AIR. Bassferd has stated that he wished
the boxes disinfeoted, and did not wish me tc
think that he was opposed TO the Law.
may state that the enterprisipg fruit growers
of the State are unanimous in support of tbs
law, and insist upon its enforcement.
Rep.-Do you intend to enforce the law
, immediately
Ayes, sir. As soon IS any person car
be found violating the quarantine rules.
Rep May l ask you who are the counsel
, that will represent the people in any cases
, that may arise in the higher Courts?
A.-Judge Dwinelle, J. I. Doyle and w
j. Tucker, all of San Francisco, and the
Attorney-Gsneral
Rep,-From what source do You expect
danger in the fall season;
A.-Erom import of trees and fruit
J into the State. There is great danger of i'm.
porting the PLAN curculio, which is an evil
not known in this State at present, and is
not sought after by orchardists; also, spe.
cies of scale on imported oranges and lemons.
Rep.-Msy l ask you where the funds
come from to pay special counsel, etc.
A.-Certainiy. The funds are furnished
by the enterprising fruit-growers.
Rep.-Can you estimate what effect the
work done has produced in improvement Of
orchard property
Alt would be difficult at the present
, time, without statistics, to state with GER
taiuty. But in individual cases, at least
equal TO 100 per cent. on amount expended.
ReD-Had yof1 sny difHcultv with tb,