s^iilg^^^^^^^s^^^li>2 mm^m^^^mmM^^^^^m. I g>tate College of Agriculture ^t Cornell 1Mnibers;itj» Stliaca, M. g. Hibrarj* Cornell University Library SB 983.C2A2 1908 Horticultural statutes with court declsl 3 1924 002 948 978 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002948978 CALIFORNIA'S HORTICULTURAL STATUTES With Court Decisions and Legal Opinions Relating Thereto ALSO COUNTY ORDINANCES RELATING TO HORTICULTURE AND LIST OE STATE AND COUNTY HORTICULTURAL OEEICERS Corrected to March 1, 1908 SACRAMENTO w. w. SHANNON, : ■ . : : : . : supebintendbnt state printing 190i CALIFORNIA 5TATL COMMISSION OF HORTICULTURL. JOHN W. JEFFREY Commissioner ...Los Angeles. JOHN ISAAC Secretary.. Sacramento. ED. M. EHRHORN ..Deputy San Francisco. E. K. CARNES Assistant Deputy ...Riverside: 0. E. BREMNER ..Second Assistant Santa Roaa. GERTRUDE BIRD Stenographer ..Sacramento. C^^si^/i OFFICE: State Capitol, Saceamento. Bbanch Office, Room 11, Ferry Building, San Francisco. CONTENTS. HORTICULTURAL STATUTES— Page. State Commission of Horticulture 5 County Boards of Horticulture 11 Horticultural Quarantine Law 15 Paris Green as an Insecticide 17 Proper Naming of Nursery Stock 18 Against Selling Trees under False Names 19 To Prevent the Spread of Noxious Weeds 20 COURT DECISIONS IN HORTICULTURAL CASES— Appointment of County Boards Mandatory 22 Enforcement of Horticultural Quarantine Regulations 25 Constitutionality of Horticultural Liens 31 The Riverside Case 36 Powers of Horticultural Commissioners Defined 45 Powers of County Horticultural Commissioners, etc 58 Duties and Limitations of Horticultural Commissions 63 COUNTY ORDINANCES RELATING TO HORTICULTURE— Humboldt County 65 Imperial County 67 Kings County 70 Los Angeles County ; 71 Mendocino County 7& Merced County 77 Orange County 78 Riverside County 83 San Bernardino County 89 San Diego County 94 San Joaquin County , , 98 ^Santa Cruz County 100 Sonoma County 102 Stanislaus County 103 Sutter County 105 Tehama County 107 Tulare County 107 Yuba County 117 STATE AND COUNTY HORTICULTURAL OFFICERS 120 CALIFORNIA. STATUTES AND ORDINANCES RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. IN FORCE JANUARY 1, 1908. STATE COMMISSION OF HORTICULTURE. 'Note. — March 25, 1903, the Legislature passed an Act creating the Commission of Horticulture, the duties of which are to be performed by a Commissioner of Horticulture. At the session of 1907 this Act was, with verbal changes merely, codified as Sections 2319-2319; of the Politi- •cal Code. The codification follows : Political Code, §2319. The State Commissioner of Horti- culture of California shall be a citizen and resident of this State, and the term of his ofiSce shall be for four years, and until a successor is appointed and qualified. The Governor may remove such Commissioner from office at any time, upon filing with the Secretary of State a certificate of removal signed by the Governor. In case of a vacancy in said office by death, resignation, removal from office, or other cause, the Governor shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. The salary of said Commissioner shall be two hundred and fifty dollars per month, and he' shall be allowed in addition a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars yearly for travel- ing and incidental expenses necessary in the discharge of his duties. Such Commissioner may appoint a secretary, who shall be versed in horticulture and entomology, and who shall be an experienced compiler of reports, bulletins and such publications as may issue from said commission from time to time, and who shall perform all such duties as may be required of him by such Commissioner. Such secretary shall 6 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICUI-TURB. receive a salary of twenty-one hundred dollars per annum. In appointing such Commissioner and his successor or suc- cessors,, it shall be the duty of the Governor to disregard polit- ical affiliations, and to be guided in his selection entirely by the professional and moral qualifications of the person so selected for the performance of the duties of said office. The office of said Commissioner shall be kept open every day except holidays, and shall be in charge of the secretary during thei absence of such Commissioner. The main office of such Commissioner shall be at the City of Sacrameruto. The Secre- tary of State shall furnish and set aside in the capitol a room or rooms suitable for offices for said Commissioner, and if the Secretary of State shall make and file an affidavit with the said Commissioner stating that it is not possible for him, as such Secretary of State, to provide and set .aside an office for said Commissioner in the capitol or in any State building under his control, because there is no such office room or rooms available, then, and after the making and delivery of such affidavit to such Commissioner, the said Commissioner may rent rooms convenient and suitable for his offices at a rental not to exceed five hundred dollaz-s per year. Said Commissioner may also keep and maintain an office in the City and County of San FIrancisco at a yearly rental not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars, and may appoint a Deputy Commissioner who shall be an expert entomologist and horticulturist, to have charge of said office under said Commissioner, and to per- form any and all duties which said Commissioner may require of him under this chapter, and shall fix the monthly compen^ sation of such deputy at two hundred dollars per month. Such deputy shall hold this position during the pleasure of such Commissioner, and may be removed from his office or position at any time by said Commissioner filing with the Secretary of State a certificate signed by said Commissioner so removing such deputy. Said Commissioner may also appoint, by and with the approval of the Governor, such temporary deputies from time to time as may be required for quarantine purposes under this chapter, and such temporary deputies shall receive such compensation per diem as may be specified in the writing so approving such appointment. This section isi a codification of Section 1 of the Act of March 25, 1903. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOKTICULTURE. 7 §2319a. Said Commissioner shall collect books, pamphlets and periodicals and other documents containing information relating to horticulture, and shall preserve the same; collect statistics and other information showing the actual condition and progress of horticulture in this State and elsewhere; cor- respond with horticultural societies, colleges and schools, and with County Boards of Horticulture existing or that may exist in this State, and with all other persons necessary to secure the best results to horticulture in this State. He shall require re- ports from County Boards of Horticulture in this State, and may print the same or any part thereof as he may select, either in the form of bulletins or in his annual report, or both, as he shall deem proper. He shall issue and cause to be printed and distributed to County Boards of Horticulture in this State, and to all other persons whom he may deem proper, bulletins or statements containiiig all the information best adapted to promote the interest and protect the business and development of horticulture in this State. Such Commissioner shall be deemed to be the State Horticultural Quarantine Officer men- tioned in chapter seventy-six of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-nine for the purposes of that Act, and sha],l be em- powered to perform the duties which under that Act are to be performed by the State Horticultural Quarantine Officer; pro- vided, that any inspection, therein arathorized, when made by such Commissioner, must be with the approval of the Gov- ernor, and as provided by this chapter. This section is a codification of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of March 25, 1903. §2319 &: Said Commissioner may, by and with the approval of the Governor, establish, maintain and enforce such quaran- tine regulations as may be deemed necessary to protect the nurseries, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, fruit-pits, fruit, vegetables or other articles of horticul- ture against contagion or infection by injurious disease, insects or pests, by establishing such quarantine at the boundaries of this State or elsewhere within the State, and he may make and enforce, with the approval of the Governor, any and all such rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary to prevent any infected stock, tree, shi-ub, plant, vine, cutting, graft, scion, bud, frujt-pit, fruit, vegetable, or other article of horti- culture, from passing over any quarantine line established and 8 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUKB. proclaimed pursuant to this chapter, and all such articles shall, during the maintenance of such quarantine, be inspected by such Commissioner or by a deputy appointed in writing by said Commissioner with the approval of the Governor, and he or the deputy so conducting such inspection shall not permit any such article to pass over such a quarantine line during such quarantine, except upon a certificate of inspection signed by such Commissioner or in his name by such a deputy who has made such inspection, unless such article has been immedi- ately prior to such passage inspected by an officer or agent of the United States entitled to inspect the same, and such officer or agent has granted permission for such passage. All approvals by the Governor given or made pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and signed by the Governor in duplicate and one >copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State and the other in the office of said Commis- sioner before such approval shall take efi'ect. This section is a codification of Section 4 of the Act of March 25, 1003. §2319c. Upon information received by such Commissioner of the existence of any infectious disease, insect or pest, dan- gerous to any such article, or to the interests of horticulture within this State, or that there is a probability of the introduc- tion of any such infectious disease, insect or pest into this State or across the boundaries thereof, he shall proceed to thoroughly investigate the same, and may, by and with the approtal of the Governor, establish,' maintain and enforce quarantine as in this chapter provided, with such regulations as may be necessary to circumscribe and exterminate or eradi- cate such infectious diseases, insects or pests, and prevent the extension thereof, and is hereby authorized to enter upon any grounds or premises, and inspect any stock, tree, shrub, plant, vine, cutting, graft, scion, bud, fruit-pit, fruit, vegetable or other article of horticulture or implement thereof, or box or package pertaining thereto, or connected therewith or that has been used in packing, shipping or handling the same, and to open any such package, and generally to do, with the least injury possible under the conditions to property or business, all acts and things necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. This section is a codification of Section 5 of the Act of March 25, 30O3. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 9 §2319d. Upon the discovery of any such infectious disease, insects, or pests, such Commissioner shall immediately report the same to all County Boards of Horticulture, together with a statement as to the best known means or method for circum- scribing, exterminating oij eradicating the' same, and shall state therein specifically what treatment or method should be applied in each case, as the matter may require, with a detailed statement or prescription as to the method of making or procuring, and of applying any preparation or treatment so recommended therefor, and the times and duration for such treatment, and if chemicals or articles be required other than those usually obtainable at any town, the place or places where they are most readily to be obtained ; and upon the receipt of such statement by any County Board of Hor'ticulture or any member thereof, it shall be the duty of such County Board of Horticulture to distribute such statement in printed form to every person owning or having charge or possession of any orchard, nursery, stock, tree, shrub, or article of hor- ticulture within their county, where it is supposed by said County Board there is any danger to. the interests of horti- culture, and such a statement must be served with or be a part of the notice to be given to the owner or owners or person or persons, in possession of any orchard, nursery, tree, shrub, or article of horticulture, referred to, provided for, and required to be served in and by section two of chapter one hundred and eighty-three of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, or any amendments which have been or may be made thereto. This section is a codification of Section 6 of tlie Act of Jlarcii 2."i, 1903. -§2319e. Whenever it shall become necessary to establish quarantine under this Act, if there be any authorities or offi- cers of the United States having authority to act in such mat- ter, or any part thereof, the said State Commissioner of Horti- culture shall notify such authority or officers of the United States and cooperate as far as possible with such authorities or officers of the United States wheresoever the jurisdiction of the United States extends and is being exercised, and shall obtain, whenever desirable and possible, the assent of the proper authority or officers of the United States to the establishment or change of quarantine lines, so as most effectively and speed- 10 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. ily to accomplisli the purposes of this chapter. The said Com- missioner shall at once notify the Governor of all quarantine lines established under or pursuant to this Act, and if the Gov- ernor approve or shall have approved of the same or any por- tion thereof, the Governor shall i^ue his proclamation pro- claiming the boundaries of such quarantine, and the nature thereof, and the orders, rules or regulations prescribed for the maintenance and enforcement of the same, and shall publish such proclamations in such manner as he may deem expedient to give proper notice thereof. This section is a codificatioD of Section 7 of the Act of March 25, 1903. §2319/. The said State Commissioner shall be ex officio a member of all County Boards of Horticulture existing or that may be created or exist in this State pursuant to law, whenever he is present and acting with said County Board within the county where such County Board exists, but when he is not so present in such a county, acting with such County Board, then the said County Board shall have all the power and author- ity conferred on it by law and may exercise such power by the action of the members of such County Board or a majority thereof. The reports which County Boards of Horticulture are required by law to make, or which they may desire to make, shall be made to the State Commissioner of Horticulture. This section is a codification of Section 8 of the Act of March 25. 190S. §2319gf. It shall be the duty of the Superintendent of State Printing to print and deliver to the State Commissioner of Horticulture, upon the written request of said Commissioner, all such bulletins, orders, rules, regulations, statements, re- ports and other printed matter, as the said Commissioner may deem necessary to have and use for carrying out the purposes of this chapter, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to cause to be prepared and furnished to such State Com- missioner all stationery, paper, blank forms, envelopes, and writing material needful and convenient for use in the office of such Commissioner. This section is a codification of Section 9 of the Act of March 25, 1903. §2319/i. It shall be the duty of said State Commissioner to report in the month of January in each even-numbered j'ear to the Governor, and in each odd-numbered year to the Legisla- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 11 ture of this State, such matters as he may deem expedient or as may be required either by the Governor or Legislature, and to include a statement of all the persons employed, and of moneys expended under the provisions of this chapter, by itemized statement thereof. This section is a codification of Section 10 of the Act of March 25, ]903. §2319i. Any person willfully refusing to comply with orders lawfully made under and pursuant to this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not to exceed five hundred dollars. This section is af codification of Section 11 of the Act of March 25, 1903. §2319^. All moneys paid under the provisions of this chapter shall be paid by the State Treasurer from moneys appropriated for the support of the State Commissioner of Horticulture, and expenses other than the salary of the Com- missioner, the compensation of his secretary and Deputy Com- missioner as allowed and provided by thi.s chapter, must be certified by the said. Commissioner and be approved by the State Board of Examiners before being audited or paid. This section is a codification of Section 12 of the Act of March 25, 1903. COUNTY BOARDS OF HORTICULTURE. Note. — At the session of 1907 the Act relating to County Boards of Horticulture was, with verbal changes merely, codified as Sections 2322-2322e of the Political Code. The codification follows: Political Code, §2322. Whenever a petition is presented to the Board of Supervisors of any county, and signed by twenty- five or more persons, each of whom is a resident freeholder and possessor of an orchard, stating that certain or all orchards, or nurseries, or trees or plants of any variety are infested with any serious infectious diseases, or scale insects of any kind in- jurious to fruit, fruit-trees, vines, or other plants or vegetables, or that there is growing therein the Russian thistle or saltwort {Salsoli kali, variety tragus), or other noxious weeds, codling- moth, or other insects that are destructive to trees, and pray- ing that a commission be appointed by them, whose duty it shall be to supervise the destruction of said scale insects, dis- eases or Russian thistle or saltwort, or other noxious weeds as herein provided, the Board of Supervisors shall, within twenty 12 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. days thereafter, appoint a Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners, consisting of three members, who shall be qualified for the duties of Horticultural Commissioner. Upon the petition of twenty-five resident freeholders and possessors of an or- chard, the Board of Supervisors may remove any of said Com- missioners for cause, after a hearing of the petition. This section is a codification of Section 1 of statute relating to Coiintj- Boards of Horticulture. §2322a. It shall be the duty of the County Board of Hor- ticultural Commissioners in each county, whenever it shall deem it necessary, to cause an inspection to be made of any premises, orchards or nursery, or trees, plants, vegetables, vines, or fruits, or any fruit-packing house, storeroom, sales- room, or any other place or articles in their jurisdiction, and if found infested with infectious diseases, scale insects, or cod- ling-moth, or other pests injurious to fruit, plants, vegetables, trees, or vines, or with their eggs, or larvte, or if there is found growing thereon the Russian thistle or saltwort, or other nox- ious weeds, they shall notify the owner or owners, or person or persons in charge, or in possession of the said places or orchards or nurseries, or trees, or plants, vegetables, vines, or fruit, or article as aforesaid, that the same are infested with said diseases, insects, or other pests, or any of them, or their eggs or larvffi, or that the Russian thistle or saltwort or other noxious weeds is growing thereon, and they shall require such person or persons, t.o eradicate or destroy the said insects, or other pests, or their eggs or larvfe, or Russian thistle or salt- wort, or other noxious weeds within a certain time to be specified. Said notices may be served upon the person or per- sons, or either of them, owning or having charge, or having possession of such infested place or orchard, or nursery, or trees, plants, vegetables, vines, or fruit, or articles, as afore- said, or premises where the Russian thistle or saltwort or other noxious weeds shall be growing, by any Commissioner, or by any person deputed by the said Commissioners for that pur- pose, or they may be served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Any and all such places, or orchards, or nurseries, or trees, plants, shrubs, vegetables, vines, fruit, or articles thus infested, or premises where the Russian thistle or saltwort or other noxious weeds shall be growing, are hereby STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 13 adjudged and declared to be a public nuisance; and whenever any such nuisance shall exist at any place within their juris- diction, or on the property of any non-resident, or on any property the owner or owners of which cajinot be found by the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners, after dili- gent search, within the county, or on the property of any owner or owners, upon which the 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 County Board of Horticultural Commissioners to cause said nuisance to be at once abated, by eradicating or destroying said diseases, insects, or other pests, or their eggs, or larva, or Russian thistle or saltwort or other noxious weeds. The expense thereof shall be a county charge, and the Board of Supervisors shall allow and pay the same out of the general fund of the county. Any and all sum or sums so paid shall be and become a lien on the property and premises from which baid nuisance has been removed or abated in pursuance of this chapter. A notice of such lien shall be filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the county in which the said property and premises are situated, within thirty days after the right to the said lien has accrued. An action to foreclose such lien shall be commenced within ninety days after the filing and record- ing of said notice of lien, which action shall be brought in the proper court by the District Attorney of the county in the name and for the benefit of the county making such payment or payments, and when the property is sold, enough of the pro- ceeds shall be paid into the county treasury of such county to satisfy the lien and costs; and the overplus, if any there be, shall be paid to the owner of the property, if he be known, and if not, into the court for his use when ascertained. The County Board of Horticultural Commissioners is hereby vested with the power to cause any and all such nuisances to be at once abated in a summary manner. This section is a corlification of Section 2 of statute relating to County Boards of Horticulture. §2322&. Said County Boards of Horticultural Commis- sioners have power to divide the county into districts, and to appoint a local inspector, to hold office at the pleasure of the Commissioners, for each of said districts. The State Board of Horticulture may issue commissions as quarantine guardians 14 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. to the members of said County Board of Horticultural Com- missioners and to the local inspectors thereof. The said quarantine guardians, local inspectors, or members of said County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners, have full authority to enter into any orchard, nursery, place or places where trees or plants are kept and offered for sale or other- wise, or any house, storeroom, salesroom, depot, or any other such place in their jurisdiction, to inspect the same, or any part thereof. This section is a codification of Section 3 of statute relating to County Boards of Horticulture. i §2322c. It is the duty of said County Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners to keep a record of its ofScial doings, and to make a report to the State Board of Horticulture, on or before the i5rst day of October of each year, of the condition of the fruit interests in their several districts, what is being done to eradicate insect pests, also as to disinfecting, and as to quarantine against insect pests and diseases, and as to carrying out all laws relative to the greatest good of the fruit interest. Such board may publish such reports in bulletin form, or may incorporate so much of the same in its annual reports as may be of general interest. This section is a codification of Section 4 of statute relating to County Boards of Horticulture. §2322d. The salary of all inspectors working under the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners is two dollars and fifty cents per day. In the ease of the Commissioners themselves, their compensation is four dollars per day, when actually engaged in the performance of their duties, and item- ized necessary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of their regular duties as prescribed in this chapter. This section is a codification of Section 5 of statute relating to County Boards of Horticulture. §2322e. It is the duty of the County Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners to keep a record of its official doings, and make a monthly report to the Board of Supervisors; and the Board of Supervisors may withhold warrants for salaries of said members and inspectors thereof until such time as such report is made. This section is a codification of Section 6 of statute relating to County Boards of Horticulture. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 15 HORTICULTURAL QUARANTINE LAW. An Act for the pFoteetion of horticulture, and to prevent the introduction into this State of insects, or diseases, or animals, injurious to fruit or fruit trees, vines, bushes, or vegetables, and to provide for a quarantine for the enforcement of this Act. [Became a law under constitutioijal provision, without Governor's approval, March 11, 1899.] Section 1. Any person, persons, or corporation, who shall receive, bring, or cause to be brought into this State any nurs- ery stock, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, or fruit-pits, or fruit or vegetables, shall, within twenty- four hours after the arrival thereof, notify the State Horticul- tural quarantine officer, or the quarantine guardian of the dis- trict or county in which such nursery stock, or fruit, or vege- tables are received, of their arrival, and hold the same without unnecessarily moving the same or placing such articles where they may be harmful, for the immediate inspection of such State horticultural quarantine officer or guardian. If there is no quarantine guardian or State horticultural quarantine officer in the county where such nursery stock, or fruit, or vegetables are received, it shall then be the duty of such person, persons, or corporation to notify the State Board of Horticulture, who shall make immediate arrangements for their inspection. The State horticultural quarantine officer, quarantine guardian, or such person, or persons, as shall be commissioned by the State Board of Horticulture to make such inspection, or to represent said Board, are hereby authorized and empowered to enter into any warehouse, depot, or upon any dock, wharf, mole, or any other place, where such nursery stock, or fruit, or vegetables, or other described articles are received, for the purpose of making the investigation or examination herein provided for. Sec. 2. Each carload, case, box, package, crate, bale, or bundle of trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, or fruit-pits, or fruit or vegetables, imported or brought into this State, shall have plainly and legibly marked thereon in a conspicuous manner- and place the name' and addre=is of the shipper, owner, .or person forwarding or shipping the same, and also the name of the person, firm, or corporation to whom the same is forwarded or shipped, or his or its responsible 16 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. agent, also the name of the country, State, or Territory where the contents were grown. Sec. 3. When any shipment of trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, fruit-pits, or fruit or vegetables, imported or brought into this State, is found infested with injurious insects, or their eggs, larvffi, or pupse, or reasonable cause to presume that they may be so infested, or infected with tree, plant, or fruit disease or diseases, the entire ship- ment shall be disinfected at the expense of the owner, owners or agent. After such disinfection, it shall be detained in quarantine the necessary time to determine the result of such disinfection. If the disinfection has been so performed as to destroy all insects, or their eggs, and so as to eradicate all dis- ease and prevent contagion, and in a manner satisfactory to the State horticultural quarantine officer, the quarantine guardian of the district, or the person commissioned by said Board, the trees, vines, vegetables, seeds, or other articles shall then be released. [Amended February 19, 1903.] S!EC. 4. When any shipment of trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, fruit-pits, or fruit or vegetables, imported or brought into this State, is found infested with any species of injurious insects, or their eggs, larva, or pupae, not existing in the orchards, vineyards, gardens, or farms of California, such infested shipments shall be immediately sent out of the State, or destroyed, at the option of the owner, own- ers, or agent, and at his or their expense. Sec. 5. No person, persons, or corporation, shall bring or cause to be brought into the State any peach, nectarine, or apricot trees, or cuttings, grafts, scions, buds, or pits of such trees, or any trees budded or grafted upon peach stock or root that has been in a district where the disease known as "peach yellows" or the contagious disease known as contagious "peach rosette" are known to exist, and any such attempting to land or enter shall be refused entry and shall be destroyed or returned to the point of shipment, at the option of the owner, owners, or agent, and at his or other [their] expense. Sec. 6. -No person, persons, or corporations, shall bring, or cause to be brought into this State any injurious animals known as English or Australian wild rabbit, flying-fox, mon- goose, or any animal or other animal or animals detrimental to horticultural and agricultural interests. