Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1910-05-30
read into this language any authority
to destroy the trees.

4
to destroy the trees.
But granting, for the moment, that
the officer thought he had authority
to destroy trees, the facts of this
case, as brought to public attention
| would seem to convict him OF re-
grettable lack Of judgment. 1t is
conceded by all parties to the con-
| troversy, we believe, that these trees,
when received from Florida, were in
tested with the meaTy- bug The
shipments were examined and the bugs
found. Under the provisions of Sec
ton, 10, already quoted, it was the
| duty of the territorial horticultural
commission to Immediately send the
| trees out OF the territory or destroy
| them. The law gave the commission
no discretion in the matter But it
| seems that after a lot of negotiation,
and backing and filling. 1t was finally
agreed that three cars Of infested
trees should be reces red. cleansed OF
! the insect pests. and planted. AS TO
fourth car, the facts appear to be
in dispute, but the owner took them
and planted them. But, following the
former instructions of the entomolo-
gist as to other trees. he cut away
and destroyed the tops, leaving but a
few inches of the trunk Of each tree,
and this living remnant of each tree
was carefully treated to destroy the
insects, and the trees were planted
and growing finely when destroyed
The owner claims that they were alb
solutely free Of mealy bugs.
But, conceding that there were
were bugs upon them, what was the
duty of the entomologist? Under the
provisions of Section o. 1t was his
duty to destroy the pests, not the
trees.
The destruction of mealy bugs is
not a difficult process. The standard
authorities say that a dilute kerosene
soap emulsion is efficacious. AT any
rate, if the owner in this instance
was mistaken. and if he had failed to
destroy all the mealy bugs, IT was the
duty of the entomologist to go ahead
and complete the job of killing the
bugs. Incidentally, some of the best
authorities locally claim that the
mealy bug cannot live in our summer
climate: but this is beside the point
The law prescribes and says they
must be destroyed. But the law does
not say that the trees must, or even
may. be destroyed
We repeat, therefore, that we agree
with the citrus growers in their letter
to US that the action of the entomolo-
gist in this case was high handed"
and IAN outrage" and. we have to
add, that in our opinion the entomoIo-
gist failed to exercise ordinary COM
mon sense. Even granting that he
had a right TO destroy the trees, that
was a matter for consideration after
he had failed to destroy the pests on
the growing trees-if there were any.
And he made no effort in that direc-
ton, if the reports are true
The citrus industry In this valley
is destined to be such an important
factor in the future prosperity of the
community that it is highly impor-
tant that the law dealing with insect
pests be clearly understood and i'm
partially administered It is exceed
ingly important that all dangerous In
sects be kept out of the Salt River |
valley. and to accomplish this end the |
law must have the respect of all citi- |
zens and be obeyed In good faith by |
all. The whole machinery for the |
laws enforcement breaks down IL the |
very officers OF the territory whose |
duty it is to enforce the law are
themselves guilty OF violating the !
law.
II the precedent set the other day |
is to be permitted to stand, no orange |
grower can feel free from apprehen-
sion that posse of. men. headed by
OF the horticultural |
may forcibly invade his
premises and, under pretext that his |
orange trees are infested with insect |
pests, destroy his property and re-
duce him, to poverty