The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1920-04-19
CEDAR RUST LAW
IS HERE EXPLAINED

Especial 70 The Richmond Nirginian.1
CIV. j. schoens. State Entomologist
1t appears that the so-called cedar
rust law base aroused considera bic
interest and discussion and. Judging
from the articles printed in several OF
the papers, its provisions are not
entirely understood.
1t should be borne in mind flrst
that while the cedar rust law was
ChampioiIed by the Virginia state
Horticultural society and placed on
the statute books by the influence
of fruit growers throughout the state
1t was written by people who resided
in Patrick county. II is very prob
able that those who wrote the law
had in mind the cedars within their
own county and thai the law was
drafted 20 meet those conditions, al
though IL was made sufficiently
broad to meet the conditions in any
fruit growi~s, county. The cedar cut
ting campaign had been in full
swing in Patrick county for several
years before the adoption Of the ce-
dar rust law and a large proportion
Of the cehars standing adjacent TO the
apple orvhard had been removed. In
drafting this measure the persons in
tereeSted had in mind primarily two
things: first, an arrangement where
by the lew remaining cedars could
be condemned and removed, and sec
ond. the machinery to provide for fe-
irhursing persons for any damage
sustained.
In writing the measure the fruit
growers fclt that the only fair means
of collecting the money for the pay
ment of damages would be by the
ne, g rHlo vi ~
since the cedar rust la wwas for the
special benefit of the fruit growers
this tax should not come out of the
pockets of the people as a whole. but
should he paid by the owners of or
chars The fruit men apparently
felt that the cost Of cutting all the
Cedars in the county would be very
much less than the damage sustain
ed in q single season.
This law is not effective in any
district Of the state until II il adcpt-
ed by the supervisors Of. the county
bv recorded vote and approved ny
the circuit Judge Experience has
proved that in no case has the law
been adopted until evidence has been
presented TO the supervisors that
very considerable per cent Of the
growers of the district demand its
adopt n and that the fruit men are
willing TO appear before the super
visors or TO petition the adoption or
the law. Also as a rule She super
opportunity of being heard and, II the
yisors have given the opponents an
opposition was too strong no action
was taken.
Second, there is no cost until po-
sition is presented TO the state ento-
moiogist sized by ten or more free
holders requesting the destruction
of the cedars on particular piece Of
land. Any cost that may arise In
cutting these ccdars, or DANA ges
that may be awarded by the judge
are paid out OF the general fund OF
the county to he later collected from
the growers in that magisterial dis
trict.
1t will seem then that first, the
fruit growers petition the supervisors
to adopt n law which involves the
taxing of their orchards, and second,
there must be at least ten growers
owning property within magig-
terial district to sign petition be
fore any cost will arise. The assess
mf~1t per aero will deuend nnun the
number OF acres In the district and
the number of dollars expended in
the cutting of cedars and the pay
ment of damages,