to all persons who have suffered. The law calls for registration with the commissioner of agriculture previous to selling fertilizers in the state, and precludes the admixing of leather, either raw or treated, unless this is specified at the time of registration. The administration of the law remains with the commissioner of agriculture, who is empowered to appoint three inspectors to collect samples to be analyzed by the Experiment Station at a fixed fee of $5 a sample, and any purchaser not a dealer may also send in samples for free analysis. The commissioner is directed to collect and publish statistics as to prices of staple fertilizer materials at home and abroad. The inspection tax remains as before, 50 cents a ton, and the penalty for violating the law is fixed at from $50 to $500.

A new law in Vermont ['02 ch.83] generally amends S. '94, §4346-59. The principal change relates to the license fee of $100 for each manufacturer, which formerly covered all the brands the manufacturer might place on the market, but is now limited to five brands, an additional fee of $20 a brand being provided for all in excess of five, except that for a brand containing only two ingredients the fee shall be $15. There are slight changes in the prescription regarding the sample, handling the funds, method of procedure in case the goods are found below the guaranty, and in other minor matters relating to administrating the law, which remains with the director of the Experiment Station.

The general tendency of recent fertilizer legislation has been to extend the scope of the inspection to include cheap fertilizing materials, in many cases down to $5 a ton, and all sorts of unmixed materials, chemicals etc. used as fertilizers. A number of the states require the percentage of chlorin to be guaranteed and a statement made regarding the source of the ingredients comprising the fertilizer; the admixture of leather, wool, horn, hair and similar inert nitrogenous material is quite generally prohibited unless the presence of these is expressly specified in the label. These measures for safeguarding the interests of the buyer impose no special burden on the manufacturer of honest goods, who has been relieved of several less reasonable and more annoying requirements.

HORTICULTURE: DISEASES AND PESTS

E. P. FELT D. SC. NEW YORK STATE ENTOMOLOGIST

The general horticultural law has been amended by a few states in the interest of efficiency. California ['03 ch.379] has placed its extensive inspection and quarantine work in charge of a commissioner of horticulture, who cooperates with county boards. Utah's amended law ['03 ch.104] enlarges the State Board of Horticulture and charges it with the general supervision of the horticultural interests. Outbreaks in any county are controlled by a county board of horticulture appointed on petition by the county commissioners. These boards report to the state board, which in turn reports semiannually to the secretary of state. New Mexico ['03 ch.107] has enacted a general law providing county boards of horticulture appointed by county commissioners, the boards to report to the commissioners each year, who in turn incorporate such parts as may be of general interest in their reports to the governor. California ['03 ch.251] compels labeling all fruit packages with the county and immediate locality where such is grown, and a similar act in Florida ['03 ch.128] provides a penalty for incorrect labeling of trees, plants, seeds etc. sold in the state. Allowing Johnson grass to grow is a misdemeanor in California, and New York classes little peach as a dangerous fungus disease.

Insects. Extended and serious injuries by the cotton boll weevil in Texas led to recommendations by the governor, and the . enactment ['03 ch.53] of a law offering $50,000 to any one who would discover and furnish a practical remedy to exterminate the pest. Conditions of the award are such that it is almost impossible for any individual to claim it, and we believe that more could have been accomplished by offering a number of smaller prizes for successful methods of controlling or circumventing the pest. Minnesota ['03 ch.47] provides for plowing lands badly infested with grasshopper eggs, the owner to be liable for the expense provided the work be of value in raising crops; otherwise it is a county charge. The invasion of large swarms of grasshoppers in several counties in California caused the governor to recommend more extended powers for the Board of Horticulture, and the county commissioners are authorized ['03 ch.11] to offer

rewards for destroying the insects, the county to pay one third and the state two thirds.

Nursery inspection. Nursery inspection laws have been enacted by several states and in others amended to increase their efficiency. California provides ['03 ch.30] that trees must be subject to disinfection at the expense of the owner, when there is reasonable cause to presume that they may be infested. Connecticut ['03 ch. 88] and West Virginia require a certificate of fumigation as well as of inspection for all stock shipped into the state. The state entomologist of the former is given power to enter any premises, and if infectious diseases or insect pests are a menace to adjoining owners, he may treat or destroy in his discretion. Michigan ['03 ch.206] provides for destroying scale infested trees by fire and specifies method of fumigation. Montana ['03 ch.109] prohibits the use of fruit packages a second time and authorizes members of the State Board of Horticulture to seize and destroy them by burning. The New Jersey law requires fumigation of all nursery stock except where the owner holds a certificate of freedom from injurious insects. The amended Virginia law ['03 ch. 207] delegates police powers to crop commissioners, and West Virginia ['03 ch.49] does away with inspection fees and makes fumigation compulsory.