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTURE. 17 Sec. 7. Any person, persons, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor. Sec. 8. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. PARIS GREEN. An Act to prevent fraud in the sale of paris green used as an insecticide. [Became a law under constitutional provision, without Governor's approval, February 28, 1901.] Section 1. It shall be the duty of each and every manu- facturer of paris green (commercial aceto-arsenite of copper) to be used as an insecticide within this State, and of every dealer in original packages of said paris green manufactured outside of this State, before the said paris green is offered or exposed for sale, or sold within this State as an insecticide, to submit to the Director of the California Agricultural Experi- ment Station at Berkeley, samples of said paris green, and a written or printed statement setting forth : fir^, the brands of said paris green to be sold, the number of pouiids contained in each package in which it is put on the market for sale, the name or names of the manufacturers and the place of manu- facturing the same; second, the statement shall set forth the amount of combined arsenic which the said paris green con- tains, and the statement so furnished shall be considered as constituting a guarantee to the purchaser that every package of such paris green contains not less than the amount of com- bined arsenic set forth in the statement. Sec. 2. Every purchaser of said paris green in original packages, which is manufactured outside of this State, who intends to sell or expose the same for sale, and every manu- facturer of said paris green within this State shall, after filing the statement above provided for, with the Director of the California Agricultural Experiment Station at Berkeley, receive from the said Director a certificate stating that he has complied with the foregoing statement, which certificate shall be furnished without charge therefor; said certificate when furnished shall authorize the party when receiving the same to deal in this State in the said paris green. Any person who 2— HS 18 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. fails to comply with the terms of section one of this Act shall not be entitled to such certificate and shall not be entitled to deal in said paris green within this State. Nothing in this sec- tion shall be construed as applying to retail dealers selling said paris green which has already been labeled and guaranteed. Sec. 3. Paris green, when sold, offered or exposed for sale, as an insecticide, in this State, shall contain at least fifty per centum of arsenious oxide and shall not contain more than four per centum of the same in the uncombined state. Sec. 4. The Director of the California State Agricultural Station at Berkeley shall examine or cause to be examined different brands of paris green sold, offered or exposed for sale within the State, and cause samples of the same to be analyzed, and shall report results of analyses, forthwith to the Secretary of the State Board of Horticulture and to the party or parties submitting said samples, and such report shall be final as regards its quality. Sec. 5. Any person or persons, firm, association, company or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Act, and any person who shall sell any package of paris green or any part thereof which has not been labeled as herein provided, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, together with the costs of the suit in an action caused to be brought by the State Board of Horticulture through its secretary in the name of the people of the State of California. Sec. 6. The Attorney-General of the State of California is charged with the prosecution of all such suits. Sec. 7. This Act shall take effect immediately. PROPER NAMING OF NURSERY STOCK. An Aet to provide for the proper naming of trees, seeds, plants, and vines, sold, offered, or exposed for sale in this State and providing a penalty for the violation of this Aet. [Approved March 3, 1905.] Section 1. All trees, seeds, plants and vines, sold, offered or exposed for sale in the State of California shall be properly named as to variety and kind, and any person knowingly STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTURE. 19 selling, trading, or exchanging, or offering or exposing for sale any trees, seeds, plants or vines falsely named as to variety and kind shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a fine of not less than ten dollars, nor more than three hundred dollars. AGAINST SELLING TREES UNDER FALSE NAME. An Act prohibiting the sale of any fruit tree or fruit trees of a certain kind, variety or description and the delivery thereafter with the intent to deceive to the purchaser of a fruit tree or fruit trees of a different kind, variety or description, and providing penalties for the violation thereof, and prescribing the time within which prosecu- tions under this Act may be commenced. [Approved March 15, 1007.] Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation, acting either as principal or agent, to sell, to any person, persons, firm or corporation any fruit tree or fruit trees representing same to be of a certain kind, variety, and description and thereafter to deliver to such purchaser in filling such order and in completing such sale a fruit tree or fruit trees of a different kind, variety or description than the kind, variety or description of such fruit tree or fruit trees so ordered and sold. Sec. 2. Any person violating any provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in a sum not less than fifty ($50.00) dollars, nor more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars, or by imprison- ment in the county jail for not less than twenty days or more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Sec. 3. Prosecutions under this Act may be commenced at any time within seven years from the time of the delivery of such fruit tree or fruit trees mentioned in section one. Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. 20 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICXJLTUBE. JOHNSON GRASS. An Act to amend sections one, two and three of an Aet entitled "An Aet to prevent the propagation by the pro- duction of seed, of that certain plant known as Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as Johnson grass," approved Mareh220, 1903, relating to the propagation of noxious weeds. [Approved March 22, 1907.] Section 1. Section one of an Act entitled "An Act to prevent propagation by the productioni of seed, of that cer- tain plant known as Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as Johnson grass, ' ' approved March 20, 1903, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, controlling, leasing, or possessing land in the State of Cali- fornia, to knowingly permit that certain grass known as Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as Johnson grass, Cnicus arvensis, otherwise known as Canadian thistle, Salsoli kali, otherwise known as Russian thistle, Onopordon acanthium, otherwise known as Scotch thistle, and Cnicus lanceolatus, otherwise known els bull thistle, to mature and disseminate its seed on land so owned, leased or possessed by such person. Sec. 2. Section two of an Aet entitled "An Act to prevent the propagation by the production of seed, of that certain plant known as Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as John- son grass," approved March 20, 1903, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sow or disseminate or cause to be sown or disseminated, any seed of Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as Johnson grass, Cnicus arvensis, otherwise known as Canadian thistle, Salsoli kali, otherwise known as Russian thistle, Onopordon acan- thium, otherwise known as Scotch thistle, and Cnicus lanceo- latus, otherwise known as bull thistle, upon any land owned or possessed by another. Sec. 3. Section three of an Act entitled "An Act to pre- vent the propagation by the production of seed, of that certain plant known as Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as John- son grass, ' ' approved March 20, 1903, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 21 Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sow, disseminate, or cause or permit to be disseminated any seed of Sorghum halepense, otherwise known as Johnson grass, Cnicus arvensis, otherwise known as Canadian thistle, Salsoli kali, otherwise known as Eussian thistle, Onopordon acan- thium, otherwise known as Scotch thistle, and Cnicus lanceo- laius, otherwise known as bull thistle, over or along any roadway, highway, or right of way for ditch purposes,- adjacent to premises owned or possessed by him. Sec. 4. All Acts- and parts of Acts inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. 22 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUBE. COURT DECISIONS IN HORTICULTURAL CASES. APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY BOARDS MANDATORY. Decision of Superior Court of Sonoma County. A mandamus suit was brought against the Board of Super- visors of Sonoma County; and Hon. John G. Pressley, Judge of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, on the 19th day of June, 1889, rendered the following decision, in which tlie validity of the Act directing the Boards of Supervisors to establish County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners is sustained : E. A. Rogers vs. The Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County. John Goss, Esq., attorney for plaintiff. On the 19th of March an Act of the Legislature was approved, entitled "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act to protect and promote the horticultural interests of the State,' approved March 14, 1881." This Act (of March, 1889) provides that, "Whenever a peti- tion is presented to the Board of Supervisors of any county, and signed by twenty-five or more persons who are resident freeholders and possessors of an orchard, or both, stating that certain or all orchards or nurseries, or trees of any variety, are infested with scale insects * * * that are destructive to trees and praying that a commission be appointed by them, whose duty it shall be to supervise their destruction, as herein provided, the Board of Supervisors shall, within twenty days thereafter, select three commissioners for the county, to be known as a County Board of Horticultural Commissioners." The duties of the board so appointed are declared by the Act. It appears from the complaint that, in accordance with this Act, a petition was presented to and filed with the Board of Supervisors, signed by this plaintiff and twenty-six other STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUBE. 23 persons possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Act, praying for the appointment of a County Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners for Sonoma County, and a demand was made on the Supervisors that they carry into effect the pro- visions of the Act, and appoint the commissioners. The Board refused to appoint commissioners. Twenty days have expired since the filing of the petition and the demand for action upon it, and still the Board of Super- visors refuse and neglect to make any selections or appoint- ment of commissioners. This action is brought for a writ of mandate compelling the Board of Supervisors to make the selection and appointment as required of them by the Act. A demurrer has been interposed to the complaint, and in support thereof it is contended : Firi^t—Thsit the Act of 14th of March, 1881, of which the Act of 19th of March is amendatory, was repealed by an Act approved 13th of March, 1883, which provides for the appoint- ment by the Governor of a State Board of Horticulture, and that in consequence of the Act of 1889 being an amendment of a repealed statute, it is nugatory. The Act of 1883 does not, in express terms, repeal the Act of 1881, nor is that Act elsewhere expressly repealed. It is a well-settled legal principle that repeals by implication are not favored. A subsequent Act does not, by implication, repeal a prior statute, unless 'the subsequent one entirely covers the pro- visions of the first, and so completely that every portion of the first is provided for by the second. There must appear an intent to entirely substitute one for the other. Says Bishop in his work on Statutory Crimes, Section 154: "We have seen that every legislative Act in affirmative words is to be regarded, prima facie, as an addition to the mass of law; for such on its face it purports to be. Yet when it is inconsistent with the former law, it must, as the last expression of the legislative will, prevail. But repeals by implication, thus explained, are not favored. And a legislative intent to repeal an existing statute is never ^presumed. If two Acts, seeming to be repugnant, can be reconciled by any fair con- struction, they ,must be, when no appeal wiU be held to take place. ' ' 24 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. The same principle is laid down by Judge Field in the case of Pierrepont vs. Crouch, 10 Cal. 316. There are numerous other authorities to the same effect. Is there any apparent intent to substitute one of these Acts for the other, or such repugnance as would destroy the first? Let us see. The first provides for a County Board of Horti- culture. The second for a State board. The first prescribes duties to be performed by County Boards of Supervisors. The second prescribes duties to be discharged by the Governor. The first provides for a board of three commissioners with loca! jurisdiction. The second for a board of nine commis- sioners with a jurisdiction coextensive with the State. The first authorizes boards created by its authority to divide counties into districts. The second creates districts composed of several counties. The first requires duties to be performed by county boards which are not required by the second, of the State board. For instance : The first provides for proceedings against persons who, after notice, fail or refuse to treat in- fested trees as directed by the board, and a destruction of trees by such board when directed by a court. No such proceedings and destruction are provided for by the second. There are other differences between the two Acts which might be pointed out, but these are sufficient to show that there is no such similarity in the powers of the boards created by them as would necessarily cause a conflict between these boards, or would justify a court in holding that one Act repeals the other. I must, therefore, hold, that the Act of 1881 was not repealed by the Act of 1883, and was in full force when the amendatory Act of 1889 was passed. The Act of 1883 is an addition to the then existing legislation, and not a substitute for the Act of 1881. Second — It was contended that Acts of the Legislature which provided that a duty imposed shall be performed within a certain time are directory and not mandatory. I cannot assent to that proposition. Where a court or board is directed by law to perform an act in a given time, the law, unless it declares the act may not be done after the expiration of the time, is so far directory as that the act is valid though done after the time fixed, but is not directory in the sense that the duty or act directed may be entirely disregarded or omitted. The time is given that the board may have ample opportunity STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HOBTICULTUKB. 25 to act intelligently and with good judgment, but not to enable the board or officer of whom the duty is required to disregard it entirely. I have no doubt but that the Board of Supervisors is required by the law in question to appoint a County Board of Horticultural Commissioners, and that it may be lawfully done after the expiration of the twenty days given them in the Act for deliberation. Counsel referred to some authorities from other States in support of his contention. I do not think these authorities go to the extent claimed by him, and if they did, there being no such decision by our own Supreme Court, I would hold the law in this State to be different. The purpose of the Legis- lature was to give the Supervisors time to make judicious selections, and not to justify or authorize an annulment of the legislative will expressed by the statute. John G. Peessley, Judge. ENFORCEMENT OF THE HORTICULTURAL QUARANTINE REGULATIONS. In a ease brought before the Superior Court of Los Angeles, the constitutionality of the Act of 1881, as amended, was ques- tioned as to its enforcement, and upheld. It was an action brought to declare a shipment of orange trees from Tahiti a nuisance and have them destroyed, they being infested with injurious insects, etc. The findings of the court are as follows : This is an action brought by the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, in the name of the people, for the con- demnation, and abatement as a nuisance, of certain trees. The complaint alleges that in June, 1891, the defendants brought from Tahiti to San Pedro, in the County of Los Angeles, cer- tain orange trees, numbering about 325,000, and that the same were, and still are, infested with scale insects and other pests injurious to fruit trees. That the Horticultural Commission- ers of the County, of Los Angeles notified defendan,ts that the trees were so infested, and required them to eradicate and destroy the insect pests thereon. That defendants caused the process of disinfection to be performed upon said trees, but said process was unsuccessful, and, although frequently 26 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. repeated, has not eradicated or destroyed said insects. That among said insects is a scale insect hitherto unknown in the State of California, which cannot be destroyed by any process of disinfection ; and that the said scale insects with which the trees are infested, if not destroyed, will be introduced into the orange orchards of California, and the orange industry greatly injured, if not totally destroyed. That the said scale insects cannot be destroyed without the destruction of said trees ; that the defendants are contemplating the removal of said trees into the interior of the State of California, and that the said scale insects would be thereby distributed among other trees and propagated and spread all over the State of California. The complaint prays a judgment of the court that the trees be declared a nuisance and ordered to be destroyed. Plaintiff relies, for its right to maintain the action, upon the provisions of the Act of the Legislature, approved March 19, 1891, declaring any orchards, trees, plants, or shrubs infested with insect pests injurious to plants, trees, etc., to be a nuisance and also upon the theory that the trees in question are, under the general provisions of the Code, a public nuisance, and may be abated by an .action brought in this manner. It therefore becomes necessary for the Court to consider the power of the Legislature to adopt this statute, and the question whether, in the absence of statutory provisions, the action could be maintained. My attention has not been directed to any constitutional limitation which affects the right of the Legislature to adopt a statute such as the one in question. The statute does not determine that any specific orchard or trees are a nuisance, but leaves it to the courts to determine whether there exists a condition of affairs which will make any particular trees a nuisance, and is, in, my opinion, constitutional. The law of nuisance, under our codes, is practically but a reenaetment of the common law ; and while this ease is peculiar in its character and circumstances (being the first of the kind tried in the State), and in many respects utterly unlike any case to be found in the Reports, yet the duty to be performed by the Court is the application of decisions disposing of cji^es widely differing from this as to the facts, but laying down STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 27 principles which, by analogy, can be applied to the facts of this case. It is peculiarly the characteristic of cases, under the law of nuisance, that they are largely dependent upon surroundings. The common law is not an iron-cast system, to which every case must be fitted without regard to its particular circumstances, but is a system which derives its beauty and utility from the fact that it is the condensation of the wisdom and learning of centuries, modified from time to time by the circumstances of period and place. In the consideration of any case which is dependent, to a greater or less degree, upon the circumstances and surroundings of the community and State, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration the condition and devel- opment of the industries which may be affected by its judg- ment, for the purpose of properly applying the rules of law to the circumstances of the case. The Court, therefore, in apply- ing the principles of the common law and the decisions there- under, takes into consideration all the facts to which those decisions and principles are to be applied. "That new conditions and new facts may produce the novel application of a rule which has not been before applied in like manner, does not make it any less the common law; for the latter is a system of grand principles, founded upon the mature and perfected reason of centuries. It would have but little claim to the admiration to which it is entitled if it failed to adapt itself to any condition, however new, which may arise; and it would be singularly lame if it is impotent to determine the right of any dispute whatever. Having, as far as we have gone, met all difficulties by adhering to its doctrines, we have no ground to presume that we will have to go beyond its pre- cincts for a solution of any which may arise. Every judge is bound to know the history and the leading traits which enter into the history of the country where he presides. This we have held before, and it is also an admitted doctrine of the. common law." {Conger vs. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548.) The Court, therefore, takes judicial notice of the history, development, and character of the industries of California; of the fact that the production of fruits is one of the leading occupations in this State, and that a large portion of the people are dependent upon it. It takes judicial notice of the fact that a large portion of the land in this and adjoining counties is 28 STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HORTICULTURE. devoted to the cultivation of citrus fruits, and tliat the annual production and shipment of oranges is very great, and that the spread of any insect pest injurious to citrus trees must neces- sarily result in serious injury to that business and in great loss and destruction of property. That orchards and trees infested by scale or insect pests injurious to vegetation and which will easily spread to other places, must be a nuisance, prima facie, seems too clear to require discussion, and would not receive it at the hands of this Court but for the fact that this is the first case of this kind. "A nuisance is anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage." (Black, vol. 3, p. 213.) "Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance." (Sec. 3479, C. C.) "A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal." (Sec. 3480, C. C.) The kinds of nuisances which have been abated are almost innumerable in variety, each dependent upon the particular character and circumstances under which it exists. In the case of Campbell vs. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568, the use of bituminous coal, which produced vapors injurious to vegeta- tion, was held to be a nuisance. Again^, a house in so ruinous a condition as to be likely to fall upon the house of another is a nuisance. (Tenant vs. Goldwin, 2 Ld. Raymond, 1893.) Buildings in an unsafe condition in a public street are common nuisances. (Wood's Law of Nuisances, p. 8.) Production of vapors injurious to vegetation is a nuisance. (Wood's Law of Nuisances, Sec. 536, et seq.) It has been argued by defendant's counsel that a prospective nuisance will not be abated, and the authorities cited by them would be conclusive in this case if applicable to its facts. But the fallacy of their argument is that in the cases cited by them no considerable injury could be done until the actual existence of a nuisance could be shown. In the case at bar, before dam- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUBE. 29 age could be actually shown, it would be necessary for the scale insects in question to be disseminated through a considerable portion of the orchards of the State and their propagation have reached a stage at which it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to check and eradicate them. It appears to me that this case belongs to that class in which, if the allegations of the complaint are true, a damage will be inferred, and it is not necessary to wait until it is actually done. It is similar in that respect to the cases in which dis- eased animals are taken to public places when there is danger of infection, to the cases of the storing of explosives, and to the cases of condemnation of dangerous buildings and places likely to be injurious to the health of the community — in all of which the abatement of the nuisance rests merely upon the reasonable apprehension of danger. The fact that the trees are at San Pedro does not prevent their being considered an existing nuisance, as the evidence shows that the larvee of the scale may be carried by birds, insects, and the winds to distant por- tions of the county and State. The evidence in the case shows that at the time of the arrival of the trees at San Pedro they were infested with eight different varieties of pests, and that subsequently they were treated six times with different processes for the destruction of the scale; that the treatment was successful as to all kinds except a species of scale hitherto unknown in California, called the mining scale or Chionaspis biclavis; and that all efforts to eradicate this scale have been unsuccessful, and seem to have been abandoned by defendants. The evidence with regard to this scale is entirely that of expert w'itnesses, who, never having seen it before, are unable to testify positively as to its effects, other than from their opinion derived from familiarity with the cultivation of the orange, from experience with the other scale insects similar in character with which orange trees are infested, and from their observation of this insect found upon the trees in question. The evidence and the inspection of the Court, however, show positively that the mining scale derives its nutrition and sup- port entirely from the tree, and consequently must be injurious in a greater or less degree. The expert witnesses all agree in the opinion that it is injurious to the health of the tree, and 30 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOBTICULTUEE. that if introduced into the State it would occasion great injury to the orange orchards. An entomologist and agent of the Department of Agriculture testified that he had made an examination of the trees at San Pedro, and found the mining scale upon them in a healthy condition on the day before the trial of the cause ; that he did not know of its existence elsewhere in the State, and that there could be no doubt about its being detrimental, living at the expense of the tree. He was of the opinion that by some process the scale might be destroyed without the destruction of the trees, but was unable to give any method by which it could be done. Alexander Craw, Quarantine Officer of the State Board of Horticulture, testified that he had inspected the trees eight or ten times, examined the scale in question, and found the live scale and larvae. In his opinion the mining scale could not be destroyed without destroying the trees. He considered it a very destructive scale, and knew of no wa^ by which it could be eradicated except by destroying the trees. It was, in his opinion, a more dangerous insect than the cottony-cushion scale, and would be very injurious to the orange industry. The other witnesses testified substantially to the same opinions as those given by Mr. Craw. The trees in question, now reduced in number to about 60,000, are contained in crates at San Pedro ; and the evidence shows that, in an examination of the trees at this time, live scale is found on only a portion of the trees, but that a thorough examination would require five or ten minutes for each tree. The evidence establishes all the allegations of the complaint, being open only to the objection that it is to a great extent merely expert opinion. But, under the circumstances, that is the best evidence of which the case is susceptible. This evidence is practically uncontradicted by the defense, as no witness has been produced who claims to know any process by which this scale can be destroyed, or that it is not injurious. The defense claims that the trees should be separated, and only those upon which the scale are found be destroyed. There is no doubt that the position of the defendants is correct, that in abating a nuisance no more property should be destroyed STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 31 than is absolutely necessary for that purpose. But in this case the situation of these trees is such that there is no certainty that all are not infested, and if such separation can be made it should be done by defendants. The period during which the case has been pending was sufficient to give the defense every opportunity to disinfect these trees. From the evidence of the experts, and in the absence of any suggestion of a method by which the trees can be disinfected, the Court must conclude that it cannot be done without the destruction of the trees. It therefore follows that the allegations of the complaint are sustained by the evidence. The Court is of the opinion that the statute of March 19, 1891, is constitutional, and that even in the absence of such a staJtute the trees in question are a nuisance under the Code, and that plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint. Let findings and judgment be submitted in accordance with this opinion. J. W. McKiNLEY, Judge. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HORTICULTURAL LIENS, L. A. No. 486. Department 2. November 11, 1899. