Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-06-09
A oARpMG CRITICS ERRORS.


The salt Lake Tribune does not take
kindly to the new State Board Of Hor-
tlculture. appointed by the Governor
under the law passed al the latest ses-
sion of the Legislature. There was
lapse OF few days between the date
when the statute went into force and
the filing Of the board by appointment
which occasloned much mock lamenta
ton on the part Of some one connected
with that paper The cause having
been removed, It might be expected that
those tears would cease to flow. But
new opportunity has been afforded and
the floodgates have been reopened.
The new board has issued rules
regulations, remedies and formulas In
accordance with the law. for the benefit
Of "all fruitgrowers, fruitdealers nurs-
erymen and importers" OF trees,
shrubs and vines, and also owners or
oceupiers Of ANY orchard or land where
trees are grown within the State The
Deseret News published the document
as signed by the President and Secret
tary Of the board. The Tribune followed
with mutlated copy, and proceeded
10 lament over the pretense that the
rules win be Of little service TO proc-
teal frultgrowers and may lead many
persons to absolute failure In spray
ing"
well what is the matter? Why Il
Is complained that "the recommended
ton that Paris green be substituted
for white arsenic in spraying for the
cooling moth Is a step backward But
the criticism Is based on the omission
by the Tribune Of the annexed para
graph from the report.
Formula No White Arsenlc--B
four ounces Of white arsenic twenty |
minutes In two quarts Of water made |
thick as whltewash with lime. stir oc- |
caslonally and add water 20 compensate |
for what boiis away Add this solu-
ton to nifty gallons Of water, IN which |
has been dissolved ten pounds Of fresh |
lime"
The recommendation about Paris |
green Is made secondary to that about
white arsenic, and It's use is not APP
proved even then unless its purity Is
reasonably sure" and in the strength |
usually recommended. How does It look
TO the careful reader 10 see rule
placed first In the list by the board |
left out entirely by the Tribune, and |
then an editorial criticism passed |
upon the board which would |
be lnapplcable II the rule had been |
given by the paper that left 1t out?
Was It omitted so that grumble could |
be made with some show Of reason? Or |
has not our contemporary permitted |
itself TO be mlsled by some disgruntled
Or displaced functIonary2
We are informed that the board rec
commended Paris green, under the con-
dltlons named, for the benefit Of fruit
growers on small scale who find II |
impractcable to handle and boil dan
gerous poison on their premises" and
thus no backward" step is intended,
their only purpose being to simplify |
spraying as much as possible, 80 that
there should be no excuse for not
spraying charged 10 the difficulties in
making the preparations They claim
that 1.-THE use OF Paris green for the
purpose named is recommended by ento-
mologlsts of our own experiment sta
ton and Of other stations throughout
the United states"
There are other complaints in
the article so puerle that they
need no reply; one Of them Is that
the new PRONUNCIATION consists largely |
Of formulas and rules heretofore is
sued" Well is not that rather COM
pllment than otherwise TO previous
promulgations?" And was II to be ex-
pected that the new board would ignore |
good rules heretofore issued? Did any |
sane person look Tor the abolition OF |
good practical rules existing, because a
new board was organized?
One more lamentatlon We will notice
and quit that is, It is stated that the
new announcement has been delayed
Has H. really? Let US see The new
members were appointed May 26; they
met and organized June /. they issued
the Instructions in question June 2
Need anything more be said in their
vlndication?