Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1910-05-30
THE VERY IMPORTANT ORANGE
CASE.

CASE.
The letter from the. orange growers
of the valley to The Republican,
printed yesterday, states an important
case in a nutshell. and squarely hits
the nail on the head. The law for the
protection of fruit trees from insect
pests is a good law. and all good
citizens are in favor of its enforce
ment. But, as the letter from the
citrus men points out. they desire
the impartial administration of the
law according to its true intent and
purpose" and the action of the terri
torial entomologist in forcibly invad-
ing the premises of a citizen and
there destroying several thousand
dollars worth of orange trees was "a
high-handed proceeding" and AN out
rage" This, we think, is the verdict
OF practically the entire community
The law will be searched in vain,
We believe, for any authority to de-
stroy growing trees The California
courts, interpreting the horticultural
law of that state, have held that the
state officers have the right to de-
stroy pests, but no right to destroy
growing trees. -
This seems to be clearly the only
right conferred by the Arizona law
1t is true that section Is reads:
when any shipment of trees.
shrubs. plants, vines, cuttings, CRAFTS.
buds, fruit trees, or fruits, imported
or brought into this territory, is found
infested with any species of injurious
insects, or their eggs, larvae, Oh pu-
pae, such infested shipment shall be
Immediately sent out of the territory,
or destroyed, at the option of the
owner. owners. or agent, and at his or
their expense"
But nobody needs to go to a lawyer
to find oct what the word shipment
means The shipment of trees in
question ceased to be a shipment
after the trees were taken from the
cars and planted. A shipment of
goods is an unbroken quantity, de-
livered for transit, or in transit, or
received. These trees were a ship
ment, until the lot was broken up and
distributed in the ground. After the
trees were taken away from the rail-
read and planted and were growing.
they were no longer a shipment" in
any sense. and certainly not in the
sense of the language of the law we
have quoted.
How, then, was the territorial Off
Ger to deal with the trees (assuming
them to be infested) after they be-
came part of the owners growing lot
of trees? Section clearly prescribes
the procedure. After setting forth
the duties of the enromologist and
the quarantine inspectors. it says:
ANY and all such places, as nurser-
les, or trees plants, shrubs, vines, or
articles thus infested are hereby ad-
judged and declared TO be public
nuisance; and whenever such nui.
sance shall exist at any place within
their jurisdiction, or on the property
of any nonresident, or any property.
the owner or owners of which cannot
abe found by the entomoIosist or dis
trict inspector after diligent search
within the district, or on the property
OF any owner or owners upon whom
notice aforesaid has been served, and
who shall refuse or neglect to abate
the same within the time specified.
IT shall be the duty of the district in
spector to cause such nuisance to be
at once abated by graduating or de-
stroyins said insects or other pests |
or their eggs or larvae. The expense
thereof shall be charged against the
territory" etc.
The act goes on to provide that this |
expense shall be an ultimate charge |
against the property OF the owner, |
and prescribes the manner of collec-
ton.
1t would require a gifted magma
ton, it seems to The Republican. to |