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Appellant, VB. W. D. SPENCER ET AL., Respondents. Act to Pkotect Horticulture — Title. — Every provision of the Act of 1881, page 88, entitled "An Act to protect and promote the horti- cultural interests of the State," and of the Acts amendatory thereof, is germane to the subject-matter expressed in its title, and is properly embraced therein. Id. — Horticultural Commissioners — Power to Determine Nuisance — Judicial Power — Police Power. — The power given by such Act to the Horticultural Commissioners to determine whether any par- ticular place is a nuisance and to abate the same is not a judicial power, within the meaning of the inhibition of Article III of the Constitution.; and the Act is a proper exercise of the police power within the meaning of Section 1 of Article XIX of the Constitution. 32 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUBB. Id. — Public Nuisances — iNrECTES) Places — Insect Pests. — The Legis- lature has the power to declare that to be a nuisance which is such in fact, and the places declared by such Act to be public nuisances, to wit: "AH places, orchards, nurseries," et cetera, infected with "scale insects or codling-moth, or other pests injurious to fruit, plants," et cetera, are clearly such within the definition of that term as used in Sections 3479 and 3480 of the Civil Code. Id. — Lien foe Abating Nuisance. — The lien given by the statute upon the premises from which such nuisance has been abated, for the expenses of abating it, is not for a delinquent tax, but for an indebt- edness due the county, and its enforcement in the way prescribed by the statute is not unconstitutional. Appeal from a judgmemt of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Walter Van Dyke, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. J. A. Donnell and William P. James, for appellant. Tanner & Taft, and Gardiner, Harris & Rodman, for respondents. GRAY, C. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer to an amended complaint without leave to further amend. The amended complaint purports to set out a cause of action to foreclose a lien for the expense of ahating an insect pest nuisance in defendants' orchard. This lien is claimed to exist by virtue of an Act entitled "An Act to protect and promote the horticultural interest of the State," and Acts amendatory thereof and additional thereto. The Act in question may be found in the Statutes of 1881, page 88, and the amendments and additions thereto in the Statutes of 1889, page 413, and the Statutes of 1891, pages 260 and 268. In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the learned judge of the court below filed an opinion, in which the principal reason assigned for the action of the court is that the Act in question is unconstitutional, and this, also, is the main reason urged on this appeal in support of the judgment. It is said, first, that the Act embraces more than one subject grouped under one title. The Act as amended provides for the appointment, by the Board of Supervisors of any county in the State to whom the required petition is presented, of a horticultural commis- sion of not exceeding three members. It also prescribes the length of the terms of office of said commissioners and the manner of filling vacancies therein. It then defines the duties and powers of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners, fixes STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICXJLTUEE. 33 their compensation, and provides for their removal. It makes the expense of removing or abating an insect pest nuisance from any property infested thereby a lien upon the property or premises from which such nuisance has been abated. All the duties and powers conferred upon said board appertain to the abating of those insect pest nuisances which interfere with the business of horticulture. From this brief summary it will be readily seen that every provision of the Act points directly to the protection and pro- motion of the horticultural interests of the State, and hence all said provisions relate to but one subject and may be properly grouped in one Act under the very appropriate title of "An Act to protect and promote the horticultural interests of the State." This view seems to be supported by the following eases therein cited: Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633; Abeel vs. Clark, 84 Cal. 226. It is urged that the Act in question is unconstitutional and invalid, because it confers judicial powers upon the Horticul- tural Commissioners, contrary to Article III of the State Con- stitution ; but we do not think that this contention can be main- tained. This provision of the Constitution must be understood as construed by judicial decisions, and with reference to the subject of police power. The Act itself defines the nuisances to which it relates and declares that "all places, orchards, nurseries," et cetera, infected with "scale insects, or codling- moth, or other pests injurious to fruit, plants," et cetera, are public nuisances. In determining whether any particular place is a nuisance, the commissioner, no doubt, exercises some discretion which, in a strict sense, is in its ^nature judicial ; but the executing of a police regulation quite often calls into action that kind of discretion. And yet the acts of a commissioner involved in this case are no more judicial than the acts of officers under many other laws and ordinances which have been held valid. Ordinances prohibiting the erection of wooden buildings within fire limits except upon the order of fire com- missioners ; giving viticultural commissioners power to prohibit the importation of diseased vines ; prohibiting the carrying on of a public laundry without a certificate of the health officer and of the board of fire wardens ; prohibiting retail liquor busi- ness without permission of the Board of Police Commissioners ; 3— HS 34 STATUTES, EfC, RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. giving to the- superintendent of public streets the power to determine where, either on a public street or on private premises; any rubbish should be deposited; forbidding orations, harangues, et cetera, in a park without consent of the park commissioners, or upon other grounds except by permis- sion of the city government committee; beating drums, et cetera, without permission of the president of the village ; pro- hibiting manufacturers and others from ringing bells, et cetera, except at such times as the board of aldermen may designate; authorizing harbormasters to station vessels and to assign each its place; forbidding the keeping of swine without a permit from the Board of Health; and giving to Boards of Health, quarantine officers, and milk inspectors discretion as to the exercise of police powers — all such laws and ordinances have been judicially held to be valid, although they confer the same power upon designated public officers as is given by the Act here in question to the commissioners. {Ex parte Ah Fook, 49 Cal. 402; In re Flaherty, 105 Cal. '558, and eases there cited; Ex parte Fiske, 72 Qal. 125 ; Bittenhaus vs. Johnston, 92 Wis. 588 ; Train vs. Boston Disinfecting Co., 114 Mass. 523, 59 Am. Eep. 113; Newton vs. Joyce, 166 Mass. 83.) The efficiency of many police regulations depends upon their prompt and sum- mary execution; and therefore, from necessity, certain discre- tion must be given to the officers who are to make the regula- tions effective. In Ex parte Ah Fook, supra, this Court said: " It is obvious that to render effectual an inquiry which has for its purpose the carrying into operation of quarantine or health laws it must be prompt and summary, and we are not aware that any reasonable provisions of the statute clothing such officers or boards with enlarged powers often exercised by them have ever been held unconstitutional." In the case at bar, the acts of the Commissioner are not clothed with that sanctity and protection which accompanies the judicial acts of courts and judges, and the Commissioner would be liable officially and personally for wrongful acts done under the color of his office. And then, again, the lien in question here could not be enforced until after a judicial investigation and detennination by a court. Beyond any question the Legislature has the power to declare that to be a nuisance which is such in fact, and we think it safe to assert that everything declared to be a public nuisance STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEB. 35 in the Act in question comes clearly within the meaning of that term as defined in the Civil Code, Sections 3479 and 3480. It is known that the existence of the fruit industry in the State depends upon the suppression and destruction of the pests mentioned in the statute. The Act in question is, there- fore, a proper exercise of the police power which the Legisla- ture has, under Section 1 of Article XIX of the Constitution, to subject private property to such reasonable restraints and burdens as will secure and maintain the general welfare and prosperity of the State. (Aheel vs. Clark, supra; Train vs. Boston Disinfecting Co., supra.) In this connection, it may be well to observe that the statute does not authorize any injury to or destruction of property, but, on the contrary, its provisions are beneficial to the very property upon which it operates. The lien given by the statute is not for a delinquent tax, but for an indebtedness due the county, and the enforcement of it in the way prescribed by the statute is not obnoxious to any constitutional inhibition. The case of Boorman vs. Santa Barbara, 65 Cal. 313, and the other California cases cited by respo;ndent to show that private property cannot be subject to burdens without due process of law, are sound in principle, but as to the matter of notice the statute here under consideration is not like any of the statutes in those cases. The subject of those statutes, street improve- ments, does not naturally call for such prompt and immediate action as might be necessary in the abatement of a contagious nuisance like that treated of in the statute here in question. (Surocca vs. Geary, 3 Cal. 69; 58 Am. Dec. 385.) We discover no conflict with any constitutional provision in the Act under consideration as finally amended in 1891. For the foregoing reasons we advise that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded. We concur: Chipman, C. Haynes, C. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. McFabland, J. Temple, J. Henshaw, J. Hearing in bank denied. 36 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. THE RIVERSIDE CASE. Arthur Butcher, of Riverside, the owner of an orange orchard infested with red scale, upon being notified to fumigate the same by the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners, refused to do so. Under the law the board proceeded to fumi- gate the orchard, and the expense was paid out of the general fund of the county in the sum of $196.46. The District Attorney at once began suit to declare the sum a lien on the orchard and real estate of Mr. Butcher, and the case was heard before Superior Judge Noyes of Riverside County, in November, 1899, and Judge Noyes followed the opinion of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in the Spencer case, which had recently held the law unconstitutional, as too arbitrary in selling real estate for such purposes. The Los Angeles ease and also the Riverside case were both ap- pealed to the Supreme Court, and both have been reversed. The Supreme Court decided both cases on the theory that as the fruit industry is so important, and the destructiveness of scale so deadly, no citizen should be allowed to permit the growth and spread of the pests ; and while the. penalty of loss of land is severe, it is just. In the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California. THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintiff, > COMPLAINT. ARTHUR BUTCHER, Defendant. Plaintiff complains and alleges: I. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned plaintiff was and now is a duly organized county of the State of California. II. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned there was and still is a duly appointed, qualified, and acting Board of Horticultural Commissioners for said county, consisting of three members. That a petition was presented to the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, signed by more than twenty-five persons, each of whom was a resident freeholder of said county and possessor of an orchard, stating that certain STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTURE. 37 orchards of said county were infested with scale inisects destructive to fruit trees, and praying that a commission be appointed by said Supervisors to supervise the destruction of said scale insects; and within twenty days after said petition was presented said Board of Supervisors appointed three per- sons qualified to perform the duties of Horticultural Com- missioners. III. That the defendant herein, Arthur Butcher, at all times hereinafter mentioned was and still is the owner in fee of the following described real estate, situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, to wit: All of lot 233 and fractional lot 236 as the said lots are delineated on the map of the lands of the Southern California Colony Association on file in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. IV. That at all the times herein mentioned there was and is standing and growing on said land a fruit-bearing orchard consisting of orange trees, the property of said defendant. V. That on the 22d and 23d days of August, 1898, the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners, pursuant to the statute in such cases made and provided, caused an inspection of said orchard to be made, and found the same to be infested with red scale insects that are destructive to trees, and by law declared to be a public nuisance ; that thereafter, to wit, on the 24th day of August, 1898, the said fruit trees being still in- fested with said scale as aforesaid, the said Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners caused a notice to be served upon W. Mil- ler, the person in charge of and in possession of said premises and orchard for the defendant as his agent, requiring said defendant and agent to eradicate or destroy the said scale and insects so found upon said trees within ten days after the service of said notice. A copy of said notice is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint as "Exhibit B." VI. That notwithstanding said requirement was made by the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners upon the said defendant to eradicate or destroy said scale as aforesaid within ten days after the service of said notice, the said defendant wholly neglected and refused to eradicate or destroy said scale within ten days after the service of said notice, or at any other time or at all. 38 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. VII. That thereafter, to wit, on the 20th to 25th day of September, 1898, the said Board of Horticultural Cominis- sioners entered upon said premises and destroyed and eradi- cated the said scale so found upon said trees ; that the expense incurred in eradicating and destroying said scale amounted to and was the sum of $196.46, which said sum the Board of Supervisprs of the said plaintiff allowed and paid out of the general fund of the county on the 9th day of December, 1898. VIII. That the said amount so paid by the said Board of Supervisors has never been repaid to the county by the defend- ant, or any other person, and is now due and wholly unpaid. IX. That thereafter and within thirty days after the right of said lien had accrued, to wit, on January 7, 1899, the Board of Horticultural Commissioners caused a notice of a lien upon the above described real estate, as provided by law, to be filed and recorded in the office of the Recorder of said Riverside County, being the county in which said property and premises are situated, a copy of which notice of lien is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint as ' ' Exhibit A. ' ' Wherefore, plaintiff demands foreclosure of said lien, and that by judgment and order of this Court the said money so expended as aforesaid to eradicate said scale be declared to be a lien on said land, and that judgment may be entered against said land and defendant for said sum with costs, and that by said judgment it may be decreed that the said land shall" be sold, and that enough of the proceeds shall be paid into the county treasury of the plaintiff to satisfy the aforesaid lien and costs, and that the surplus, if any, be paid to the owner of the property if he be known, and if not, into the court for his use when ascertained. Lyman Evans, District Attorney, and Attorney for Plaintiff. "EXHIBIT A." Notice is, hereby given that pursuant tothe statutes in such cases made and provided, the Board of Horticultural Oommissioners of the County of Riverside, State of California, between the day of . 189 — , and the day of , 180 — , caused to be destroyed and eradicated certain insects and other pests injurious to fruit, plants, vegetables, trees, and vines, together with their eggs and larvffi, upon that certain orchard belonging to Arthur Butcher, and particularly described as being in the said County of Riverside, State of California, and known and described STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO . HOETICULTURE. 39 as all of lot 233 and fractional lot 236, as the said lots are situated on the map of the lands of the Southern California Colony Association, said map on file in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. That the amount of labor bestowed and materials furnished for the purpose of eradicating said pests, as aforesaid, was of the amount of one hundred ninety-six and forty-six one hundredths dollars. That said owner has wholly failed to pay any part of said sum for the eradication of said insects. That thereafter and, to wit, on the 9th day of December, 1898, the said County of Riverside paid said sum of money for the eradication of said insects, pursuant to the provision of the statutes in such cases made and provided. Wherefore, the County of Riverside claims the benefit of the law relative to liens of mechanics and others upon real property, to wit, Chapter 2, Title 4, Part 3, of the Civil Code of Procedure. R. P. CTJNDirr, W. F. BUDLONG, Horticultural Commissioners. State of California, ) County of Riverside. ( W. F. Budlong, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is a Horticultural Commissioner in and for the County of Riverside; that he has read the foregoing notice and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true ; and that it contains ( among other things ) a correct state- ment of the demands in favor of the County of Riverside after deducting all just credits and offsets. W. F. Budlong. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7th day of January, 1899. [seal] Lyman Evans, Notary Public in and for the County of Riverside, State of California. "EXHIBIT B." Office of the countt boabd of hobticultueal commissionees, RiVEESiDB County, California. To Arthur Butcher, Owner, Agent, Person in Charge — W. Miller, in Charge: In accordance with the law, the undersigned Horticultural Commis- sioners of the County of Riverside, State of California, have caused an inspection to be made of your orchard and the trees thereon, located lots 233 and 236, lands of the Southern California Colony Association, in the City and County of Riverside and State of California, in said county. Said inspection was made on the 22d and 23d days of August, 1898, and upon said inspection 281 orange trees were found to be infested with red scale injurious to fruit and fruit trees. Said insect pests are by law declared to be a public nuisance. Therefore, in accordance with Section 2 of an Act to promote the horticultural interests of the State, by providing County Boards of Horti- culture, approved March 31, 1897, you are hereby notified that your orchard and trees, described above, are infested with red scale injurious to fruit and fruit trees, and that said red scale is a public nuisance, ant '40 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. you are hereby required to eradicate or destroy the said red scales or other pests, and their eggs and larvsp. within ten days of the time of the service on you of this notice. ' Should you neglect or refuse to comply with the requirements of this notice, it will be the duty of the County Board of Horticultural Com- missioners to cause said nuisance to be at once abated by eradicating or destroying said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvse. The expenses thereof will become a lien upon the above described premises, and an action to foreclose the said lien will be brought in the proper court within ninety days thereafter, by the District Attorney. Dated this 24th day of August, 1898. ( Signed : ) Geobge Vankirk, W. B. HtTNTEB, W. F. BUDLONG. Horticultural Commissioners. In the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California. THE COUNTS' OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintif, ^ vs. > DEMURRER. A. BUTCHER, Defendant. Now comes the defendant, A. Butcher, and demurs to the plaintiff's complaint herein on the following grounds: I. That said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. II. That said complaint does not, nor does any so-called cause of action, paragraph or phrase therein contained, sepa- rately or collectively taken together, state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. III. That said complaint is uncertain in this, that it can not be told therefrom on what part of the premises described in said complaint the trees or orchard were situated, or whether said orchard covered the whole of said premises or only a part, and if a part only, what part. IV. That said complaint is unintelligible for the same reason. V. That said complaint is ambiguous for the same reason. VI. That said complaint is uncertain in this, ,that it can not be told therefrom in what manner or to what extent said red scale was eradicated, or that it was eradicated at all. VII. That said complaint is unintelligible for the same reason. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 41 VIII. That said complaint is ambiguous for the same reason. IX. That said complaint is uncertain in this, that it can not be told therefrom that the notice mentioned in paragraph six of said complaint was ever served on defendant, or how or by whom said notice was served. X. That said complaint is unintelligible for the same reason. XI. That said complaint is ambiguous for the same reason. XII. That plaintiff has no capacity to sue or maintain this action,. XIII. That this Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of this action. Wherefore, defendant prays that he go hence with his costs. P. Ferguson, Defendant's Attorney. In the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California. THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaititiff, 1 JUDGMENT ON VS. (■ DEMURRER. A. BUTCHER, Defendant. This cause coming on regularly to be heard before the Court on the nineteenth day of June, 1899, on the demurrer and complaint, and cause submitted to the Court for decision. Whereupon the Court, after due deliberation, sustained said demurrer without leave to amend. Wherefore, by reason of the law and the foregoing, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff take nothing by said action, that the said action be herein dismissed. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Arthur Butcher, do have and recover from the plaintiff, the County of Riverside, his costs and disbursements herein, amounting to the sum of three and fifty one-hundredths dollars. Done in open court, this fourth day of November, eighteen hundred and ninety-mine. J. S. Notes, Judge. 42 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUKE. L. A. No. 880. Department Two. July 5, 1901. THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. ) DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT. ARTHUR BUTCHER, Defendant and Respondent. Horticultural Act — Destruction of Scale and Insects — Constitu- tionality OP Act. — The Act of Legislature of March 3, 1897, entitled "An Act to promote the horticultural interests of the State," etc. (Stats. 1897, p. 244), was held to be constitutional in the case of Los Angeles vs. Spencer, 126 Cal. 670. Foreclosure of Lien — Horticultural Act — Notice to Remove Scales — Service. — In an action by a county under the Act of March 3, 1897, to foreclose a lien for money paid out by plaintiff for destroying certain scale and insects found upon the trees in defendant's orchard, the notice required to be given by the statute is suflBcient where it contains a description of the premises, the name of the owner, the amount claimed, that it is for labor bestowed and materials in eradicating the insects upon the orchard of the defendant ; and an allegation in the complaint that the notice was served on the person in charge of and in possession of the premises is sufficient. A statement in the notice that plaintiff claimed the benefit of the law relative to liens of mechanics and others on real property does not vitiate it ; this may be treated as surplusage, and the same may be said of a prayer for a personal judgment. Horticultural Act — When Lien Accrues — Time for Filing Notice. — The right of a county to a lien for money paid for the destruction of scales and insects in an orchard, under the Act of March 3, 1897, accrues at the time the money is paid, and the notice of lien may be filed within thirty days from that time. Appeal from the Superior Court of Riverside County — J. S. Noyes, Judge. For Appellant, Lyman Evans. For Respondent, P. Ferguson. The court below sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's com- plaint, without leave to amend, and this appeal is from the judgment for the purpose of reviewing the order sustaining the demurrer. The action was brought to foreclose a lien for money paid out by plaintiff for destroying certain scale and other insects found upon the trees in defendant's orchard, the lien being claimed under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1897, entitled "An Act to promote the horticultural interests of the STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 43 State by providing County Boards of Horticulture," etc. (Stats. 1897, p. 244.) It is said by appellant that the court below sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the Act was unconstitutional, and as the court denied the plaintiff leave to amend, it would seem that the contention is correct. The point may be regarded as settled by this court in County of Los Angeles vs. Spencer, 126 Cal. 670, which case was decided a few days after the court made the order sustaining the demurrer in this case. We regard the reasoning of the court in that case as correct, and it is not necessary to further discuss the question. Other objections, however, are made to the complaint, which we will notice in the order presented. It is claimed that the complaint fails to show that proper notice was served upon defendant requiring him to eradicate and destroy the scale prior to the expense incurred by plaintiff. The Act provides, in speaking of the duties of the County Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners : ' ' They shall notify the owner or owners, or person or persons in charge or in possession of the said places or orchards, * * * and the same are infested with said in- sects, or other pests, * * * and they shall require such person or persons to eradicate or destroy the said insects * * * within a certain time to be specified. Said notice may be served upon the person or persons, or either of them, owning, or having charge, or having possession of such infested place * * * \)j any commissioner, or by any person de- puted by the said commissioners for that purpose, or they may be served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. ' ' The complaint alleges that the board ' ' caused a notice to be served upon W. Miller, in charge of, and in possession of, said premises and orchard for the defendant, as his agent, requiring said defendant and agent to eradicate or destroy the said scale and insects so found upon said trees within ten days after the service of said notice. ' ' A copy of the notice is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and the copy shows that the notice contained fully all matters required by the statute. "We think the allegation as to service of notice sufficient. It shows that the person served was the person in charge of and in possession of the premises. This is all that the statute 44 STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HORTICULTURE. requires. The allegation shows that the notice was served substantially as required by the statute. It is further contended that the complaint fails to show that the notice of lien was filed within thirty days after the right of lien accrued. This contention is based upon the fact that the complaint shows that the labor of destroying the scale was done in the latter part of September, 1898, and that the notice of lien was not filed until January, 1899. The statute provides that the expense shall be a county charge and the Board of Supervisors shall allow and pay the same out of the general fund of the county. "Any and all sums so paid shall be and become a lien on the property. * * * A notice of such lien shall be filed and recorded in tie office of the County Keeorder of the county in which the said property and premises are situated within thirty days after the right to the lien has accrued." The right to the lien accrued to the county at the time it paid the amount. It then became a lien upon the property, and not till then. After the lien so accrued the county had thirty days in which to file its notice. It is alleged that the county paid the amount December 9, 1898, and that it filed the lien January 7, 1899. This was within thirty days after the right to the lien accrued. The notice of lien was sufiScient when signed and verified by the members of the Board of Commissioners stating that the county claimed a lien for the amount of expense. It contains a description of the premises, the name of the owner, the amount claimed, that it is for labor bestowed and materials furnished in eradicating the insects upon the orchard of defendant. This was all that was required by the statute. In fact, the statute is entirely silent as to the form, contents, or requisites of the notice. It simply says a "notice of such lien shall be filed and recorded." The complaint shows that the notice was filed and recorded. The fact that the notice stated that the plaintiff claimed the benefit of the law relative to liens of mechanics and others upon the real property did not vitiate it. This part of the notice may be regarded as surplusage. The same may be said of the prayer for a per- sonal judgment. The prayer is no part of the complaint, and, in addition to the prayer for personal judgment, it asks that STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 45 the amount may be declared a lien, and that the premises be sold to satisfy such lien. We recommend that the judgment be reversed, and the eau.se remanded with directions to the lower court to overrule the demurrer and allow defendant a reasonable time to answer. Cooper, C. We concur: Chipman, C. Haynbs, C. