The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1906-02-01

from the instruction OF the growers
in better methods of work that we get
our greatest good, as above shown,
this should be insisted upon and car
ried out with greater efficiency. The
greatest trouble with the lawbreakers
comes from the ignorance of the peo-
pie. Some are willful and will not
do what they know they ought to do.
These should be admonished and in
structed and if they persist, then, let
them suffer the penalty of the law
without mercy.
But now we come to the purpose OF
the law. Is it to make man raise
better fruit? No, provided no one
suffers but himself. Just as well try
to compel a man to raise better horses,
cattle, sheep, hogs and even children
This is outside of the realm of the
law. A man should be allowed to do
as he pleases with his own, provided
always he does not injure the well
being of Others A man should not
be molested in raising Canada thist-
les or skunks on his farm, provided
he can devise some way to keep MS
thistles from spreading to the injury
of his neighbors, and also provided
his polecats and their perfumery do
not menace the happiness of those adj
Joining him. If a man could keep his
insects, fungi and bacteria at home
he might do so without any molesta-
tion from the law. But this we all
know he cannot do. Nothing is more
clearly settled in law than that a
man shall not bring injury to others,
if he can prevent it, and to the extent
that he can prevent it, he is respons-
ible.
Here then is where we draw the
line between the wise and the unw1Se
law: We can pass laws to prevent one
man from injuring another, and be-
yond that point we cannot go. Further
more. if we go beyond that point the
law is unwise. The same light applies
to the enforcement of good law. Let
the law be enforced to prevent the
spread of injurious insects, fungl ana
bacteria. This is within the purpose
of the law, or ought to be, and as
fruit growers we should zealously up
hold both the law and those who are
intrusted with its enforcement. But is
this always done? The writer believes
that it is not. A fruit inspector once
boasted to me that he was keeping
fruit out from other states and there
by giving the market to Washington
growers. Is that the purpose OF the
law? No! If fruit from other states
would spread insects or diseases
among our orchards, let it be con-
demned. But the same thing should
be done with the fruit grown within
our own state.
To discriminate against one section
and in favor of another is clearly TO
go beyond the purpose OF the law. IL
has been claimed that rigid enforce
ment of the law as applied to nursery
stock shipped into this state would
tend to build up home Industry. IL
this follows as the result of an I'M
partial enforcement of the law and
the home nurseryman is benefited
thereby, we'll and good, for he is just
ly entitled to the benefit of keeping his
stock clean. But the same advantage
belongs to the man who lives beyond
our borders. 1t may be claimed that
this kind of discrimination is never
practiced 1 should be only too glad
to be convinced that this is so, but l
am somewhat in the predicament of
the man from Missouri Il want to be
showed" l do know that some fruit
was once shipped to one of our cities
and condemned because there was now
and then an apple with worm hole
in it and perhaps a very few living
worms. Correspondence ensued and
finally the inspector wrote the shipper
that he had "misconstrued" him Il
use his own word) with another man
and then added in substance that had
he known who the shipper was and
his standing as a grower he would
not have condemned the fruit. Such
a man would be ripe for just such
discrimination as is here referred to.