Résumé. The attempts by Texas to check the depredations of the cotton boll weevil are novel, and it is doubtful if this is the best method of attaining the desired results. The county organization is usually favored in the Western states, probably because of their large areas. States having no inspection laws have been almost obliged to enact them in order to facilitate the sale of nursery stock, since inspection certificates of freedom from dangerous insects and plant diseases are required by a great many states. A few insist on fumigation in addition, and this process seems to be gaining in favor. Nursery inspection work is usually delegated to a station or college official who is required to perform the extra duties without additional compensation, as a rule, though he may receive the title of state inspector, or more frequently, state entomologist. There is a decided trend in all states toward delegating sufficient power for adequately controlling serious plant diseases and dangerous insect pests.

DOMESTIC ANIMALS1

E. V. WILCOX PH.D. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS

During the past year laws were enacted in 28 states relating to domestic animals. Some of these were new legislation, while most were in the nature of amendments to existing legislation. The subjects covered by laws relating to domestic animals included establishing state boards of stock inspection commissioners, defining duties of such commissioners, running at large, impounding, fences for restraining animals, estrays, damage and trespass by estrays, ownership and sale of animals, brands, driving stock on the range, preventing injury to domestic animals, watering stock, and regulating dogs.

In Colorado ['03 ch.170] the State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners was established, consisting of five cattle raisers, three sheep raisers and one horse raiser. This board was empowered to make regulations for inspecting brands and live stock, and establishing quarantine and sanitary conditions. The board has authority to appoint brand and sanitary inspectors and also a state veterinary surgeon whose duties shall be to investigate cases of infectious diseases among animals throughout the state. The law establishing the board also provides for imposing an inspection fee for animals inspected by the board and its officers. A chief inspector is also to be appointed by the board. The board may condemn diseased animals and cause them to be killed without the payment of indemnity. The law establishing the board makes it unlawful to ship cattle, horses or mules on railroads or to drive them beyond the boundaries of the state without proper inspection. A method of procedure is established regarding the inspection of brands and disposition of estrays.

The Montana Legislature ['03 ch.50] authorized the Board of Stock Commissioners to audit accounts and to pay money from gifts made to it for defraying extra expenses. The board is also See also review of Contagious Diseases of Animals.

required to present annually a list of all stray cattle and horses sold within the state or in outside markets and to levy a tax on domestic animals for raising a fund to be known as the "stock inspection and detective fund."

Considerable legislative attention was given to controlling animals running at large. In Georgia ['03 p.97] all persons were prohibited from allowing hogs to run at large beyond the limits of the owner's premises in counties which had not adopted the "stock law." Provision is also made for holding elections by legal voters to determine whether or not animals shall be allowed to run at large within specified limits. In Montana ['03 ch.103] it was declared unlawful for any person to drive domestic animals over any field or ranch property under valid title, whether fenced or not, provided proper monuments have been established to mark the boundaries of such property. This regulation, however, does not apply to range animals when not in charge of a herder. In Missouri ['03 p.57] a law was passed making it unlawful for nonresidents or residents to drive cattle, mules, horses or sheep into the state from other states or territories for the purpose of grazing on range land. In Nevada ['03 ch.28] a law was enacted making it unlawful for sheep owners to allow sheep to be herded or grazed on lands belonging to other persons. The act, however, does not prevent sheep from being driven along public highways and does not provide punishment for allowing sheep to graze on the public domain within 1 mile of the owner's property.

In Oklahoma ['03 ch.1 art.1] a general herd law was passed regulating the management and driving of animals within the territory. It was provided that animals should be restrained from running at large at all seasons except in counties in which the voters vote at a regular election to allow animals the freedom of the range under specified conditions. Except under such conditions the owner of stock running at large becomes liable for all damage committed by such stock. The provisions of this act do not apply to the free range portion of the territory lying west of the 100th meridian.