The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1906-10-15
Horticultural Inspector and the Law
paul G. Kruger)

the democratic county conventions, as
we'll as the state convention, have
plank in their platform, which is OF
great importance to the fruit industry
and horticulture of the entire state.
The advocacy of the election of the
horticultural inspectors by the differ
ent counties throughout the state is a.
step in the right direction. Had l the
planning of the plank on this partic-
ular subject it would have been abso-
lutely non-partisan. Take the hortl-
cultural inspectors office out OF poll
tics in it's entirety.
| realize the fact that some objec-
tons will be raised to this article, and
no doubt by some who are absolutely
honest, while others raise an obJec-
ton only on the grounds of selfishness
and politics. In making the office OF
horticultural inspector an elective Of
fee we place the matter into the
hands of the people, who are the
only ones that shall say who shall
be the horticultural inspector and the
question should not be asked wheth-
er he is a democrat or a republican,
but is he competent man to I'LL the
office? The law as it stands at the
present time gives the horticultural
union too much power and disregards
the will of the people. In the spring
of 1905 the county of Yakima appoint
ed an inspector, or rather the commits
sioners did, This inspector was rec
commended by the horticultural union.
The sad thing of this matter was the
fact that no one was allowed voice
in this meeting, except those who
owned stock in the union. And the
result was that the orchardist who did
not own stock in the union was barred
from having voice in naming the
candidate for this office. 1t cost just
ten dollars for vote.
Thus about one hundred men die
tated to the people of Yakima county,
saying to them by their action: You
can and must accept whom we say"
I claim that no horticultural union
that is organized for the purpose of
doing a commission business has
right as a corporation to dictate in
political matters as to who shall or
shall not be the horticultural inSpec-
tor of county, especially, as in Yaki-
ma county'S case, when the inspector
at the time of his appointment was
secretary of the corporation and held
the said Office for period OF two
months after his appointment, and is
now a stakeholder in this corporation.
The danger becomes apparent in that
no person who is interested in bust:
ness will not do anything that will
in any way conflict with his own in
terest Thus the horticultural in
|
brought to the union, that may be al
fected. 1t is not his interest to do
So for if he did do SO his dividend
would be cut down.
But l do not want it to be under
stood that | am in favor of not allow
| ing the orchardist who has stock in
| this corporation to vote for the horti-
cultural inspector. Far be it from me,
but | want them to vote as individuals
and not as a corporation, and these
same rights should be accorded to
every other fruit grower in the cOun-
| ty, no matter if he only has two trees
on his lot. / do not believe that the
| intent of the law as it now stands
ever was to put the power in the
| hands of a corporation, no matter
under what name it sails. The intent
of the law, l believe if interpreted
| right, means every fruit grower shall
have a voice as to this office. l ad-
nit that it says horticulture societies
shall recommend competent person
for the office and the commissioners
of the county shall appoint such a
one. But the law does not say that
| it should cost the orchardist ten dol
lars to become a member of such So
ciety. This, however, being the case,
it is our duty to remedy this evil and
the sooner it is done the better for
all concerned.
The Yakima valley, as well as the