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the lower court to overrule the demurrer and allow defendant a reasonable time to answer. Henshaw, J. McFarland, J. Temple, J. POWERS OF HORTICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS DEFINED. In the Superior Court of the County of Tehama, State of California. OREGON NURSERY CO., "j Limited (a Cobporation ) , Plaintiff, j vs. } OPINION. R. W. COATS and a. W. SAMSON, Defendants. J The plaintiff, in January of this year, shipped from the State of Oregon into this county a large number of fruit trees — nursery stock. Believing the defendants were the proper persons to inspect said trees, the agent of the plaintiff notified the defendants of their arrival. The defendants examined said trees and found some of them infested with peach-root borers, some with sour sap, some whose roots had been frozen, and some with root knot. That the trees were so infested and diseased I think is sho'^n by a preponderance of evidence. Of the total number of trees shipped only a small percentage 46 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. were condemned by defendants, and of those condemned only a part were destroyed. It may be that in inspecting so large a number of trees, the defendants occasionally made a mistake, and condemned a tree that should have been passed. It would be strange if they did not, but the evidence satisfies me that in the main all the trees condemned, and particularly all the trees destroyed, were, by reason of borers or disease, unfit to sell or plant and had no market value. Entertaining these views I should, without further discus- sion, order judgment for defendant, were it not that a vital question still remains to be solved, viz: "Were the defendants authorized by law to inspect the trees at all, and if so, were they authorized to destroy any or all of those condemned? Upon this branch of the case I shall express my views some- what at length, both because a correct decision of this case justifies it and because such discussion may assist the Board of Supervisors and County Horticultural Commission in the discharge of their duty, with reference to other cases that may arise. When a Board of Supervisors or any other local board attempts to do any act with reference to the property of an individual it must be able to show its authority to do so, by some law clearly conferring such power. The defendants claimed the right to inspect, condemn, and destroy the trees by virtue of holding the official position of Horticultural Inspectors for Tehama Coimty. It is true one of the defendants claimed to hold the position of Quarantine Guardian, but as he testified positively that in what he did concerning these trees he did not act as Quarantine Guardian, but that in all he did he was acting as inspector, the validity of his appointment as such guardian and his powers and duties as such need not be considered. So far as I am advised there are now in force three Acts of the Legislature relating to the protection of the friiit interests of the State. The first I shall notice is an Act passed in 1883 (Statutes of 1883, p. 289). This Act provides for a State Board of Horti- cultural Commissioners, consisting of nine members, to be appointed by the Governor, two from the State at large and STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HOBTICULTURE. 47 one from each of seven districts. The provisions of this Act, so far as necessary to be noticed at this time, are fonnJ in Sections 5 and 7. Section 5 provides that that State Board, for the purpose of preventing the spread of contagious diseases among fruit trees and fruit, and for the prevention, treatment, cure, extirpation of fruit pests and the diseases of fruit and fruit trees, and for the disinfection of grafts, scions, orchards, debris, etc., danger- ous to orchards, fruit, and fruit trees, shall make regulations for the inspection and disinfection thereof, which regulations shall be circulated in printed form among the fruit-growers of the State, and shall be published and posted, etc. Said regu- lations, when posted in three public places of the county, shall be binding on all. ■Section 7 provides that the State Board may appoint as many quarantine officers as may be needed to carry out the provisions of this Act, whose duty it shall be to see that the regulations of the board are enforced and carried out. Whether, acting under this statute, the State Board has ever adopted any regulations,^ or printed or posted them, if adopted, I am not informed. The court cannot take judicial notice, without proof, of its proceedings. The next Act to which attention is called is the Act of 1897 (Statutes of 1897, Chapter 183.) The first section of this Act provides where and under what conditions the Board of Supervisors of a county may appoint a County Board of Horticultural Commissioners. It may make such appointment "whenever a petition is presented signed by twenty-five or more persons, each of whom is a resi- dent freeholder and possessor of an orchard, stating that cer- tain or all orchards or nurseries or trees of any variety are infested with scale insects of any kind injurious to fruit trees and vines, codling-moth, or other insects that are destructive to trees. ' ' It is the law of this State that whenever the Legislature confers power upon a Board of Supervisors or other board, and prescribes the circumstances under which or the manner in which such power is to be exercised, the circumstances must exist before the board can act at all, and if it act it must do so in the manner pointed out by the statute. As was said by the Supreme Court of this State, In re 48 STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HORTICULTURE. Grovestreet, 61 Cal. 449 : " It was for the Legislature to pre- scribe, and the Legislature has prescribed, what the petition shall contain— until a petition is presented containing sub- stantially all that the law declares shall be inserted in a petition to initiate the proceedings, the counsel has no power or jurisdiction to act." * * * The statute says the Board of Supervisors may appoint a County Board of Horticulture, first, when a petition is pre- sented signed by twenty-five resident freeholders and posses- sors of orchards; and, second, when such petition states that certain or all orchards or nurseries or trees are infested with scale insects of any kind injurious to fruit trees and vines, codling-moth or other insects that are destructive of trees. The petition presented to the Board asking. for the appoint- ment of a County Board of Horticulture complied with the first of the above conditions. It was signed by twenty-five persons having the qualifications prescribed by the statute; but it did not, even in substance, comply with the second con- dition. It did not state that any orchard or trees in Tehama County were infested with scale insects injurious to "trees, codling-moth or any insect destructive of fruit trees. All the petition stated upon this vital point was the follow- ing: "We are credibly informed and wholly aware that there exist throughout this county a great many insects and pests of various kinds, and that they are multiplying at an alarming rate." This is not a statement that any orchard or all orchards or trees are infested with codling-moth, scale insects, or any insects destructive of fruit trees. Of course there are insects and pests in Tehama County, but the statute said the petition must state that there are insects or pests here injurious to fruit trees. It will be admitted, I presume, that not all insects and pests are injurious to fruit trees. As the presentation of a petition containing the matters the statute requires was the thing necessary to give the board jurisdiction to make any appointment, it follows that the order of the board, based upon the above petition, appointing a County Board of Horticulture, was void, and from a legal standpoint no board was appointed. As the Board of Supervisors may hereafter conclude, upon STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. 49 a proper petition presented, to appoint a Board of Horticul- ture, I deem it not improper to offer some suggestions as to what the scope of the authority of such Board of Horticulture will be when legally appointed. The second section of the Act of 1897 states some of the duties of such board. When it deems it necessary it shall cause an inspection to be n^ade of any orchard or nui'sery, or trees, plants, etc., and if found infested with scale insects or codling-moth or other pests injurious to fruit, plant or vegetable life, or with their eggs or larvEe, they shall notify the owner or person in posses- sion thereof that they are infested with such pests, insects, etc., and shall require such person to eradicate or destroy said insects or other pests, their eggs or larvse, within a certain time to be specified. It then provides that if the owner or person in possession of said orchard or trees shall refuse or neglect to abate the pests, insects, etc., within the time specified, then it shall be the duty of the County Board of Horticulture to cause said nuisance to be at once abated, by eradicating or destroying said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvae. "The expense thereof shall be a county charge, and the Board of Supervisors shall allow and pay the same out of the general fund of the county ; and any or all sum or sums so paid shall be and become a lien on ihe property and premises from which said nuisance has been removed or abated in pursuance of this Act, and may be recovered in an action against such property and premises." The above seems to be the full measure of power of the County Board of Horticulture in the matter of dealing with the trees or orchards of other persons. When we analyze this section we reach the following results : The County Board of Horticulture has power to inspect any and all orchards and trees in the county, and if it finds them infested with scale insects or codling-moth or other pests injurious to fruit, plants, vegetables, trees, or vines, or with their eggs or larvae, it shall notify the owner or person in pos- session and require him to eradicate or destroy said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvae, within a certain time to be specified. 4 — ^HS 50 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. If the owner or person in possession of the trees or orchard neglects or refuses to abate the same within the time specified, the commissioners shall cause said nuisance to be at once abated by destroying or eradicating said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvse. It will be noticed that no authority is anywhere in the statute given to destroy trees or orchards. The only authority given to destroy is to destroy the pests or insects. Nothing is said about destroying trees. The language is: "It shall be the duty of said commissioners to cause said nuisance to be at once abated by eradicating or destroying said insects or other pests, their eggs or larvae." "Whether they would be authorized in any case to destroy trees would probably depend upon circumstances. It is their duty to eradicate or destroy the insects and pests. If a tree or trees were so infested with insects or pests, their eggs or larvee, as to render it impracticable to eradicate or destroy said insects or pests without destroying the trees, in such case I think the board would be justified in destroying the treies. But it is clear that the statute in no case confers authority to destroy any trees except such as are infested with insects, borers, or fruit pests. Nor do I know of any good reason why such power should be conferred. Take the case of trees afflicted with sour sap. AU witnesses on both sides testify that it is a disease of the individual tree, produced by local conditions of soil, moisture, or temperature. That it is neither contagious nor infectious. It will not com- municate to nor infect other trees in the same orchard or nursery. This being so, no good reason can be suggested why, if commissioners find a tree or row of trees in my orchard afflicted with sour sap, they should destroy it or them. It will not spread to any more of my trees nor to those of my neighbors, and if I want to take care of and try to grow a sick tree I see no reason why the State should not permit me to do so. Any way, it certainly has not conferred authority upon any one to destroy such a tree without the consent of the owner. The same rule must apply to nursery stock offered for sale. After the commissioners have inspected it and found trees afflicted with sour sap and informed the intended purchaser, STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HOKTICULTUBE. 51 if he is silly enough to plant them he should be permitted to do so. These remarks do not apply to trees infested with insects and pests injurious to fruit trees. No one should be permitted to buy, sell, plant, grow, or keep in his possession trees infested with insects, pests, etc., that will propagate, spread, grow, and infest and destroy the orchards of other people. The third section of this Act of 1897 gives the County Board of Horticulture power to divide the county into districts and to appoint a local inspector for each district. The fourth section makes it the duty of the County Board of Horticulture to keep a record of its proceedings. Acting under these two sections, if the Board of County Commissioners, when appointed, desires to appoint local inspectors, it should meet as a board and divide the county into districts, by section lines or otherwise, fixing the bound- aries of each district, and enter it upon the records of its pro- ceedings. If it appoints an inspector for each district, it should do so at a meeting of the board, and enter the names and districts for which appointments are made, upon the minutes of its proceedings required by law to be kept. Before leaving this statute of 1897 I desire to make some general suggestions concerning it: It is obvious that it was not passed expressly, if at all, for the purpose of providing for the inspection of nursery trees offered for sale. The Legislature had in mind that there might be in • a county an orchard infested with insects and pests destructive of fruit trees, which if not eradicated would spread and injure other trees and orchards, and where the owner either neglected or refused to eradicate them, thereby endan- gering the property of neighbors. It was to force such an owner to eradicate such pests and insects, and if he did not, to give the County Commissioners power to do it and make the expense a lien upon his orchard, that the statute was passed. This is apparent from the first section. To get commis- sioners appointed a petition must be presented stating that certain or all orchards or nurseries or trees are infested, etc. The board would have no power to appoint, if the petition alleged that all trees and orchards in the county were free of pests and insects, but petitioners believed some one was about to bring infested trees in from another county or state. 52 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. That the Legislature was legislating for orchards and not for nursery trees out of ground is obvious from Section 2, which provides that the county shall have a lien upon the property for the expense of eradicating and destroying insects and pests. After the county officers had condemned a lot of nursery trees, because infested with root-borers, etc., it would look silly for the county to offer such trees at public auction to pay the expenses of eradicating the pests from them. But however all this may be, it is clear that if the Act of 1897 did confer power upon County Boards of Horticulture and local inspectors to inspect and condemn nursery stock shipped in from other States, such authority was taken away by the Act of 1899, and conferred exclusively upon the State Board of Horticultwre and the Quarantine Guardians ap- pointed by it. The rule has been announced by our Supreme Court that whenever the Legislature purports to pass an Act dealing with the whole of a particular subject-matter, such Act repeals, by implication, all former Acts upon the same subject. The Act of 1899 is directed exclusively to the inspection of nursery stock shipped into this State from places without the State. The first section provides that any person who shall bring any nursery stock into this State shall notify the State Horti- cultural Officer or the Quarantine Guardian of the district or county of its arrival, and shall hold the same, without unnec- essarily moving the same, for the inspection of such State Horticultural Officer or Quarantine Guardian. If there is no Quarantine Guardian or State Horticultural Officer in the oounty where such stock is received, it shall be the duty of the person having said stock to noti^ the State Board of Horticulture, who shall make immediate arrangement for its inspection. The third section provides that when any shipment of nurs- ery stock brought into this State is found infested with injuri- ous insects, their eggs, larvte, or pupas, or infested with tree, plant, or fruit disease or diseases, the entire shipment shall be disinfected at the expense of the owner. After such disinfec- tion it shall be detained in quarantine the necessary time to determine the result of such disinfection. If the disinfection STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 53 destroys all insects and their eggs, and eradicates all diseases and prevents contagion, the trees shall .then be released from quarantine. (What shall be done with the trees if the disin- fection shall not prove a success the statute nowhere states.) It is clearly the purpose and intent of the Legislature, in passing this Act of 1899, to place the inspection, disinfection, quarantining, etc., of nursery stock shipped into this State in the hands and jurisdiction of a State Board of Horticulture, to be by it, or by a quarantine guardian appointed, by it, in- spected, etc., and to take away from the County Boards of Horticulture and local inspectors all the authority to inspect, condemn, or destroy such imported stock. The foregoing are all the laws of the State called to my attention or that I have been able to find bearing upon the facts and circumstances developed by the trial of this ease. It is a crude and unsatisfactory mass of legislation upon a very important subject. The fruit industry is one of the largest and most important in the State, and it would seem that some plain, simple legislation upon so important a subject could be formulated and passed. From this review of the law I conclude : 1. That by reason of defective petition the Board of Super- visors never acquired jurisdiction to appoint a County Board of Horticulture, and that its attempt to do so was void. 2. That defendants were not legally appointed local or dis- trict inspectors, because there was no Horticultural Commis- sion to make the appointment, and because if there was such a board it did not attempt to make such appointment at any time when in session as a board, nor did it make any record of such appointment. 3. That County Boards of Horticulture and Inspectors, by reason of the passage of the Act of 1899, have no authority or power to inspect, condemn, or destroy a nursery stock shipped into this State from another State ; but the duty and power to inspect such a stock is, by the Act of 1899, vested exclusively in the State Board of Horticulture and in the qiiarantine guardians appointed by it. 4. That any one shipping nursery stock into this county, from any place without the State must, before moving it, notify the State Quarantine Officer of the district of the ar- rival of the trees; if there is no State Quarantine Officer for 54 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. the district he shall notify the State Board of Horticulture, who shall appoint some one to inspect the trees. 5. That no power has been conferred either on County or State Board to destroy any trees unless they are infested with fruit insects or pests, or infested with some contagious or in- fectious disease. That sour sap in a tree furnishes no justification for the destruction, as it is neither infectious nor contagious. 6. If a County Board of Horticulture is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and the county divided into districts and local inspectors appointed, then the State Board can ap- point the members of the County Board and the local inspect- ors State Quarantine Guardians. Then the County Board and local inspectors acting as quarantine guardians would have authority to inspect the nursery stock shipped into the county from without the State. 7. The evidence shows that the defendants in all their acts qoncerning plaintiff's trees acted in good faith, believing that they had been legally appointed and that it was their duty to do what they did. Because the defendants were not legally appointed and were not authorized to destroy the trees I am asked to enter up judgment for the full value of a sound merchantable stock of trees. This I must decline to do. The plaintiff is only entitled to the market value of the trees destroyed. The evidence is to the effect that the trees destroyed by reason of the presence of peach-root borers, sour sap, frozen roots, root knot, etc., were unfit to plant, were worthless, and had no market value. The measure of the plaintiff's damage is the value in the market of the trees destroyed, and no more. Although of no value, as the defendants were not author- ized to destroy them, plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages, fixed at one dollar. A permanent injunction is asked for. I do not think a ease is made out for such an order. It does not appear that plain- tiff has any nursery stock in this county at this time, nor that he will have in the future. Should he bring any in, the defend- ants may then be quarantine guardians and have a right to STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 55 inspect, and they may not attempt to inspect if not appointed quarantine guardians. The findings and judgment will be filed in accordance with this opinion. , John F. Ellison, Judge. In the Superior Court of the County of Tehama, State of California. OREGON NURSERY CO., Limited ^ (A COBPOEATION ),PZai«Hff, | FINDINGS OF FACT > AND CONCLUSIONS ^^- { OF LAW. R. W. COATS AND A. W. SAMSON, Defendants. J The above entitled action came on regularly for trial on the 18th day of June, 1901, A. M. McCoy and John J. Wells ap- pearing as attorneys for the plaintiff and M. G. Gill and G. H. Chase for the defendants. Whereupon oral and documentary evidence was introduced, the cause argued by counsel for the respective parties, and submitted to the Court for its decision. From the evidence the Court finds the facts as follows, to wit : I. That at all the times mentioned in the complaint the plaintiff was and now is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon. II. That the defendant R. W. Coats claims to be an inspector appointed by the Couuty Board of Horticultural Commissioners of Tehama County, State of California, and the defendant A. W. Samson claims to be such inspector and also claims to be a quarantine guardian appointed by the State Board of Horticulture of the State of California. III. That on or about the 19th day of January, 1901, the plaintiff brought into the State of California and into Tehama County a shipment of fruit trees of a value exceeding one thousand dollars. That a portion of said trees were brought to the town of Red Bluff and a portion of said trees were brought to the town of Corning and a portion of said trees were brought to the town of Vina, all within said County of Tehama. That plaintiff immediately and within twenty-four hours 56 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. after such arrival notified the defendants and held the said fruit trees without unnecessarily removing the same or placing them where they might be harmful, that they might be im- mediately inspected by said defendants; that by permission of said defendants a portion of said fruit trees, so brought to the town of Red BlufE, were removed from said town to a place within said county of Tehama, about three miles distant from said town. ly. That a large number of said trees were infested with injurious insects and their larvae, and infested with tree diseases. That none of said trees were infested with any species of injurious insects, their eggs, larvae, or pupge, not existing in the orchards, vineyards, gardens, or farms of California. V. That the said def endajits claiming to be such inspeetora as aforesaid did thereafter inspect said trees situate at the several points above mentioned. That on making said inspection the said defendants found that said trees and many of them were infested with injurious insects, their eggs and larvae, and infested with tree, plant, and fruit diseases. They did not find, nor did either of them find, the said trees or any of them infested with any species of injurious insects, or their eggs, larvae, or pupae, not existing in the orchards, vineyards, gardens, or farms of California. That said defendants did notify the agent of plaintiff in charge of said trees that the same were infested with insects and pests injurious to fruit, plants, vegetables, trees, and vines, and with their larvae, but did not nor did either of them require plaintiff or its agent to eradicate or destroy such insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvas, within any time specified, or at all. VI. That said defendants, after making said inspection, did condemn a large number of said trees as being infested, but did not do so without exercising proper discretion and judg- ment nor without just cause therefor. That said defendants did not, nor still do not, decline or refuse to say wbat, if any, injurious insects, or what, if any, eggs, larvae, or pupa3, were found on said trees. On January 19, 1901, defendant A. W. Samson gave the STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 57 certificate set forth in subdivision . VI of the amended com- plaint. That of the trees so condemned 9 were of the trees inspected at Red Bluff, and 374 were of the trees inspected at the town of Corning, and 159 were of the trees inspected at the town of Vina, 2,318 were of the trees inspected at the point above- named about three miles distant from the town of Red Bluff. That except as to the 2,318 trees above mentioned, the defendants did not refuse to allow plaintiff to remove the trees so condemned or to allow the plaintiff to use or plant or cause the same to be planted. Of the trees so condemned and not destroyed (as hereafter found) the defendants neither consented nor refused to allow plaintiff to remove them from the place where condemned, or to use or plant the same. That the defendants did not disinfect any of the trees so condemned by them. VII. That at the time of said inspection and at the time said trees were condemned, they were diseased, infested with root-borers, sour sap, and root knot, and unfit to plant, and by reason of their condition had no market value whatever and were not of the value of $476.03, nor of any value whatever. VIII. That of the trees so condemned the said defendants did, on or about the 22d day of January, 1901, and without giving plaintiff or its agent the option whether said fruit trees should be removed from the State or destroyed, destroyed 2,020 in number of said trees by burning them. That they destroyed them because they were infested with root-borers and sour sap and other diseases of fruit trees, and without other cause therefor. That defendants did not refuse to allow plaintiff to care for 296, or any number of said trees. That they were exposed to the wind and died. IX. That the trees so destroyed as set forth in finding VIII by burning and exposure to the wind were not of the value of $388.14, nor of any value whatever. X. That said defendants threatened to destroy all of said trees so condemned, but which had not been destroyed when this action was begun ; but as all of said trees had either died 58 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. or been destroyed prior to the trial of this action, the issue of a permanent injunction would be a useless act. XI. That said defendants were not nor was either of them ever appointed inspector by the County Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners of Tehama County, and they were not nor was either of them at any time such inspector, and the defend- ant Samson was not at any time mentioned herein, a quarantine guardian appointed by the horticultural board of the State. XII. That by reason of the facts above set forth plaintiff has not been damaged in the sum of $476.03, or in any sum whatever. XIII. That of the trees burned some were infested with peach-root borers, which is an insect pest injurious to fruit trees and orchards and infectious ; but only a small per cent of said trees were thus infested. That the others burned were affected with sour sap, which is a condition or dise^ise of the individual tree, neither infectious nor contagious. As conclusions of law from the foregoing facts the Court finds: That plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages in the sum of one dollar. That plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction. That each side should pay its or their own costs. Let judgment be entered accordingly. John F. Ellison, Judge. POWERS OF COUNTY HORTICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AND STATE QUARANTINE OFFICER. Opinion of AttOFney-General Tlrey L. Ford. San Francisco, Cal., September 24, 1901. Mr. Alexander Craw, State Board of Horticulture, Clay Street Dock, San Francisco, Cal.: Dear Sir: Your favor of July 8, 1901, received, but owing to the press of other official matters which I had in hand at the time of the receipt of your communication, I have only just been able to give your letter my consideration. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 59 You say: "A serious and contagious disease of olive trees, known as Bacillus oleae, has been found in several counties of this State, introduced several years ago from Europe. There is no known remedy for the disease, and the Board desires to know (1) if the County Horticultural Commissioners have power to order all such diseased trees destroyed, or to destroy them, under the last clause of Section 2 of the law of 1897 ; (2) in counties where no County Board of Horticulture exists, has the State Board of Horticulture any legal right to cause the condemnation or destruction of such diseased trees through the courts, or otherwise?" In reply to your first question, permit me to say that the State Board of Horticulture was created by Act of March 18, 1883 (Statues- 1883, p. 289). The Act was amended in 1889 (Statutes 1889, p. 89). The amended Act authorizing the creation of County Boards of Horticulture is the Act of March 31, 1897 (Statutes 1897, p. 244). The Act provides for the creation of the County Boards of Horticultural Commissioners. By Section 2 of said Act it is made the duty of the board to cause an inspection to be made of any orchards or nurseries, or trees, plants, etc., and if found infested with any pest injurious to the fruit, trees, plants, vegetables, etc., or with their eggs or larvae, they shall notify the owner thereof to destroy the said pests, or their eggs or larva. The Act then reads: "Any and all such places, or orchards, or nurseries, or trees, plants, shrubs, vegetables, vines, fruit, or articles thus infested, are hereby adjudged and declared to be a public nuisance. * * * j^ shall be the duty of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners to cause said nuisance to be at once abated by eradicating or destroying said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvae." After providing for the expense entailed in the destruction of the pests, the Act declares: "The County Board of Horti- cultural Commissioners is hereby vested with power to cause any and all such nuisances to be at once abated in a summary manner. ' ' The remedies against a public nuisance are; (1) Indictment or information; (2) A civil action; (3) Abatement. (Civil Code, Sec. 3491.) A public nuisance may be abated by any public body or 60 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. officer authorized thereunto by law. (Section 3494, Civil Code.) Any person may abate a public nuisance which is especially injurious to him, by removing or, if necessary, destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. (Section 3495, Civil Code.) There is a diversity of opinion among the text-writers upon the right of a private individual to abate a public nuisance from which he sustains no special injury beyond that common to the public at large. Some maintain the position that he has such right. 1 Hilliard on Torts, 605. 1 Bishop's Criminal Law, 828. While others maintain that he has no such right. Wood on Nuisances, 732, et seq.; Cooley on Torts, Sec. 46. At common law he could do so. 3 Blackstone's Com., 5. ' In California, the ease of Gunter vs. Geary, 1 Cal. 462, sus- tains the affirmative of this question, though it does not seem to have been again cited in this State to the point. However, Section 3495 of the Civil Code, supra, settles the question, in so far as this State is concerned, against the right of a private person to abate the nuisance summarily, unless he has suffered some personal injury. Section 3495 of the Civil Code, supra, however, gives a pub- lic body or officer this right when authorized by law. The question then resolves itself into the following: Is the County Board of Horticulture authorized, by laM% to summa- rily abate that which the law has declared to be a public nuisance ? As stated, the statute makes the infested trees, etc., a public or common nuisance. This the Legislatui*e has the right to do. County of Lox Angeles vs. Spencer, 126 Cal. 670; Lawton vs. Steelr, 119 N. Y. 226; affirmed 152 U. S. 133. It has li'ven the County Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners power to eradicate and destroy the insects, or their eggs or larva', and, as stated above, declares "all infested places, orchards, or nurseries, or trees, plants, etc., thus in- fested * * * to be a public nuisance." STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 61 The board is then given power to summarily abate the com- mon or public nuisance. In the absence of anything further, this would be the authority of. law referred to in Section 3495, i,u-pra, of the Civil Code. In the case of Lawton vs. Steele, supra, the Court, in speak- ing of the remedies for the abatement of nuisances, says at page 237: "The public remedy is ordinarily by indictment for the punishment of the offender, wherein on judgment of con- viction the removal or destruction of the thing constituting the nuisance, if physical and tangible, may be adjudged, or by bill in equity filed in behalf of the people. But the remedy by judicial prosecution, in rem or in personam, is not, we con- ceive, exclusive, where the statute in a particular case gives a remedy by summary abatement, and the remedy is appropriate to the object to be accomplished. ' ' In the ease of County of Los Angeles vs. Spencer, supra, t.he Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Acts here under discussion, and sustained them. After hold- ing that the Acts in question were a proper exercise of the police power, the Commissioner, at page 674, says: "In this connection it may be well to observe that the statute does not authorize any injury to, or destruction of property, but on the contrary its provisions are beneficial to the very property upon which it operates." This expression of opinion is mere dictum and unnecessary to the decision. The point involved was neither argued nor referred to in the briefs in the case. It is true that the scope of the Act is "to promote and protect the horticultural inter- ests of the State, ' ' and in certain portions of the Act it is said that the commissioners shall abate the nuisance by "eradica- ting or destroying said insects or other pests, or their eggs or larvffi. " But, as said in the case under consideration, on page 673 : " It is known that the existence of the fruit industry in the State depends upon the suppression and destruction of the pests mentioned in, the statute." In Lawton vs. Steele, supra, at page 238, it is said in speaking of the power of summary abatement: "But the remedy of summary abatement cannot be extended beyond the purpose implied in the words, and must be confined to doing what is necessary to accomplish it, and here lies, we think, the stress of 62 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. the question now presented. It cannot be denied that in many cases a nuisance can only be abated by the destruction of the property in which it exists. The cases of infected cargo or clothing and of impure and unwholesome food are plainly of this description." Again, at page 239 : ' ' But where a public nuisance consists in the location or use of tangible personal property, so as to interfere with or obstruct a public right or regulation as in the case of the float in the Albany basin (9 "Wend. 571), or the nets in the present case, the Legislature may, we think, author- ize its summary abatement by executive agencies without re- sort to judicial proceedings, and any injury or destruction of the property necessarily incident to the exercise of the sum- mary jurisdiction interferes with no legal right of the owner. ' ' In Bateman vs. Colgan, 111 Cal. 587, this general principle is referred to as follows r "It is further objected that the pro- visions of Section 2524 could not have been intended to apply to a work of this character, because the Board of Harbor Com- missioners is not authorized thereby to employ an architect, which it is argued is, in the essential nature of things, ren- dered necessary in the construction of such a building. But, where power is given to perform an act, the authority to em- ploy all necessary means to accomplish the end is always one of the implications of the law, and, notwithstanding the omission of- any special provision to that end, it was competent for the board, in carrying out the purposes of the Act, to employ all necessary means to fulfill its requirements." If, therefore, injury unavoidably follows the summary eradi- cation and destruction of the insects and pests, or their eggs or larvae (the thing authorized by statute to be done), yet if such eradication and destruction are done without wanton or unnec- essary injury, there is no legal interference with the rights of the owner of the property afPected. It must be borne in mind, however, that the board will be held to a strict account for any unnecessary destruction of property, and it will, therefore, be entirely a question of fact for them to determine, in each instance, just how far it is nec- essary for them to exercise their powers. In reply to your second question, I have to say that the Act creating and defining the powers of the said Board of Horti- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 63 cultural Commissioners does not give them the powers con- ferred upon the County Board of Horticultural Commission- ers. Their power seems to be confined to the dissemination of knowledge and the disinfection of suspected materials danger- ous to orchards and trees, to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, and the establishment of quarantine regulations. But nowhere is a power given to destroy trees or abate nuisances. In the absence of said statutory provisions, I am of the opinion that they have no such power. Very truly yours, TIREY L. FORD, Attorney-General. By Wm. M. Abbott, Deputy. DUTIES AND LIMITATIONS OF HORTICULTURAL COMMISSIONS. In the effort to eradicate the "White Fly" (Aleyrodes citri) in the city of Marysville, an attempt was made by some of the property owners to prevent the Horticultural Commis- sioners from entering upon their premises and performing the necessary work. To this end, injunctions were sought restraining them from interfering with the property of the affiants. Suit was then brought to have these injunctions denied, and that of Mrs. Jennie F'. Meyers was brought into court and the case heard by Superior Judge Mahon, who, upon presentation of the facts, refused the injunction, stating, in his opinion, the law in the case, as follows: "It is the duty of the County Horticultural Commission to make inspection of all orchards and if, upon inspection, they found that the orchards were infested with the dangerous pest or insect it becomes the duty of the Commission to serve notice on the owner of the orchard to supply such remedies in the eradication of such pest as should be prescribed by the State Horticultural Commissioner. "That the determination of the fact as to whether the pest or insect is dangerous lies solely with the Horticultural Com- missioners, and the remedy to be applied in its eradication lies 64 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUBE. solely with the State Horticultural Commissioner, and the courts will not interfere with their determination of these facts. That in this case, from the afSdavits filed in answer to the complaint on application for injunction sets forth that the Horticultural Commissioners of Yuba County have examined and inspected the orchard on the premises of Mrs. Jennie Meyers, the plaintiff, and have found that the said orchard is infested wiih the 'white fly,* a dangerous insect and pest. That they have served upon her a notice prescribed by the statute to eradicate the pest and insect in the manner pre- scribed by the State Horticultural Commissioner, to wit: to defoliate the trees. ' ' Of the facts set forth in the af&davit of the Horticultural Commission there is no denial, and it appears that the said Commission is proceeding regularly in the discharge of their duties as set forth in the statute, and a court of equity will not interfere with them in a matter that the law places solely in their hands to determine. It is the judgment of the court that if upon inspection of an orchard no dangerous insect or pest were found, then the County Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners would have no right to enter upon the premises or take any steps toward eradicating the pests. If no pest w6re found upon the particular orchard, then there could be no legitimate excuse to attempt to eradicate it. Only orchards infested can be treated by the Commission. "They have no right under the law to assume that an orchard will become infested. The particular orchard owned by Mrs. Meyers appears, from the undisputed evidence set forth in the affidavit, to be already infested with the white fly, and this Commission will not be enjoined from applying the prescribed remedy for the eradication of the said pest. The injunction is therefore denied." STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 65 COUNTY ORDINANCES RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. IN FORCE JANUARY 1, 1908. HUMBOLDT COUNTY. OFdinance No. 50 — An ordinance for the regulation of the sale of fruits and fruit trees. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Humboldt do ordain as follows: Section 1. It is hereby made unlawful for any person, partnership or corporation to import into the County of Hum- boldt, any fruit, fruit trees, or vines infested with San Jose scale or codling-moth. Sec. 2. It is hereby made unlawful for any person, part- nership or corporation, to sell, retail, or give away, within the corporate limits of the County of Humboldt, any fruit, fruit trees or vines, infested with San Jose scale or codling-moth. Sec. 3. Any person, partnership, or corporation violating any of the provisions of sections one and two of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the County Commissioners of Horticulture to inspect aU fruit, fruit trees and vines im- ported into the County of Humboldt, and, if found infested with San Jose scale or codling-moth, immediately to notify the owners or those in possession thereof to destroy, disinfect or dispose of the same in such manner as said Commissioners may direct. Sec. 5. Any person, partnership or corporation of the County of Humboldt, that refuses to permit the County Com- missioners of Horticulture to inspect all fruits, fruit trees and vines in possession of said persoi}s, partnership or corpora- tion, and that refuses or neglects to destroy, disinfect or dis- pose of such fruit, fruit trees or vines, when found infested 5 — HS 66 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. with San Jose scale or codling-moth, in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner inspecting the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars. Sec. 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 23d day of November, 1893. On motion of Supervisor Moore, seconded by Supervisor Scott, the foregoing ordinance was adopted. Supervisors Moore, Scott, Hill, Swortzel and Mercer voting in favor thereof, and no one voting against the same. Further ordered, that the foregoing ordinance be published in the "Daily Humboldt Times," for at least ten days preced- ing the 23d day of November, 1893. H. M. Mercer, Chairman of Board of Supervisors. Ordinance No. 60 — An OFdinanee to prevent the spread of noxious insects in Humboldt County. The Board of Supervisors of Humboldt County do ordain as follows, to wit: Section 1. Every person who shall sell, buy, expose for sale, give away or distribute, to be used in the County of Humboldt, any fruit of any kind infested with codling-moth or scale insects, their eggs or larvae, or who shall import or bring the same into the County of Humboldt, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by fine not exceed- ing fifty dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding fifty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the County Board of Horti- cultural Commissioners, and. of each member thereof, to in- vestigate violations of this ordinance and institute prosecutions therefor. The ordinance shall take effect on July 25th, 1898. On motion of Supervisor Pine, seconded' by Supervisor Scott, the foregoing ordinance was adopted. Supervisors Pine, Scott, Swortzel, Clark and McLeod voting in favor thereof, and no one voting against the same. Further ordered, that the foregoing ordinance be pub- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. 67 lished in the "Ferndale Enterprise," "Eel Eiver Valley Advance," "Areata .Union," and "Humboldt Weeldy Standard" for at least one week preceding the 25th day of July, 1898. W. J. SWOETZEL., Chairman of Board if Supervisors. IMPERIAL COUNTY. Ordinance No. 7 — An ordinance to promote the horticultural Interests of Imperial County, California, and providing for the inspection and destruction of insect pests, and providing restrictions upon the importation of cuttings, etc., and providing punishment for the violation thereof. The Board of Supervisors of Imperial County, State of Cali- fornia, do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, or other em- ploye, shall bring for delivery or cause to be brought for delivery, into the County of Imperial, from any other place or places without said County of Imperial, any trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds or grafts, boxes, ladders, props, picking-sacks, tools, or other appliances which have been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds or grafts, without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter, and prior to their removal from said point of destination, to the Horticul- tural Commissioners of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are brought ; nor shall either the persons, parties or corporations above named remove the same from the place of their destination until inspected as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. Any person or persons, corporation or corporations, mentioned in section -one of this ordinance, who shall ship or bring, or cause to be shipped or brought into, Imperial County, California, any trees, cuttings, buds, grafts, shrubs, or plants, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each package, 68 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. box, or separate parcel of such articles a distinct mark or label showing the name of the agent, owner, or shipper, the name of the grower, and the place where grown,. Sec. 3. Upon receiving the notification mentioned in sec- tion one hereof, or any other information, of such importation, the Horticultural Commission, or the local inspector receiving the same, shall, as soon thereafter a^ practicable, carefully inspect the article, reference to which notice was served or information received. If it appears that the importation is of shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts, or buds, and that the same were grown out- side of the State of California infested with the white fly {Aleyrodes citri), red spider (Tetranychus mytilaspidis) , ted scale {Aspidiotus aurantii), yellow scale (Aspidiotus cit- rinus), purple scale {Mytilaspidis citricola), or any other injurious insects, not prevalent, it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to at once cause the same to ba- destroyed. If it appears that the importation is of boxes, ladders, props, picking-sacks, tools or other appliances which have been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds or grafts from any place infected with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or if it shall appear that the transportation of the same is from one district which is infected with the red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or any other injurous insect within said county to another district within said county, then it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to cause the same to be dis- infected by a thorough fumigation with cyanide of potas- sium. Sec. 4. If it shall appear that the importation, notice of yhich is required to be given by section one hereof, consists of grapevines, scions, rootings, grafts, buds or cuttings, from any grapevine grown in or shipped from any infested district shall immediately be destroyed. Sec. 5. It shall be unlawful to sell any vines, cuttings, rootings, grafts, scions or buds imported from any district, except upon the written permit of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners, stating that said plants have been inspected STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 69 and treated as hereinbefore provided, and that the same did not come from any infested district and are free from insect pests. Sec. 5a. It shall he unlawful for any person, firm, com- pany, or corporation, etc., to import into Imperial County, any vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts, buds, citrus trees, scions, or buds, from north of the north line of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties of the State of California, or from the States of Florida or Louisiana. The provisions of this section do not apply to shipments from any lawfully authorized state farm or agricultural school, or United States Experiment Station, or Agricultural School or College. Sec. 6. The Horticultural Commission shall adopt such' rules in relation to application for permits provided for in the preceding sections as in their judgment may be necessary. Sec. v. Every person who shall violate any of the provis- ions of this ordinance /hall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 8. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the 26th day of December, 1907, and a copy thereof shall be printed and published in the ' ' Imperial Valley Press,"' a newspaper printed and published in said Imperial County, for one issue before said date. Passed, approved, and adopted this 10th day of December, 1907. Thf above ordinance was adopted by the following vote: Ayes — Supervisors Sidney McHarg, R. H. Clark, F. S. Web- ster, Porter N. Ferguson, and G. R. Wade. F. S. Webster, Chairman of Board of Supervisors of Imperial County, State of California. 70 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. KINGS COUNTY. Ordinance No. 40 — An ordinance for tlie protection of horticulture, and to prevent the introduction into the County of Kings of insects or diseases injurious to vines or vegetables, and to provide for a quarantine for the enforcement of this ordinance. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Kings do ordain as follows : Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful for any person or persons or association or corporation to ship or bring into the County of Kings vines of any variety from any point or place within the State of California north of the northern boundary of Madera County or south of Caliente in Kern County, and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, association or corporation within the County of Kings, to buy, or receive within the County of Kings vines of any variety grown or raised at any point 'or place in the State of Cali- fornia, lying and being north of the boundary of said Madera County or south of Caliente in said Kern County. Second: It is hereby made the duty of, and the Horticul- tural Commission of the County of Kings are hereby instructed to inspect all vines brought into the County of Kings from any and all points outside of the territory of the said County of Kings, and to diligently prosecute any and all persons guilty of a violation of this ordinance and to take all lawful and necessary means to fully enforce the same. Any person or corporation violating the provisions of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 26th day of February, 1900. The foregoing ordinance adopted by said Board of Super- visors on this 9th day of February, 1900, by the following vote, to wit: Ayes — McJunkin, Chittenden, McLaughlin, Tomer, and Burr. J. T. McJunkin, Chairman of Board of Supervisors. STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 71 LOS ANGELES COUNTY. Ordinance No. 42 (new series) — An ordinance to promote the horticultural interests of Los Angeles County, Cali- fornia, and providing for the inspection and destruction of insect pests, and providing for restrictions upon the Importation of cuttings, etc. The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1, No person or persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker^ servant, or other em- ploye, shall bring for delivery, or cause to be brought for delivery, into the County of Los Angeles from any other place or places without said county, any, trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds or grafts, without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter, and prior to removal from said point of destination, to the Horticultural Commissioners of the said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are so brought; nor shall either the persons, parties or corporations above named remove the same from the place of their destina- tion until inspected as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. Any person or persons, corporation or corpora- tions, mentioned in section one of this ordinance who shall ship, or bring, or cause to be brought or shipped into Los Angeles County, California, any trees, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, shrubs or plants, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each package, box or separate parcel of such articles a distinct mark or label showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper, the name of the grower, and the place where grown. Sec. 3. Upon receiving the notification mentioned in sec- tion one hereof, or any other information of such importation, the Horticultural Commission, or the local inspector receiving the same, shall, as soon thereafter as practicable, carefully inspect the article, reference to which notice was served. If it appears that the importation is of citrus trees, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts or buds, and that the same were grown in the State of Louisiana, Florida, or any other place infested with 72 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. the white fly {Aleyrodes citri), it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to at once cause the same to be dis- infected by a thorough application of kerosene emulsion. After such application, the tree, shrub, scion, cutting, graft or buds shall remain in the custody of the importer in a place thoroughly isolated from any other citrus trees, shurbs, scions, cuttings, grafts, or buds; and such place to be so arranged that if the same are infested with the white fly, said insect could not escape therefrom to any other trees or plants in the neighborhood; and if not so isolated, said plants are hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to cause the same to be destroyed. Two weeks after the first application of kerosene emulsion, as herein provided, the same shall be again thoroughly treated to a kerosene emulsion, and again at the end of another period of two weeks the same shall be treated for the third time with kerosene emulsion. Thereafter such importation shall remain in the custody of the importer, and without being set out in orchard form, thoroughly isolated, as aforesaid, for the period of at least one year ; and the same shall be inspected as often during that period as in the judgment of the Horticultural Commission may be deemed necessary; and if upon any such inspection, it appears that the same are in fact infested with white fly in any stage of existence, or with their eggs, the entire consignment shall be at once destroyed by the Horticul- tural Commission. Sec. 4. In addition to the foregoing treatment for the eradication of the insect pest known as the white fly, the Horticultural Commissioners may require any additional treatment or disinfection which, in their judgment, wovild more efliectively disinfect the same; and shall require the wrappings in which said trees were imported, to be burned or thoroughly disinfected. Sec. 5. If it shall appear that the importation, notice of which is required to be given, by section one hereof, consists of grapevines, scions, rootlings, grafts, buds or cuttings from any grapevine grown in or shipped from, any county in the State of California north of the north line of San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino counties, or from any district infested with phylloxera of the vine, it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commissioners to cause said cuttings, vines, root- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. 73 lings, grafts, scions or buds to be exposed for at least twenty- four hours to a saturated atmosphere of carbon bisulphide. Thereafter the said vines, rootlings, cuttings, grafts, scions or buds, shall remain in the custody of the importer for such length of time as may in the judgment of the Horticultural Commission be necessary to determine whether or not the same are infested with phylloxera; not, however, less than six months. If at any time it shall appear upon inspection of such importation, that the same is infested with phylloxera, the entire consignment shall be destroyed. Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful to sell or plant in orchard form or to attach to any growing trees in the County of Los Angeles any citrus cuttings, grafts, trees, scions or buds, from the States of Florida or Louisiana without first obtaining from the Board of Horticultural Commissioners a written per- mit to such sale or use, stating that the same have been in- spected and treated as hereinbefore provided; and that in the judgment of the said Horticultural Commission, the same are free from insect pests. Sec. 7. It shall be unlawful to sell any vines, cuttings, rootlings, grafts, scions, or buds imported from the district north of the north line of Kern, San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino counties in the State of California, except upon the written permit of the Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners, stating that the said plants have been inspected and treated as hereinbefore provided, and that in their judgment the same are free from insect pests. Sec. 8. The Horticultural Commission shall adopt such rules in relation to application for permits, provided for in the two preceding sections, as in their judgment may be necessary. Sec. 9. Any person importing for the purposes of sale any citrus plant, tree, vine, cutting, rootling, graft or bud from the States of Florida or Louisiana, or from any other state or district or county infested with the white fly ; and any person importing for the purposes of sale any vine, cutting, citrus trees, plant, rootling, graft, or bud from any place herein designated as infested with phylloxera ; or importing said vine or citrus plants from any other point hereinafter designated on the minutes of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of Los Angeles County as a point infested with the white fly 74 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE, or phylloxera respectively, shall pay a license of fifty dollars per quarter ; which license shall be in the usual form of county licenses and issued by the Tax Collector, and shall state the place or places for which the holder thereof is licensed and authorized to import as aforesaid. ApplicatAons for such licenses shall be made to the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners, and shall be accompanied by a good and suf- ficient bond with two sureties in the penal sum of five thou- sand dollars for the faithful compliance with the terms of this ordinance ; and when approved by them the Tax Collector shall be by them authorized to issue said license, but not before. Sec. ip. Every person who shall violate any of the pro- visions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 11. An ordinance entitled "An ordinance to promote the horticultural interests of Los Angeles County, California, ' ' passed by the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County on the 3d day of November, 1891, is her.eby repealed. Sec. 12. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the 15th day of July, 1901; and prior to the expiration of fifteen days from the passage hereof, shall be published for at least one week in the "Los Angeles Daily Journal," a newspaper printed and published in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, together with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against the same. E. S. Field, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Ordinance No. 92 (new series)— An ordinanee providing for the protection of certain birds. The ordinance provides that the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of Los Angeles County may, in proper cases, issue permits permitting any of the birds herein mentioned to be taken, killed, or captured for scientific purposes. STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HOETICULTXIRE. 75 MENDOCINO COUNTY. Ordinance No. 131 — An ordinance for the protection of horticulture and to prevent the introduction into Men- docino County of insects or diseases or animals injurious to fruit, fruit trees, vines, bushes, vegetables, or berries or grapes. Th e Board of Supervisors of Mendochio County, State of Cali- fornia, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Any person, persons or corporation, who shall receive, bring or cause to be brought into the County of ]\Ien- doeino. State of California, any nursery stock, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, rootlets, buds or fruit- pits, or fruit, or vegetables, or berries, or grapes, or any case, . box, package, crate or other article for the packing or shipping of fruit, shall within twenty-four hours after the arrival thereof notify the quarantine guardian of said county, or in case there is no quarantine guardian, then one member of the County Board of Horticulture, or some person commissioned by them, or either of them, of their arrival, and hold the same withoiit unnecessarily moving the same, or placing such arti- cles where they may be harmful, for the immediate inspection of such quarantine guardian or member of the County Board of Horticulture, or person duly commissioned by either of them to make such inspection and examination. The said quarantine guardian, or any member of the County Board of Horticulture, or any person or persons commissioned by them to make such inspection, are hereby authorized and empowered to enter into any warehouse, or depot, or any other place where such articles are, for the purpose of making the investigation or examination herein provided for. Sec. 2. "When any of the articles herein named are found infested with injurious insects, or their eggs, larvae, or pupae, or infected with tree, plant or fruit disease or diseases, the same shall be disinfected at the expense of the owner, owners, or agent, and under the direction of such quarantine guardian or member of the County Board of Horticulture, or person commissioned by them for that purpose. After such disinfec- tion it shall be detained in quarantine the necessary time to 76 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. determine the result of such disinfection. If the disinfection has been so performed as to destroy all insects, or their eggs, and so as to eradicate all disease and prevent contagion, and in a manner satisfactory to said quarantine guardian or mem- ber of the County Board of Horticulture, or the person com- missioned by them or either of them, then said articles shall be released after the payment by said owner, owners or agent of the expense of disinfecting the same or eradicating the disease therefrom. In case any owner, owners or agent shall decline or refuse to disinfect any of such articles, or to eradi- cate the disease therefrom as herein directed, then said quar- antine guardian or any member of the County Board of Horticulture, or person commjssioned by them, shall cause the same to be disinfected and the disease to be eradicated there- from and said owner, owners or agent shall pay all the expenses thereof. Sec. 3. If it shall be found that it is impossible to disin- fect any of the articles herein enumerated, or to eradicate all disease therefrom so as to prevent contagion, then such article or articles are hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and then said quarantine guardian or member of the County Board of Horticulture, or person duly commissioned by them, shall have power and authority to destroy said article in ease the owner, owners or agent shall refuse to do so. Sec. 4. Any person who shall receive, bring or cause to be brought into this county any of the articles hereinabove enumerated and shall fail to notify said quarantine guardian of said county, or some member of the County Board of Horti- culture, or person commissioned by them for such purpose, of the arrival of such articles within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the same shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $20. Sec. 5. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in force on and after the 24th day of December, 1903, and prior to said time shall be published for one week in the ' ' Republican Press, ' ' a newspaper of general circulation published in said county. Passed by the Board of Supervisors of said county this 8th day of December, A. D. 1903. Leonard Barnard, Chairman of said Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California. STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 77 MERCED COUNTY. Ordinanee No. 49 — An ordinance to promote the horticul- tural interests of Merced County, California. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Merced do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, corporation or corpora- tions, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant or em- ploye, shall bring for delivery, or cause to be brought for delivery, into Merced County, from any place or places with- out said county, any trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings or grafts, without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter to the Horti- cultural Commission of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are so brought; nor shall either of the persons or parties above warned remove or use, or cause the removal of the same from the place of their arrival at their destination until inspected as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. On receiving the notification mentioned in section one hereof, the Horticultural Commission or local inspector receiving the same shall cause within twenty-four hours there- after to be carefully inspected the articles relative to which said notice was served. In default whereof said Horticultural Commission or local inspector receiving said notification here- inbefore mentioned shall be liable to any damages caused by its or his negligence. Sec. 3. Any person or persons within the County of Mer- ced who shall ship or bring, or cause to be shipped or brought into Merced Comity, Califoraiia, any trees, vines, scions, cut- tings, grafts, shrubs, or plants, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each box, package, or separate parcel of such articles, a distinct mark or label showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper, the name of the grower and the place where grown. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the County Horticultural Commission to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and for such purpose it may make such rules and regulations as in its judgment is necessary to make such ordinance effective. Sec. 5. Any person violating any of the provisions of this 78 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than five days nor more than six months, or by a ilne not less than five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of imprisonment, which must not exceed one day for every dollar of the fine. J. A. Montgomery, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. ORANGE COUNTY. Ordinance No. 17 — An ordinanee to promote the hortieul- tupal interests of the County of Orange, State of California. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, corporation or corpora- tions, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, or employe, shall bring or cause to be brought for any purpose into Orange County, California, from any district, county. State or for- eign country, any trees, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts, fruit, plants, flowers, vegetables, or peach-pits, without giving notice of their arrival within twenty-four hours thereafter to a member of the County Board of Horticultural Commission- ers of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which they are brought; nor plant, sell, expbse for sale, give away, remove or cause to be removed any of the said articles, until they shall first have been inspected as hereinafter pro- vided and disinfected to the satisfaction of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said Orange County or the local inspector thereof acting under the direction of said County Board of Horticultural Commissioners. Sec. 2. Section 2 of said ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows : Section 2. On receiving the notification mentioned in sec- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 79 tioiii one hereof, the Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector securing the same shall, as soon thereafter as practi- cable, carefully inspect the articles relative to which said notice was served ; and the "fees for inspecting all articles enumerated in section one of this ordinance coming into the county and which are inspected by a Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector as herein provided shall be paid by the consignee of said articles so coming into this county, and the fees for inspecting all articles enumerated in section one of this ordi- nance, shipped out of the county, shall be paid by the shipper, which said fee shall be at the rate of three dollars per day for each and every day consumed in making such inspection. Sec. 3. If upon a careful inspection by a Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector of said County of Orange any of the articles enumerated in section one of this ordinance shall be found to be infested with any live scale or insect pests, detrimental or injurious to fruit trees or the product thereof, or to any plant life, or if upon such inspection any of said articles shall be found to be infected or to have come from a district whose trees are infected with peach-yellows, pear blight, or other disease, such infested or infected articles shall be removed from the limits of the said county within forty- eight hours thereafter, at the expense of the owner, agent, or shipper, or shall be destroyed. The owner, agent, or shipper shall have the right to elect as to the removal of said infested or infected articles from said county, or to have the same destroyed by order and under the direction of the County Board of Horticultural -Commissioners. Sec. 4. Whenever the said Board of Horticultural Com- missioners shall deem it necessary for the safety of the horti- cultural interests of the said county, they may hold in quar- antine for subsequent inspection or disinfection, or both, any of the articles mentioned in section one of this ordinance for such length of time as in their judgment is necessary. Sec. 5. The said County Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners are hereby authorized to require any or all of the arti- cles enumerated in section one of this ordinance and brought into Orange County, to be disinfected, even though a careful inspection by a Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector of said county should show such articles to be apparently free from scale or insect pests or plant disease. 80 STATUTES, ETC., BELATINGf TO HOKTICULTUKE. Sec. 6. Any person or persons,' corporation or corpora- tions, who shall ship, or bring, or cause to be shipped or brought into Orange County, California, any of the articles mentioned in section one of this ordinan'ce shall have placed upon, or securely attached to each box, package or separate parcel of such articles, a distinct mark or label, showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper, the place where grown and from whence shipped. Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the County Horticultural Commission to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and for such purpose it may make such rules and regulations as in its judgment is necessary to make such ordinance effective. Sec. 8. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than ten days and not more than one hundred days, or by a fine not less than ten dollars nor more than two hun- dred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A judg- ment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of imprisonment, which must not exceed one day for every two dollars of the fine. Sec. 9. The Ordinance No. 8 entitled "An Ordinance with excerpts from the State laws," passed May 5, 1890, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the pro- visions of this ordinance, are hereby repealed. This ordi- nance shall take effect and be in force fifteen days after its passage, and within less than fifteen days after its passage, and before the expiration of said fifteen days, the same shall be published with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors, voting ;Eor or against the same, for at les^st one week in the ' ' Santa Ana Standard, ' ' a newspaper printed and published in the City of Santa Ana in said County of Orange. The above ordinance was passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, on the 7th day of December, 1891, by the following vote : Ayes — J. Yoch, J. W. Hawkins, L. Sehorn, S. Armor, .and W. N. Tedford. Noes — none. J. Yoch, Chairman of the Board of Hnperrisors. STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HOBTICULTUEE. 81 Ordinance No. 52 — An ordinance to prevent the spreading of the Russian Thistle, Scotch or Canadian Thistle, Mexi- can Cockleburr, Johnson Grass, or Evergreen Millet. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange do ordam as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person owning property- in the County of Orange, to permit the Russian thistle, Scotch or Canadian thistle^ Johnson grass, Evergreen millet, or Mexican cockleburr to mature or disseminate its seed on the lands so owned by such person. It shall be unlawful for any person to sow or disseminate or to permit the sowing or disseminating of any seed of the Russian thistle, Scotch or Canadian thistle, Johnson grass, or Evergreen millet, or Mexican cockleburr upon any of the land owned by another. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or in any way dispose of any seed of the Russian thistle, Scotch or Canadian thistle, Mexican cockleburr, Johnson grass or Evergreen millet to another, whether in packing of goods or in grain or gvass seeds or otherwise. Every person who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall take effect from and after fifteen days from its passage and before the expiration of said fifteen days the same shall be published for at least one week in the ""Weekly Blade," a newspaper of general circulation. This ordinance was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors of said County of Orange, this 16th day of September, 1901. Supervisors F. P. Nickey, W. G. Potter, D. C. Pixley, and J. P. Snover, voting for said ordinance. Absent R. E. Larter, and no one voting against the same. F. P. Nickey, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. 6— HS 82 STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HORTICULTURE. Ordinance No. 71— An ordinance to provide fo;? the destruc- tion of tlie Florida wliite fly. Whereas, The Florida white fly has appeared in certain citrus trees and other forms of vegetation in the State of Cali- fornia, and is liable to be introduced into the County of Orange, and Whereas, The said insect pest is a threatening danger to the citrus industry of the County of Orange ; therefore. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any persons owning property in the County of Orange, State of California, to per- mit or allow the Florida white fly to be or remain upon the trees or vegetation or to be or remain upon the property owned by such person. It shall be unlawful for any per- son to import, bring in, disseminate or propagate the said Florida white fly upon any of the lands owned by himself or owned by another. Sec. 2. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after fifteen days from its passage, and before the expiration of said fifteen days the same shall be published for at least one week in the "Weekly Blade," a newspaper of general circula- tion in the County of Orange. Passed by the following vote: Ayes — Supervisors MacMul- lan. Smith, Moore, Linebarger and Angle. Noes — none. Ab- sent — none. D. A. MacMullan, Chairmun of the Board of Supervisors of Orange Coiiitty. Oalifornui. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 83 RIVERSIDE COUNTY. Ordinance No. 5 — Relating to liortieultural interests of Riverside County. The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, State of Cali- fornia, do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, either as owner, agent, servant or employe, shall bring or cause to be brought into Riverside County, State of California, from any place, district, county,, state, or foreign, country, any trees, vines or shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, roots, plants, flowers or vege- tables or fruit or fruit-pits, without giving notice of their arrival at their destination, within twenty-four hours there- after, to a member of the Board of Horticultural Commission- ers of said Riverside County or the local inspector of the dis- trict into which they are brought. Sec. 2. No person or persons either as owner, agent, servant or employe shall keep in store, plant, sell or expose for sale, give away or otherwise distribute any of the articles mentioned irt section one (1) of this ordinance, or cause or permit the same to be stored, planted, sold, exposed for sale, given away or otherwise distributed whether said articles ■were brought into said County of Riverside, State of California, or were raised or grown in said county, if they are infested with any insect pest or their eggs, larvse or pupse or have any disease or fungus detrimental or injurious to vines or fruit trees or the product thereof, or to plant life; nor until they shall have first been inspected as hereinbefore provided. Sec. 3. Whenever any member of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners or any local inspector of said County of Riverside, State of California, shall receive notice of the arrival at their destination of any of the articles enu- merated in section one (1) of this ordinance, or that any of such articles raised or grown in said Riverside County are ready for inspection, he shall (if within his jurisdiction) make a careful inspection of the same as promptly as possible, and if they, or any of them, shall be found infested with live scale or insect pests, or their eggs, larvte or pupse, or to have any disease or fungus detrimental or injurious to vines or fruit 84 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. trees or the product thereof, or to plant life, such infested or diseased articles shall either be disinfected to the satisfaction of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said Eiverside County, or local inspector thereof acting under the direction of said Board of Commissioners, and be held in quarantine until free from said live scale, or insect pests, or their eggs, larvffi or pupas, and from disease or fungus, or shall be destroyed under the direction of said Board of Commissioners or local inspector at the risk and expense of the owner, agent or shipper thereof. "Whether such infested or diseased articles be disinfected or quarantined or be destroyed, shall be wholly within the con- trol and under the judgment of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said County of Riverside, State of Cali- fornia, except in the case of infested fruit, and they shall so order as in their judgment may be deemed best for the horti- cultural interests of the county. The owner, agent or shipper shall have the right to elect to remove infested fruit from the county within twenty- four (24) hours after having been notified in writing by a Horticultural Commissioner or a local inspector of said county that it is infested, or to have the same- disinfected or destroyed as above provided; but he shall make his decision as soon as notified and inform the inspector whether or not he will remove the fruit. Sec. 4. Whenever any member of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of the County of Riverside, State of California, or a local inspector thereof acting under the direction of said Commissioners shall deem it necessary for the safety of the horticultural interests of the county, he may hold in quarantine for information, subsequent inspection or disin- fection and final order relative thereto, any of the articles enumerated in section one (1) of this ordinance whether grown or raised in this county or not, for such time as in his judg- ment may be deemed by him necessary, and such articles so placed in quarantine shall not be removed from the place of quarantine during the time specified by the Commissioner or inspector for said quarantine. Sec. 5. The County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of the County of Riverside, State of California, is hereby authorized to require any or all articles enumerated in section STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 85 one (1) of this ordinance brought into said Riverside County, or raised or growni in the said county, to be disinfected or quarantined, or both, whenever in their judgment it is best for the horticultural interests of said county, even though a care- ful inspection by a Horticultural Commissioner or a local iaspeetor should show such article to be apparently free from disease, fungus, live scale or insect pests. Sec. 6. "Whenever any trees, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, roots, plants or fruit or fruit-pits brought into Riverside County, State of California, shall upon inspection by any member of the County Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners be found to have been shipped or brought from any place, district, county, State or foreign country where peach yellows, peach rosette or phylloxera exist, or where there is good reason to believe that they or either of them exist, and if in the judgment of the Commissioners danger may be justly apprehended of their introduction, or the introduction of either of them upon the articles so brought into said Riverside County, and if said articles are liable to be affected with the above-named diseases, or infested with the above-named in- sects, then all such articles are hereby declared a nuisance and shall be destroyed under the direction of said Horticultural Commissioners of said Riverside County at the expense of the owner, agent or shipper thereof. Sec. 7. Every owner or person in charge or in possession of any orchard, nursery or other premises in the County of Riverside, State of California, on or in which is growing any tree, vine, shrub, plant, flower or vegetable infested with red, purple, yellow, cottony cushion, pernicious or any other appar- ently dangerous scale, or the eggs, larvs or pupae thereof or With phylloxera or other dangerous insects or dangerous disease or fungus shall when required by any member of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said River- side County as in discretion may seem necessary, cut back, disinfect, fumigate or dig out and burn as directed by said Horticultural Commissioner, the said infested tree, vine, shrub, plant, flower or vegetable and also any other that may be in the vicinity of such infested article and liable to be infested thereby, and in event of said owner, agent or person in charge of said orchard, nursery or other premises neglecting or refus- ing to obey the order of the Horticultural Commissioners to 86 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. cut back, disinfect, fumigate or dig out and burn the said tree, vine, shrub, plant, flower, or vegetable within five days from the receipt of such order, then the Horticultural Commission- ers may proceed to cut back, disinfect, fumigate or dig out and burn all such trees, vines, shrubs, plants, flowers, or vegetables, the cost and expense of same to be paid by the owner of the orchard, nursery or other premises. Sec. 8. Any person or persons who shall ship or bring or cause to be shipped or brought into the County of Riverside, State of California, any trees, vines, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, shrubs, plants, flowers, vegetables, fruit or fruit-pits, or roots for planting or grafting shall have placed upon or securely attached to each box, package or separate parcel of such articles a distinct mark or label showing the name of the grower, and of the place, district, county or state in the United States or in a foreign country where grown, and also such further marks or labels as the Board of Horticultural Com- missioners of said Riverside County may require to determine the liablity of said articles to convey insect pests or diseases endangering the horticultural interests of the county. Sec. 9. The owner or person in charge or in possession of any orchard, nursery or other premises in the County of River- side, State of California, in or on which are growing any trees, plants, shrubs, vines, flowers, or vegetables, shall not allow any person to bring into his orchard, nursery or other premises any box, basket, picking-sack (or leaves or other contents of the same), ladder or other article liable to convey injurious insects and which has been used in picking or in conveying fruit from any orchard, district or neighborhood where injurious insects are known to exist unless said article has been disinfected to the satisfaction of a Horticultural Commissioner of said Riverside County or the local inspector of the district into which said article is brought. Said owner or person in charge or in possession of said orchard, nursery or other premise shall report within twenty- four (24) hours thereafter to the local inspector in charge of that district, or to a Horticultural Commissioner of the county whenever he or any person in his employ, or on his premises shall find any red, purple, yellow, cottony cushion, pernicious or other dangerous scale on any fruit tree, plant, vine, flower or vegetable on said premises ; and .shall keep the same a rea- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. 87 sonable time safe from danger of distributing the pest for the inspection and attention of a Horticultural Commissioner or a local inspector of the said Kiverside County. All persons picking fruit in said County of Riverside, State of California, shall report at once to the owner or person in charge or in possession of the premises on which the fruit is growing whenever they find any scale or other insect pest on the fruit they are picking. All packers of fniit and persons in charge of the packing of fruit and all dealers in fruit in said County pi Riverside, State of California, shall report within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter to the local inspector of the district in which they are packing or doing business, or to a Horticultural Commissioner of said county, whenever they or any person in charge or in their employ shall find any fruit infested with any scale or other injurious insect pest ; and shall keep the same a reasonable time safe from danger of dis- tributing the pest for the inspection and attention of a Horti- cultural Commissioner or local inspector of said Riverside County. Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners of said County of Riverside, State of Cali- fornia, to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and for such purposes they may make such rules and regulations as in their judgment are necessary to make this ordinance effective. On their written request specifying what is needed, presented at any meeting of the Board of Supervisors of said County of Riverside, State of California, and duly certified to be accord- ing to their best judgment necessary for the protection and preservation of the horticultural interests of- the said County of Riverside, the said Board of Supervisors shall provide at the ^expense of the said county and within a reasonable time suit- able outfits for the fumigating of infested fruit trees in said county. Said outfits shall be placed in the care and charge of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of the said county, who shall receipt for the same and be responsible to the said county for the proper use and care of said fumigating outfiits. The Board of Horticultural Commissioners of the said County of Riverside, State of California, shall render to the Board of Supervisors of the said county, monthly on the first Monday of each and every month, a statement of all expendi- tures and receipts under the provisions of this section of this 88 STATUTES) ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. ordinance and shall deposit with the treasurer of the said county monthly all funds received for the use of the fumiga- ting outfits and file with the monthly statement to the Super- visors of said county the receipt of the treasurer of said county for the same. Sec. 11. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor aiid on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail of said County of Riverside, State of California, not less than ten days and not more than one hundred days, or by fine of not less than ten dollars and not more than one hundred dol- lars or by both such fine and imprisonment. A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of the imprisonment, which must not exceed one day for each dollar of the fine. Sec. 12. This ordinance shall taice effect and be in force on and after the 15th day of August, 1893. Ordinance No. 75 — An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 5, relating to horticultural interests of Riverside County. The Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, State of Cali- fornia, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Section six of Ordinance Number 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6. 'Whenever any trees, vines, shrubs, scions, cut- tings, roots, plants or fruit-pits brought into Riverside County, State of California, shall upon inspection by any member of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners be found to have been shipped from any place, district, state or foreign country where peach yellows, peach rosette,' phylloxera, red spider of the orange {Tetranychus mytilaspidis) , or white fly {Aleyrodes citri) exist or where there is good reason to believe that they or either of them exist and if in the judgment of the Commissioners danger may be justly apprehended of their introduction, or of the introduction of either of them upon the articles so brought into said Riverside County, and if said articles are liable to be affected with the above-named diseases STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 89 or infested with the above-named insects, then all such articles are hereby declared a nuisance and shall be destroyed under the direction of said Horticultural Commissioners of said Riv- erside County at the expense of owner, agent or shipper thereof. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in force from and after the first day of March, 1904. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. Ordinance No. 122 — An ordinance to promote the horticul- tural interests of San Bernardino County, California, and providing for the inspection and destruction of insect pests, and providing restrictions upon the importation of cuttings, etc. The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant or other employe, shall bring for delivery or cause to be brought for delivery, into the County of San Bernardino, from any other place or places, without said county, or from one district to another district within said county, any trees, plants, vines, fruit, fruit-pits, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, or grafts, boxes, ladders, props, picking-sacks, tools or other appliances which have 'been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts or fruit without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter, and prior to their removal from said point of destination, to the Horticultural Commissioners of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are so brought; nor shall either of the persons, parties, or cofrporations above- named remove the same from the place of their destination until inspected as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. No person or persons either as owner, agent, serv- ant or employe, shall keep in store, plant, sell or expose for sale, give away or otherwise distribute any of the articles 90 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. mentioned in section one (1) of this ordinance, or cause or permit the same to be stored, planted, sold, exposed for sale, given away or otherwise distributed whether said articles were brought into said County of San Bernardino, State of Cali- fornia, or were raised or grown in said bounty, if they are infested with any insect pest or their eggs, larv£e or pupse, or have any disease or fungus detrimental or injurious to vines or fruit trees or the product thereof, or to plant life; nor until they shall have first been inspected as provided "in section four (4) of this ordinance. Sec. 3. Any person or persons, corporation or corporations mentioned in section one (1) of this ordinance who shall ship or bring or cause to be brought or shipped into San Bernardino County, California, any trees, cuttings, buds, grafts, shrubs or plaints, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each package, box or separate parcel of such articles a distinct mark or label, showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper, the name of the grower and the place where grown. Sec. 4. Upon receiving the notification mentioned in section one (1) hereof, or any other information of such importation, the Horticultural Commission, or the local inspector receiving the same, shall, as soon thereafter as practical, carefully inspect the article, reference to which notice was served or information received. If it appears that the importation is of citrus trees, fruits, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts or buds, and that the same were grown in the State of Louisiana, Florida, Yuba County, California, or any other place infested with the white fly {Aleyrodes citri), red spider (^Tetranyclius mytilaspidis) , red scale {Aspidiotus aurantii), yellow scale {Aspidiotus citrinus), purple scale {Mytilaspidis citricola) or any other injurious insects, not prevalent in that locality, it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to at once cause the same to be disinfected by a thorough application of kerosene emulsion. After such application the tree, shrub, scion, cutting, graft or buds shall remain in the custody of the importer in a place thoroughly isolated from any other citrus trees, fruits, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts or buds, and such place to be so arranged that if the same are infested with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale, or purple scale, said insect could not escape therefrom to other trees or plants in the neighbor- STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. 91 hood, and if not so isolated said plants are hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and it shall be the duty of the Horticul- tural Commission to cause the same to be destroyed. Two weeks after the first application as herein provided the same shall be again thoroughly treated to a kerosene emulsion, and again at the end of another period of two weeks the same shall be treated for the third time with kerosene emulsion. Thereafter such importation shall remain in the custody of the importer and without being set out in orchard form, thoroughly isolated as aforesaid, for a period of at least one year, and the same shall be inspected as often during that period as in the judgment of the Horticultural Commis- sion may be deemed necessary, and if upon such inspection it appears that the same are in fact infested with white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, in anj^ stage of existence, or with their eggs, the entire consignment shall be at onee destroyed by the Horticultural Commission. If it appears that the importation is of boxes^ ladders, props, picking-sacks, tools or other appliances which have been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, or fruit from any place infected with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or if it shall appear that the transportation of the same is from one district which is infected with the red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or any other injurious insect ' within said county to another district within said county, then it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to cause the same to be disinfected by a thorough fumigation with cyanide of potassium. StEC. 5. In addition to the foregoing treatment for the eradication of the insect pests known as the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, in any stage of existence or their eggs, the Horticultural Commission may require any additional treatment or disinfection which, in their judgment, would more effectively disinfect the same ; and shall require the wrappings in which said trees were imported, to be burned or thoroughly disinfected. Sec. 6. If it shall appear that the importation, notice of which is required to be given by section one (1) hereof, consists of grapevines, scions, rootings, grafts, buds or cuttings, from 92 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. any grapevine grown in or shipped from any county in the State of California north of the north line of San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino counties, or from any district in- fected with phylloxera of the vine, it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commissioners to cause said cuttings, vines, root- ings, grafts, scions or buds to be exposed for at least twenty- four hours to a saturalted atmosphere of carbon bisulphide. Thereafter the said vines, rootings, cuttings, grafts, scions or buds, shall remain in the custody of the importer for such length of time as may in the judgment of the Horticultural Commission be necessary to determine whether or not the same are infected with phylloxera; not, however, less than six months. If at any time it shall appear upon inspection of such impor- tation that the same is infected with phylloxera, the entire consignment shall be destroyed. Sec. 7. It shall be unlawful to sell or plant in orchard form, or to attach to any growing trees, scions or buds, from the States of Florida or Louisiana, or Yuba County, California, without first obtaining from the Board of Horticultural Com- missioners a written permit to such sale or use, stating that the same have been inspected and treated as hereinbefore provided, and that in the judgment of the said Horticultural Commis- sion, the same are free from insect pests. Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful to sell any vines, cuttings, root- ings, grafts,- scions or buds imported from the district north of the north line of Kern, San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino counties in the State of California, except upon the written permit of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners, stating that said plants have been inspected and treated as hereinbe- fore provided, and that in their judgment the same are free from insect pests. Sec. 9. The Horticultural Commission shall adopt such rules in relation to application for permits, provided for in the two preceding sections as in their judgment may be necessary. Sec. 10. Any person importing for the purpose of sale any citrus plant, tree, vine, cutting, rooting, graft or bud from the states of Florida or Louisiana, Yuba County, California, or from any state or district or county infected with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale ; and any STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. 93 person importing for the purpose of sale any vine, cutting, citrus trees, plant, rooting, graft or bud from any place herein designated as infected with phylloxera, or importing said vine or citrus plants from any other point hereafter designated on the minutes of the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of San Bernardino County, as a point infected with the white fly or phylloxera, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale respectively, shall pay a license of fifty dollars per quarter, which license shall be in the usual form of county licenses and issued by the Tax Collector and shall state the place or places for which the holder thereof is licensed and authorized to import as aforesaid. Applications for such licenses shall be made to the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners, and shall be accom- panied by a good and sufficient bond with two sureties in the penal sum of five thousand dollars for the faithful compliance with the terms of this ordinance ; and when approved by them, the Tax Collector shall be by them authorized to issue said license, but not before. S'EC. 11. Every person who shall violate any of the pro- visions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor; and upon convicti^on thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 12. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force fifteen days from and after its passage. Sec. 13. Ordinance Number 104 entitled "An ordinance to promote the horticultural interests of San Bernardino County, California, and providing for the inspection and destruction of insect pests, and providing restrictions upon the importation of cuttings, etc.," and all other ordinances in conflict with this ordinance, are hereby repealed. The foregoing ordinance, containing thirteen sections, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, California, at their regular meeting held Tuesday, the 2d day of July, 1907. Present — Supervisors West, Reid, Nel- son, Pine and Glover. This ordinance was considered section by section and each section adopted separat.ely, and afterwards this ordinance was adopted as a whole. 94 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. Each section of, and this ordinance as a whole, was adopted by the unanimous votes of Supervisors J. H. West, E. W. Keid, A. P. Nelson, Samuel Pine and J. B. Glover. Witness our hands and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, California, this 2d day of July, 1907. B. W. Reid, Chairman of the Board of ^Supervisors. SAN DIEGO COUNTY. Ordinance No. 130 — An ordinance to promote the horti- cultural interests of San Diego County, California, and providing for the inspection and destruction of insect pests, and providing restrictions upon the importation of cuttings, etc. The Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, State of Cali- fornia, Clio ordain as folloivs: Section 1. No person or persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, or other em- ploye, shall bring for delivery or cause to be brought for delivery into the County of San Diego, from any other place or places, without said County of San Diego, or from one district to another district within said county, any trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds or grafts, boxes, ladders, props_, picking-sacks, tools or other appliances which have been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts or fruit, without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter, and prior to their removal from said point of destination, to the Horticul- tural Commissioners of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are so brought ; nor shall either the persons, parties or corporations above named remove the same from the place of their destination until inspected a& hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. Any person or persons, corporation or corporations, mentioned in section one of this ordinance, who shall ship or STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 95 bring, or cause to be brought or shipped into San Diego County, California, any trees, cuttings, buds, grafts, shrubs, or plants, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each package, box, or separate parcel of such articles a distinct mark or label showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper, the name of the grower, and the place where grown. Sec. 3. Upon receiving the notification mentioned in sec- tion one hereof, or any other information, of such importation, the Horticultural Conunission, or the local inspector receiving the same, shall, as soon thereafter as practicable, carefully inspect the article, reference to which notice was served or information received. If it appears that the importation is of citrus trees, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts or buds, and that the same were grown in the States of Louisiana, Florida, or any other place infested with the white fly {Aleyrodes citri), red spider (Tetramychus mytilaspidis) , red scale {Aspidiotus aurantn), yellow scale {Aspidiotus citrinus), purple scale (Mytilaspis citricola), or any other injurious insects, not prevalent in that locality, it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to at once cause the same to be disinfected by a thorough application of kerosene emulsion. After such application the tree, shrub, scion, cutting, graft or buds, shall remain in the custody of the importer in a place thoroughly isolated from any other citrus trees, shrubs, scions, cuttings, grafts, or buds, and such place to be so arranged that if the same are infested with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale, or purple scale, said insect could not escape therefrom to other trees or plants in the neighborhood, and if not so isolated said plants are hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to cause the same to be destroyed. Two weeks after the first application as herein provided the same shall be again thoroughly treated to a kerosene emulsion, and again at the end of another period of two weeks the same shall be treated for the third time with kerosene emulsion. Thereafter such importation shall remain in the custody of the importer, and without being set out in orchard form, thor- oughly isolated as aforesaid, for a period of at least one year, and the same shall be inspected as often during that period as in the judgment of the Horticultural Commission may be 96 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOBTICXJLTURB. deemed necessary, and if upon any such inspection it appears that the same are in fact infested with white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale in any stage of existence, or with their eggs, the entire consignment shall be at once destroyed by the Horticultural Commission. If it appears that the importation is of boxes, ladders, props, picking-sacks, tools or other appliances which have been used in orchards or in connection with the handling or transporta- tion of trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts or fruit, from any place infested with the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or if it shall appear that the transportation of the same is from one district which is infested with the red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, or any other injurious insect within said county to another district within said county, then it shall be the duty of the Horticultural Commission to cause the same to be disin- fected by a thorough fumigation with cyanide of potassium. Sec. 4. In addition to the foregoing treatment for the erad- ication of the insect pests known as the white fly, red spider, red scale, yellow scale or purple scale, in any stage of existence, or their eggs, the Horticultural Commission may require any additional treatment or disinfection which, in their judgment, would more effectively disinfect the same; and shall require the wrappings in which said trees were imported to be burned or thoroughly disinfected. Sec. 5. If it shall appear that the importation, notice of which is required to be given by section one ( 1 ) hereof, consists of grapevines, scions, rootlings, grafts, buds or cuttings, from any grapevine grown in or shipped from any county in the State of California north of the north line of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties, or from any district infested with phylloxera of the vines, it shall be the duty of the Horti- cultural Commissioners to cause said cuttings, vines, rootlings, grafts, scions or buds to be exposed for at least twenty-four hours to a saturated atmosphere of carbon bisulphide. There- after the said vines, rootlings, cuttings, grafts, scions or buds shall remain in the custody of the importer for such length of time as may in the judgment of the Horticultural Commission be necessary to determine whether or not the same are infested with phylloxera ; not, however, less than six months. If at any time it shall appear upon inspection of such importation that STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOBTICULTUBE. 97 the same is infested with phylloxera, the entire consignment shall be destroyed. Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful to sell" or plant in orchard- form, or to attach to any growing trees in the County of San Diego, any citrus cuttings, grafts, trees, scions or buds, from the States of Florida or Louisiana without first obtaining from the Board of Horticultural Commissioners a written permit for such sale or use, stating that the same have been inspected and treated as hereinbefore provided; and that in the judg- ment of the said Horticultural Commission the same are free from insect pests. Sec^ 7. It shall be unlawful to sell any vines, cuttings, rootlings, grafts, scions or buds imported from the district north of the north line of Kern, San Luis Obispo and San Bernardino counties, in the State of California, except upon the written permit of the Board of Horticultural Commission- ers, stating that said plants have been inspected and treated as hereinbefore provided, and that in their judgment the same are free from insect pests. Sec. 8. The Horticultural. Commission shall adopt such rules in relation to application for permits provided for in the two preceding sections as in their judgment may be necessary. Sec. 9. Every person who shall violate any of the pro- visions, of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2'5th day of Februarjj, 1905, and a copy thereof shall be printed and published in the "San Diegan Sun," a newspaper printed and published in said San Diego County, for two weeks before said date. Passed, approved and adopted this 9th day of February, 1905. Wm. Justice, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, California. 7 — HS 98 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY. Ordinance No. 211 — Coneerning horticultural interests. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Joaquin do ordain as follows: Section 1. No person or persons, either as owner, agent, servant, or employe, shall bring or cause to be brought into San Joaquin County, California, from any foreign country, district, county or state, any trees, vines, scions, cuttings, grafts, fruits, plants or fruit-pits without giving notice within twenty-four hours after their arrival at their destination to a member of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which they are brought; nor plant, sell, or expose for sale, give away or otherwise distribute any of the articles mentioned in this section, or cause the same to be done, until they shall first have been inspected as hereinafter provided and disin- fected to the satisfaction of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said San Joaquin County, or the local in- spector thereof acting under the direction of said County Board of Horticultural Commissioners. Sec. 2. If upon a careful inspection by a Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector of said County of San Joaquin any of the articles enumerated in section one (1) of this ordi- nance shall be found to be infested with any live scale or insect pests detrimental or injurious to fruit trees or the prod- uct thereof, or to plant life, such infested articles shall be removed from the limits of the county within forty-eight hours, at the expense of the owner, agent or shipper, or destroyed. The owner, agent or shipper shall have the right to elect as to the removal of said infested articles from the county or to have the same destroyed, by order and under the direction of the County Board of Horticulture. Sec. 3. Whenever the said board deem it necessary for the safety of the horticultural interests of the county, they may hold in quarantine for subsequent inspection or disinfection or both, any of the articles mentioned in section one (1) of this ordinance, for fourteen days or less as in their judgment is necessary. SIbc. 4. The County Board of Horticultural Commissioners are hereby authorized to require any or all articles as enumer- STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HORTIOULTUEE. 99 ated in section one (1) of this ordinance brought into San Joa- quin County to be disinfected, even though a careful inspection by a Horticultural Commissioner or local inspector should show such articles to be apparently free from scale or insect pests. Sec. 5. Every owner or owners, person or persons in charge or possession of any orchard, nursery or premises in San Joaquin County on which are growing any vines, trees, shrubs, plants, vegetables or flowers, infested with red or cottony cushion scale, or eggs, larvae or pupse thereof, shall, when required by the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners, as in their discretion may seem necessary, cut back and disinfect or fumigate said infested trees, vines, shrubs, plants, flowers or vegetables, as well as all other articles as above mentioned that may be in the vicinity of such infested articles, and on refusal or neglect to comply at once therewith, to dig out and destroy the same as said board may direct. Sec. 6. Any person or persons who shall ship or bring, or cause to be shipped or brought into San Joaquin County any trees, vines, scions, cuttings, grafts, shrubs, fruits, plants, or fruit-pits, shall have placed upon or securely attached to each box, package, or separate parcel of such trees, vines, scions, cuttings, grafts, shrubs, fruits, plants, flowers or vegetables, a distinct mark or label showing the name of the owner, agent or shipper and the locality where produced. Sec. 7. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than ten days nor more than one hundred days, or by a fine not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of imprisonment, which must not exceed one day for every two dollars of the fine. Sec. 8. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Sec. 9. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the 5th day of February, 1892. Passed on this 18th day of January, 1892. J. A. Shepherd, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. 100 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUKE. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY. Ordinanee No. 167 — An ordinance to protect the fruit industry in the County of Santa Cruz. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz do ordain as follows: Section 1. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to bring, ship, carry or transport into the County of Santa Cruz any fruit, trees, scions, buds or roots infected with the disease known as "pear blight." Sec. 2. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to receive into the County of Santa Cruz or have in their possession any trees, fruit, scions, buds or roots infected with the disease known as "pear blight." Sec. 3. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to bring, ship, carry or trans- port into the County of Santa Cruz any trees, fruit, scions, buds or roots of the apple, pear, quince and loquat from the counties of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Sacramento, Madera, Mer- ced, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern, San Diego, Riv- erside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles, in the State of Cali- fornia. Sec. 4. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to receive into the County of Santa Cruz from the counties of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Sacra- mento, Madera, Merced, Orange, Ventura,, Santa Barbara, Kern, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles, in the State of California, any trees, fruit, scions, buds, or roots of the apple, pear, quince and loquat. Sec. 5. It is hereby made the duty of the County Board of Horticultural Commissioners of the County of Santa Cruz to institute proceedings against any and all persons violating any of the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 6. Any person or persons, firm or corporation, violat- ing any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail of the County of Santa Cruz STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HOBTIOULTUBB. 101 for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 7. This ordinance shall take eifect and be in force on and after fifteen days after its passage, and shall be published in the manner and for the time prescribed by law in the "Santa Cruz Morning Sentinel." Passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz this 6th day of January, A. D. 1903. John S. Collins, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Ordinance No. 210 — An ordinance creating the olflee of County Entomologist in the County of Santa Cruz, fixing the salary and providing for his duties. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz do ordain as follows: Section 1. The office of County Entomologist is hereby created, and the salary of said office is hereby fixed at the sum of fifty dollars per month. Sec. 2. The Board of Supervisors shall fill said office by appointment, and the appointee shall hold office at the pleasure of this board. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the said Coiinty Entomolo- gist to carry out the true intent and purpose and to enforce the provisions of the Act of the Legislature of the State of California, approved March 14, 1889, and certain Acts amend- atory thereof, approved March 19, 1887, March 31, 1891, and March 31, 1897, and March 20, 1905, and March 6, 1907, en- titled "An Act to protect and promote the horticultural inter- ests of the State," and also the provisions of Chapter IV& of the Political Code of the State of California, relating to the promotion of the horticultural interests of the State by pro- viding for a County Board of Horticulture, with full power to exercise any and all duties and privilege^ conferred by the laws of the State of California upon commissioners of County Boards of Horticulture. