If I am not mistaken Chapter 798 of the laws of 1911 is a new law under which the Department has not previously worked and which states specifically that "no person shall knowingly or willfully keep any plants or vines affected or infected with—or other insect pest or fungous disease dangerously injurious to or destructive of the trees, shrubs or other plants; every such tree, shrub, plant or vine shall be a public nuisance, etc." It also states that if the Commissioner of Agriculture is notified of the presence of any such pests he shall take such action as the law provides, and the law provides for the destruction or treatment of diseased trees.
This law appears to be not confined in its application to nursery stock, and in this view I am supported by such men as Dr. E. P. Felt, State Entomologist, and Forester Merkel of the New York Zoological Park. It appears that the Commissioner of Agriculture not only has the right but it is his duty to take action under this law when his attention is called to a matter such as the one in question.
The methods of procedure under this law seem to be sufficiently clear. Wherever infected trees are known to exist the Commissioner is directed to order the owners thereof to destroy them. Failure to obey these orders constitutes a misdemeanor and the Commissioner may have his orders carried out by his own agents.
I am glad that you fully appreciate the serious nature of this pest which threatens great destruction of one of our most valuable timber and nut trees and I hope that no obstacle will be allowed to stand in the way of the enforcement of the full intent of the law.
This Association will aid such work in any way in its power.
I would like to call to your attention a report in the Yearbook of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for 1903, page 317, of the successful treatment of an outbreak of this pest at Detroit, Michigan. Also to an address to be published in the transactions of this Association, a copy of which I will send you, by Prof. Herrick in which he recounts the successful treatment of another outbreak.
April 3, 1912.
W. C. Deming, M. D.,
Sec., Northern Nut Growers' Association,
Westchester, New York City.
Dear Sir:—
I am in receipt of your communication of the 16th of March, and have considered carefully the question of what can be done towards the control of the hickory bark beetle. As this is a species which at irregular intervals becomes abundant and capable of doing considerable local damage, yet I am inclined to think that so far as the Department of Agriculture can exercise any control, the hickory bark beetle should be classed among such pests as in a way have like habits of injury, such for instance as the apple tent caterpillar, forest tent caterpillar, green maple worm, fruit tree bark beetle, pine bark beetle, and other thoroughly established native and introduced species, all of which exert injuries at irregular intervals and then disappear. The hickory bark beetle suggests one of the problems which is difficult to handle, and it does not seem that much can be accomplished in a practical way by starting an agitation on the subject. The entomologist of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, says that the insect is common around Geneva, and nearly every season an occasional tree succumbs to its work. He further says that he believes that hickory trees have some time in the past suffered from either a severe winter or drought, and that the shot-hole borer is attacking the weakened trees.