The record-union., 1896-01-10
STEPHENSON STILL BUG INSPECTOR.
The Effort to Gust Him Results in
Failure.
Three of the Supervisors Hold That
the Charges Against Him Were
Not Proved.


(fruit pest inspector) J. N. Stephenson,
and asking that the Office be declared
vacant.
There was quite large delegation Of
fTuit-growers present from various
parts of the county, few, however, in
comparison with the numbers that had
petftioned the board for and against
the removal of Mr. Stephenson from
Office. The former were represented by
Lawyer Alvin J. Bruner, and Mr.. Ste
phenson by f. S. Sprague as his coun-
sell
For the petitioners who asked that
the Office be declared vacant the wit
nesses examined were o. O. Goodrich,
W. T. Spillman, Anton Koch, Charles
Crundona, Thomas O'Brien, Thomas
Oaks, Mrs. s. E. Moore and J. P. Cd
bert.
Against the granting of the petition
testimony was given by A. D. Murphy
+. w. Lewis, T. w. Johnson, E. A. Gam
mon, Thomas Bullard, H. A. Gear and
NJ. A. Winans
Three petitions were presented in fa-
vor of the retention of Mr.. Stephenson
in Office. One contained 116 signatures
Of fruit growers, another 81, and the
third was signed by 19 persons who
had signed the petition for Mr.. Ste
phenson's removal. These signers stated
that they had no personal knowledge
of the Commissioner having neglected
his duties, and were satisfied that he
could have done nothing to improve
the condition of their orchards.
D. T. Lufkin, one of the original sign
ers of the petition for Stephenson's ap-
pointment, testified that he did no.
know of Mr.. Stephenson ha<lng done
anything in the way of inspecting or
chards. He had no knowledge of his
ability as Horticultural Inspector. He
had never heard of his going about and
compelling orchardists to keep their
orchards clean.
Within the past year witness had
discovered new pests, but Mr.. Stephen
son had never called on him to learn
the condition of things. He had talked
with Mr.. Stephenson, and had come to
the conclusion that the Commissioner
did not like bugs.
Mr.. Bruner, representing the petit
tioners for Mr.. Stephenson's removal,
argued that it had been shown that
MIR. Stephenson had not in single in
stance made a suggestion to fruit
growers as to the manner of dealing
said, that Mr.. Stephenson had been a
travelling agent for certain nursery
while drawing salary from the county
as Horticultural Commissioner.
Mr.. Bruner said that so far as he
knew Mr.. Stephenson is an excellent
young man, and well connected, but
contended that he went into Office
knowing nothing of dealing with fruit
bad Loo Y,rokAd rOfbipc ciO0a
In his argument against the petition
for Mr.. Stephenson's removal Mr..
Sprague said there was but one thing
for the board to consider, and that
was, had he neglected his duties as
Horticultural Commissioner? Mr.. Ste
phenson had been dragged before the
board on unsworn charges made by
certain persons who alleged that he had
not visited their orchards nor assisted
in the destruction of fruit pests.
But two men had appeared, said Mr..
Sprague, who could say that Mr. Ste
phenson had not visited their orchards
Outside of this there had been nothing
introduced to show that the Commits
sicner had neglected his duties. If any
one whose orchards required atten-
tion had dropped a note into the Post
office it would have secured. his imme-
diate attention. Every month he had
filed with the Supervisors reports of
his operations, and these show that he
had not neglected his duties 1t had
not been shown that an orchard or a
tree that could have been relieved of
pests by anyone had been neglected.
On the other hand, there was the tes-
timony of several fruit-growers to show
that Mr.. Stephenson did visit and in
spect their orchards.
Mr.. Bruner again reviewed the sub
ject and commented on the fact that
Mr.. Stephenson had not himself gone
upon the stand and testified to what he
did and did not do. Counsel regretted
that he had not done so, as he desired to
ask him some rather pointed questions
Mr.. Sprague-Perhaps you know
more about bugs than the Commits
siOner does.
Mr.. Bruner-I have not the slightest
doubt of it. From what can learn of
Mr.. Stephenson's knowledge of fruit
pests, I am convinced that such is the
fact.
Mr.. Bruner then read the law pre-
scribing the duties of horticultural
Commissioner, and showed that that
officer is required to notify orchardists
when their trees are affected, that they
must take steps to have the pests re-
moved. He contended that the Inspector
should be a man with sufficient back
bone TO compel orchardists to cleanse
their trees and not subject their neigh
bors to injury. It could not be shown
that Mr. Stephenson had ever, as the
law requires, served a notice on a
fruit-groWer to abate a nuisance in his
orchard.
In conclusion, Mr.. Bruner said that as
the Office had been administered it was
a farce; and the $500 a year paid as
salary is wasted.
At the conclusion of the arguments
Supervisor Curtis said his district is
one of fruit growers. In his opinion the
Office of Horticultural Commissioner
should not be filed for more than three
or four months in the year. Mr.. Ste
phenson had, so far as he could learn,
accomplished little or nothing, and he
(Curtis) considered it his duty to his
constituents TO move that the Office be
declared vacant
Supervisor jenkins moved as a sub
stitute that the matter be taken under
advisement, and the substitute was
accepted by Mr.. Curtis.
Chairman Morrison thought the
members of the board were as well nre-
pared now as at any time to act on the
petition. For his part. he had talked
with many fruit-growers, and from
what ne mad been able to learn he could
A Pure a