Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-12-11
Chas. M.
STIEFF,
43r East Broad Street.
RlCHMOND.V VA.


name thus to be assaied without q
chance to uncover the real asSaiant.
THE ALLEGED CRITICISMS.
1st. The statement is made that was
severely criticised In the recent meeting
of the State Horticultural Society for neg
ligence in not advising the fruit growers
as to the best means of fighting the San
Jose scale.
This is absolutely incorrect. as no criti-
cism of this tenor was made.
I'd. It is stated that declared I did not
have the means to bring this matter fully
before the fruit growers.
This statement is likewise Incorrect as
I have never made sucA statement at
any time or place. Per contra I stated
that I had published and distributed,
nearly 100000 separate pieces Of printed
matter dealing with this Subject, and had
put these publications IN the hands OF
TO have infested premises; and sent them
to all county clerks and supervisors
Further ! stated that I had written as
many as 5000 to 1000 official letters pei
year, giving information on this subject.
The above statements are in the manu-
script Of my address made at Lynch
burg, hence do not rest on assertion.
MONEY FOR THE WORK.
Sd. 1t is stated by your contributor that
ScelIpQ 10 Do Tic SclllliACAl VI tliS
society that the sum set aside for this
work was sufficient. etc.
The proof that this statement is In
correct, is shown by the fact that the
society appointed a strong committee. OF
which Judge J. D. Horsley. of Lynch
burg. is chairman. and instructed them
to do their best to secure an appropria-
ton adequate for this work. Not once
vas the statement made in the society
S>.s>&
cient.
The writer Of your article had only to
consult my reports on file in the Office o,
the Commissioner of Agriculture, to learn
that we had but 5000 with which TO pay
all expenses Of this work in 1901. and
explained at the meeting how that by
tcchnicaIity, this was cut down to $1,000
during the past year. 1t doesn't take a
very abs man to determine how far this
sum will go in conducting work OF
such magnitude.
4th The statement that one member ex-
pressed the opinion that we did not need
q new law but probably another entomo-
logist, certainly shows q bad personal
rlas. This statement absolutely was not
made in the discussion. However. this
opinion may be held by the writer Of
your article.
5tn. And now after the above incorrect
and absolutely Enthusiastically statements.
your contributor proceeds to give "Profes
sor AIwoods Defence" and says that he
stated that 1t appears that the pest go,
into the orchards on young trees pur
chased from the nurseries. and leaves the
reader to infer that withheld this infor-
nation in the interest of the nursery
men Verify this writer's defence is
worse than his attack! Babes and suck
ling write such stuff. but certainly not
grown men. The insinuation is so silly
that one can scarcely write a dignif1ed
denial. s.,
THE SAN JOSE SCALE
There is not fruit grower in Virginia.
but knows exactly the facts about the
distribution of the San Jose scale on
nursery stock. and I am the officer who
for the past seven years has given them
the information, In printed circulars. bull
letins, formal reports. letters. and ad-
dresses delivered all over the fruit-grow-
ing section.
Ask the nurserymen of Virginia wheth-
err have concealed the fact of their
dissemination Of San Jose scale. Ask
them if we have not enforced the law on
them Ask the nurserynen of other
States, whether this Office has been dere-
lct about enforcing the law in regard to
the entrance of diseased nursery stock
to this State.
The Commissioner OF Agriculture ought
to have referred your correspondent to
my last report as State Entomologist.
which contains the facts in regard to the
dissemination of this pest on nurser,
stock. Further. this Office has always
furnished to individuals when asked,
statement by letter as to whether any
certain nurserymen's premises were in.
Iected or not.
In conclusion. wish to say that the
news item appearing in your columns on
the 9Th instant, as special from Lynch
burg. fairly presents the facts In regard
to the criticisms and reply made in
the discussion at Lynchburg. Why. or
how ii is possible that this matter should
be again presented to you In such an in
accurate and misleading manner. am
at a less to surmise, other than on the
superstition that some one desires to vent
personal anmosity.
There is surely an honorable method
for any gentleman to pursue If he wishes
to charge me with either incompetence
or neglect Of duty. and will meet al.
such charges as purely professional and
not personal.
I court the fullest investigation OF my
administration Of the crop pest laws. Let
this person now come from under cover,
or meet the contempt Of which he Is
worthy.
WILLIAM 3. ATWOOD.
State EntonoIogist.
Blacksburg. Va, December 8, 1902.
A