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the 20th day of September, A. D. 1907, and shall be published in the manner and for the period prescribed by law. 102 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. Passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz this 4th day of September, A. D. 1907, by the following vote: Ayes — Supervisors Hartman, Kinsley, Miller, Wyman and Linseott. Noes — none. Absent — none. J. A. LiNSCOTT, Chairman of said Board. SONOMA COUNTY. Ordinance No. 26 — An ordinanee to ppomote the hortieul- tupal interests of Sonoma County by plaeingr a quarantine on all trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings or grafts, brought into the county. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma do ordain as follows: Section 1. Xo person, or persons, corporation or corpora- tions, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, or em- ploye, shall bring for delivery into Sonoma County, California, from any place or places without said county, any trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings, or grafts, without giv- ing written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter to the Horticultural Commission of said county, or to the local inspector of the district into which the same are so brought ; nor shall either of the persons or parties above-named remove or use or cause the removal of the same from the place of their arrival at their destination, until inspected as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. On receiving the notification mentioned in section one hereof, the Horticultural Commission, or local inspector receiving the same, shall, eis soon thereafter as practicable, carefully inspect the articles relative to which said notice was served. Sec. 3. Any p^erson or persons within the County of Sonoma who shall ship or bring, or cause to be shipped or brought into Sonoma County, California, any trees, vines, scions, cuttings, grafts, shrubs, or plants, shall have placed upon and securely attached to each box, package or separate parcel of such articles, a distinct mark or label showing the STATUTES, ETC., EELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 103 name of the owner, agent or shipper, the name of the grower and the place where grown. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the County Horticultural Commission to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and for such purpose it may make such rules and regulations as in its judgment is necessary to make such ordinance eflEective. Sec. 5. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than five days nor more than six months, or by fine of not less than five dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A judgment that the defendant pay a fine may also direct that he be imprisoned until the fine be satisfied, specifying the extent of the imprisonment, which must not exceed one day for every dollar of the fine. Sec. 6. This ordinance shall take eflEect and be in force on and after the 26th day of December, 1891. Sec. 7. All ordinances or parts of ordinances now in force and in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. F. A. Smith, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. STANISLAUS COUNTY. Ordinance No. 60 — An ordinanee relating to the bringing and importing vines, grapevine cuttings, nursery stock, trees, shrubs, plants, grafts, scions, buds or fruit pits into the County of Stanislaus. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Stanislaus do ordain as follows: Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to bring into the County of Stanislaus any rooted grapevine. Sec. 2. It is hereby declared unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, to bring into the County of Stanislaus any unrooted grapevine cutting, unless the sanle has been fumi- gated with bisulphide of carbon immediately before bringing 104 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. it into the county or the same is immediately fumigated after arrival and before being taken to the place where the same is to be planted. Sec. 3. Any person, firm or corporation, either as owner or agent, who shall receive, bring or cause to be brought into the County of Stanislaus amy nursery stock, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions, buds or fruit-pits, shall within twenty-four hours after the arrival thereof, notify the Horticultural Commissioner or the quarantine guardian of the district in which such nursery stock is received, of its arrival, and hold the same until said quarantine officer orders the delivery. Sec. 4. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any per- son, firm or corporation to knowingly bring, ship, carry or transport into the County of Stanislaus any trees, plants, vines, shrubs, scions, cuttings or grafts infested with codling- moth, scale or any other injurious insects or their larvee or Russian thistle, that is injurious to fruit, fruit trees, vines or other plants or vegetables. Sec. 5. Any person, firm or corporation violating this ordi- nance is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not exceeding the sum of five hundred dollars or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 6. This ordinance shall take effect from and after fifteen days after the passage and publication thereof. Adopted this 13th day of December, 1905, in open session of the Board by the following vote: Ayes — J. W. Davison, "W. F. Coffee, A. E. Clary and T. J. Carmichael. Noes — none. Absent — M. A. Lewis. T. J. Carmichael, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUBE. 105 SUTTER COUNTY. An OFdinance to prevent the introduction and spread of Phylloxera and Anaheim or mysterious vine disease in the County of Sutter, State of California, and to provide for the disinfection of grapevine cuttings, and the limbs and scions thereof, etc. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. That no person or persons, firm, corporation or association of persons shall import, bring, convey, ship, haul, transport or in anywise deliver into this the County of Sutter, State of California, or any part or portion of this county, nor shall any person or persons, firm, corporation or associa- tion of persons receive as owner, agent, representative, assignee or consignee in this the said County of Sutter or any part or portion thereof, any grapevines, grapevine roots or grapevine rootings, of any species, unless such person, firm, corporation or association of persons, owner, agent, representative, as- signee, or consignee, shall first receive or obtain from the State Commissioner of Horticulture of the State of California, a written certificate showing that phylloxera and Anaheim or mysterious vine disease, has not existed in the county from which such grapevines, grapevine roots, or grapevine rootings were propagated, raised or grown, for the period of five years immediately preceding such shipment thereof. Sec. 2. That no person or persons, corporation or associa- tion of persons, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant or employe, shall bring for delivery into the- County of Sutter from any place without said County of Sutter, any grapevine cuttings or the scions, buds or limbs of any grapevine, without giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter to the Horticultural Commis- sioners of said County of Sutter ; nor shall any of the persons or parties above named, remove, or permit to be removed, or use or cause the removal of the same from the place of their arrival until inspected hy the Horticultural Commissioners of the County of Sutter. If, upon such inspection, said Horti- cultural Commissioners of said County of Sutter deem that 106 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. said grapevine cuttings, scions, buds and limbs of any grape- vine should be disinfected to guard against either of said dis- eases above named then said Horticultural Commissioners shall disinfect or cause said grapevine cuttings, scions, buds and limbs of grapevines to be disinfected at the expense of the owner or consignee. Sec. 3. Any and all grapevines or their roots, rootings, cuttings, limbs, and the scions or buds of grapevines brought into this county, or that may hereafter be brought into this county, not in accordance with the restrictions in this ordi- nance specified are hereby declared to be a nuisance, and it is hereby made the duty of the said Board of Horticultural Com- missioners of said Sutter County to seize and destroy the same, and to take all proper measures to enforce this ordinance. Sec. 4. Any person or persons, firm, corporation or asso- ciation of persons ■^'iolating any of the provisions of this ordi- nance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment, or either, at the discretion of the court. Sec. 5. This ordinance shall take effect on the 24th day of November, 1906, and before taking effect shall be published 'for one week in the "Sutter County Parmer," a newspaper printed and published weekly in said Sutter County. Passed and approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter, State of California, this 8th day of Novem- ber, 1906, by the following vote : Ayes — F. H. Graves, E. J. White, "W. P. Niesen, John Burns, F. J. Michel. Noes — none. F. H. Graves, Chairman of the Board of Superiisors of the County of Sutter, State of California. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 107 TEHAMA COUNTY. Ordinance No. 34 — An ordinanee prohibiting the importa- tion of nursery stoel^, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cut- tings, grafts, scions or buds known to be infested or to carry the Florida White Fly (Aleyrodes eitri) into the County of Tehama, State of California. The Board \of Supervisors of the County of Tehama do ordain as follows: Section 1. Any person, persons, firm or corporation who shall ship, bring or cause to be brought into the County of Tehama, State of California any nursery stock, trees, shrubs, plants, vines, cuttings, grafts, scions or buds known to be infested or to carry the Florida white fl.y (Aleyrodes citn) is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine not less than twenty-five doUars or by imprisonment in the county jail of the County of Tehama not less than twenty-five days. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after fifteen days after its passage and before the expiration of the said fifteen days the same shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against the same for one week in the "Red Bluff Daily News," a newspaper published in the County of Tehama, State of California. Passed and adopted this 7th day of January, A. D. 1908. H. C. Kaupfman, Chairman (pro tern.), Of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Tehama, State of California. TULARE COUNTY. Ordinance No. 104 — An ordinance to provide for the pre- vention of the introduction and spread of Phylloxera, the mysterious vine disease known as Anaheim, and all other diseases of grapes and grapevines, in the County of Tulare, State of California. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Tulare, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, employe, common carrier, or otherwise, to import. 108 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTURE. ship, or in any way bring, or convey, or cause to be brought or conveyed, into the County of Tulare, State of California, any grapevine, grapevine root, grapevine rooting, or grapevine scion, cutting, or limb, of any variety or species whatever, or to have or receive in said County of Tulare, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, employe, common carrier, con- signee, or otherwise, any grapevine, grapevine root, grapevine rooting, or grapevine scion, cutting or limb, imported, shipped, or in anywise brought or conveyed into said County of Tulare from any place outside of said county, without complying with each and all of the provisions and restrictions provided and specified in this ordinance. Sec. 2. Any and all grapevines, grapevine roots, grapevine rootings, and grapevine scions, cuttings, and limbs in any way imported, shipped, conveyed, or brought into said County of Tulare from any place outside of said county not in accordance with the provisions and restrictions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be nuisances, and the Board of Horticultural Com- missioners of said County of Tulare are hereby authorized to destroy the same and to abate such nuisances, and to do any and all things necessary or proper to carry the provisions of this ordinance into effect. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, serv- ant, common carrier, consignee, or otherwise, to import, ship, or in any way bring or convey into said County of Tulare, any grapevine, grapevine root, grapevine rooting, grape- vine scion, cutting, or limb that is in any way affected by, or infested with either phylloxera or the mysterious vine disease known as Anaheim, or which has been grown in, or taken from, any nursery, or vineyard, or place, or neigh- borhood where either phylloxera or said mysterious disease of the vine known as Anaheim exists or shall hereafter exist; and every person, firm, corporation, or association of persons, before importing, shipping, or in any way bringing or convey- ing into said County of Tulare from any place withoixt said county ajiy grapevine root, or grapevine rooting, shall make, execute, and give to said County of Tulare a good and suffi- cient bond with iwo sufficient sureties, in the penal sum of five thousand dollars, conditioned for the due and faithful compliance with all of the provisions and restrictions of this STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 109 section of this ordinance so far as they relate to the importing, shipping, bringing, and conveying into said County of Tulare of grapevine roots and grapevine rootings, which bond shall be approved by said Board of Supervisors, and shall be filed with' the Clerk of said Board ; and any bond given under the provisions of this section shall cover all grapevine roots and grapevine rootings imported, shipped, or in any way brought or conveyed into said County of Tulare by the person, firm, cor- poration or association of persons giving the same for the period of four years from and after the time of filing the same with said Clerk, and on the expiration of any period covered by any such bond, a new bond in the same form, for the same amount, and conditioned as aforesaid, shall be given by such person, firm, corporation, or association of persons before im- porting, shipping, bringing or in any way conveying into said County of Tulare any more or other grapevine roots, or grape- vine rootings. Sec. 4. Any person, firm, corporation, common carrier, or association of persons, that shall receive in said County of Tulare, or shall bring or convey, or cause to be brought or conveyed, into said County of Tulare, whether as owner, agent, broker, factor, servant, employe, consignee, common carrier, or otherwise, any grapevine, grapevine root, grapevine root- ing, or grapevine scion, cutting, or limb, from any place out- side of said County of Tulare, shall within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the same, notify or cause to be notified, a Horticultural Commissioner of said County of Tulare of such arrival, and the place in said County of Tulare where the same has arrived, and shall safely hold the same without any unnecessary moving, and without planting the same, and without placing the same where they can become harmful or injurious, for a reasonable time for inspection by the Hor- ticultural Commissioners of said County of Tulare, or by some inspector or person authorized by said Horticultural Com- missioners to inspect the same ; and the said Board of Horticul- tural Commissioners are hereby authorized to inspect, and to cause to be inspected, all such grapevines, grapevine roots, gi'apevine rootings, and grapevine scions, cuttings, and limbs in any way brought into said County -of Tulare from any place outside of said County of Tulare, and if on such inspec- tion, any of the same shall be found to be affected with any 110 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOBTICULTURE. infectious or contagious disease, or infested with any injuri- ous insects, or their eggs, larvte or pups, or if reasonable ground or cause be found to presume that any of the same is so diseased or so infested, the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners are hereby authorized to do any and all things which in their judgment may be necessary or proper to disin- fect the same, and to eradicate such disease, and to destroy such insects, eggs, larvse and pupa?, and to prevent the intro- duction or spread of such disease or insects in said County of Tulare; and if in their judgment it is necessary to destroy the whole or am- portioA of any shipment, crate, or package or bundle of grapevines, grapevine roots, grapevine rootings, or grapevine scions, cuttings, limbs, among which any such disease or infection is found, or reasonable cause or ground found to presume that such disease or infection exists, for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spread of such dis- ease, infection, or insects, in said County, the said Horticul- tural Commissioners are hereby authorized to destroy the same. Sec. 5. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corpora- tion, or association of persons, either as owner, agent, broker, factor, servant, employe, consignee, common carrier, or other- wise, to deliver, remove from the place of arrival, plant, or put in any place where the same may become harmful or injurious, any grapevine, grapevine root, grapevine rooting, or grapevine scion, cutting, or limb, imported or in any way brought into said County of Tulare, until the same has been inspected, or caused to be inspected by said Horticultural Commissioners, as herein provided, and found upon such in- spection to be free and clear of all contagious and infectious diseases, and free and clear of all injurious insects, their eggs, larvae and pupae, and free from all reasonable ground and cause to presume the same affected with any such disease, or infested with any such insects, their eggs, larvse or pupae; but the' restrictions of this section shall not apply in any case where said Horticultural Commissioners shall refuse to make an inspection, or to cause an inspection to be made, or shall fail or neglect to make an inspection, or to cause an inspec- tion to be made, within a reasonable time after receiving notice of arrival as herein provided, and in no case shall a reasonable time to make such inspection be construed to be less than five days from and after receipt of such notice of arrival. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEE. Ill Sec. 6. Any person, persons, firm, or corporation, or as- sociation of persons violating any of the provisions of this ordinance, or doing any act herein declared to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the dis- cretion of the Court. Sec. 7. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 25th day of January, 1907, and shall be pub- lished prior thereto in two successive issues of the "Tulare County Times," a weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in said County of Tulare; and that certain ordinance numbered seventy-five, adopted by said Board of Supervisors on the 9th day of March, 1901, is hereby repealed. The foregoing ordinance is adopted by said Board of Super- visors' of the County of Tulare, State of California, this 14th day of January, 1907, by the following vote, to wit: Ayes— T. B. Twaddle, Geo. Birkenhauer, Blias Tout, R. W. McParland. Noes — none. Absent — J. W. Martin. T. B. Twaddle, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Tulare, State of California. Ordinance No. 105 — An ordinance to promote the hortieul- tural interests of Tulare County, California, and to pro- vide for preventing the introduction and spread in said county of pests, insects, and diseases injurious to the horticultural interests of said county, and providing a penalty for violation of its provisions. The Board of Supervisors of Tulare County do ordain as follows : Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm, or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, employe, common carrier, or otherwise, to import, ship, or in any way bring or convey, or cause to be brought or conveyed, from any place outside of the said County of Tulare, into the said County of Tulare, any trees, plants, nursery stock, vines, shrubs, scions, buds, cuttings, grafts, fruit, or fruit- 112 STATUTES, ETC., BELATING TO HOETI0T7LTURE. pits, or any boxes, ladders, props, sacks, picking-sacks, tools or other articles or appliances that have been used in any orchard or nursery or in connection with the picking, hand- ling, or transportation of trees, plants, nursery stock, vines, shrubs, scions, buds, cuttings, grafts, fruit, or fruit-pits, with- out complying with each and all of the provisions and restric- tions provided by this ordinance. Sec. 2. Any and all of the articles and things mentioned in section numbered one (1) of this ordinance which shall be imported, or any way conveyed or brought from any place out- side of the said County of Tulare into the said County of Tulare not in accordance with all of the provisions and restric- tions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be nuisances, and the Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said County of Tulare is hereby authorized to destroy the same and to abate siuch nuisances, and to do any and all things necessary or proper to carry into effect the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm, or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, employe, common carrier, or otherwise, to import, or in any way bring or convey, or cause to be brought or conveyed, into the said County of Tulare from any place outside of said County of Tulare, any trees-, plants, nursery stock, buds, cut- tings, scions, grafts, vines, or shrubs, unless there shall be placed upon, or securely attached to, each separate parcel, package, or box of said articles a distinct and legible mark or label showing the name of the owner, agent, or shipper, the name of the grower, and the place where grown. Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm, or corporation, either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant, employe, common carrier, or otherwise, to import, or in any way convey or bring, or cause to be conveyed or brought, into the said County of Tulare, any citrus trees, citrus plants, citrus nursery stock, citrus buds, citrus scions, citrus grafts, citrus cuttings, or citrus fruits, from the State of Florida, from the State of Louisiana, or from any orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood in the State of California, or elsewhere, that is infested with, or wherein is prevalent, the white fly {Aleymdes citri), red spider {Tetranychus mytilaspidis) , red scale {Aspidiotus aurantii), yellow scale {Aspidiotus citrinus), purple scale {MytUaspis citricola), or aaiy infectious disease STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTURE. 113 of citrus, trees or citrus fruits that is not prevalent in said County of Tulare, or to import, or in any way bring or convey, or cause to be brought or conveyed, into said County of Tulare any boxes, ladders, props, sacks, picking-sacks, tools, or other appliances that have been used in any citrus orchard, citrus nursery, place, or neighborhood infested with, or wherein is prevalent any of the diseases, pests, or insects mentioned in this section of this ordinance. Sec. 5. Any person, persons, firm, or corporation, or com- mon carrier that shall receive in said County of Tulare from any place without said County of Tulare, or shall in any way import, bring, or convey, or cause to be imported, brought, or conveyed into said County of Tulaye from any place outside of the said County of Tulare any of the things or articles men- tioned or named in section numbered one (1) of this ordi- nance, shall within twenty-four hours after thfe arrival of the same at its or their place of destination, or within such time as is reasonably possible, notify, or cause to be notified, a Horticultural Commissioner of said County of Tulare, or an inspector appointed by the Board of Horticultural Commis- sioners of said county, of the arrival of the same and the place in said, county where the same has arrived, and shall safely hold the same at the place of arrival, without any unnecessary moving, and without planting, and without handling, dealing with, or placing the same in any way or place that it or they may become harmful or injurious, or cause the spread of any injurious disease, insect, or pest, for a reasonable time for inspection by said! Horticultural Commissioners, or by an inspector appointed by them, and said Horticultural Com- missioners are hereby authorized to make such inspection, and to cause inspection of the same to be made, provided, however, that iq. no ease shall a reasonable ticae to hold any of said articles for inspection be construed to be less than five days from the time of notification herein provided. ' Sec. 6. If it appears on any inspection herein provided for that, the importation is of citrus tfees, citrus plants, eitrlis nursery stock, citrus buds, citrus scions, citrus grafts, or citrus fruits, and that the same were grown in, or imported from, the State of Florida, the State of Louisiana, or any orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood in the State of California, or 8— as 114 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUKE. elsewhere, infested with, or wherein is prevalent any of the diseases, insects, or pests mentioned in section numbered four (4) hereof, the said Horticultural Commissioners, and the said inspectors appointed by them, may, and they are each hereby authorized to at once cause the same to be disinfected by a thorough application of kerosene emulsion, and after such application the importer shall hold the same in his custody in a place thoroughly isolated from any other citrus trees, citrus plants^ and citrus fruits, and so arranged and located that if the same are infested with any of the said diseases, insects, or pests mentioned in said section numbered four (4), no such disease, insect, or pest could be communicated to any other trees, plants, shrubs, or fruit in the neighborhood; and two weeks after the first application of kerosene emulsion, the same shall again be thoroughly treated in the same way with kero- sene emulsion, and again at the expiration of another period of two ^weeks the same shall be thoroughly treated with a 'third application of kerosene emulsion and thereafter such importation shall remain with and be held by the importer without being planted in orchard form, and thoroughly iso- lated as above provided, for at least one year, and may be inspected as often during said period of one year as may be deemed necessary by said Horticultural Commissioners, and if at any time it be found that any of said importation is infected or infested with any of said insects, pests, or diseases, in any stage of existence, or the eggs or larvae of any of said pests or insects, then the said Horticultural Commissioners may, and are hereby authorized to, destroy the whole of such importa- tion; and if it appears that the importation is of boxes, lad- ders, props, picking-sacks, sacks, tools, or other appliances that have been used in any orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood in connection with picking, handling, or transporting any trees, plants, nursery stock, scions, cuttings, buds, grafts, vines, or fruit which orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood is infested or infected with any of the diseases, insects, or pests named or mentioned in said section numbered four (4), the said Horticultural Commissioners, and the said inspectors, and each of them, are hereby authorized to cause the same to be disinfected by a thorough fumigation with cyanide of potas- sium, or such other substance or substances as may be deemed necessary or proper by the inspecting officer, and if any of STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTUEB. 115 said diseases, insects, or pests, in any stage of their existence, or any of their eggs or larvae, be found in any such importa- tion, the said Horticultural Commissioners, and the said in- spectors, or any of them, may destroy the whole of said impor- tation, or any part thereof, deemed necessary to prevent the spread of any such disease, insects, or pests. Sec. 7. If it appears that any importation consists of citrus trees, citrus plants, citrus nursery stock, citrus buds, citrus scions, citrus grafts, or citrus fruits, it shall be the duty of the person, persons, firm, or corporation, importing the same, or receiving the same in said County of Tulare, at or before the time of the inspection thereof herein provided for, to furnish the inspecting officer with satisfactory evidence and proof that no part of such importation was grown in, or imported from the State of Florida, the State of Louisiana, or any nursery, orchard, place, or neighborhood, in the State of California, or elsewhere, infested with, or wherein is prevalent any of the diseases, insects, or pests mentioned or named in said section numbered four (4) hereof, and if such proof and evidence is not furnished at said time, it shall be conclusively presumed that said importation has been grown in, or imported from an orchard, nursery, place or ijeighborhood infested with said last mentioned diseases, insects, and pests, and such importa- tion shall be treated and dealt with accordingly; and if it appears that any importation consists of boxes, ladders, props, sacks, 'picking-sacks, tools, or other articles that have been used in any orchard, or nursery, or in connection with the picking, handling, or transportation of trees, plants, nursery stock, vines, shrubs, scions, buds, cuttings, grafts, fruit, or fruit-pits, then it shall be the duty of the person, persons, firm, or cor- poration importing the same, or receiving the same in the said County of Tulare, at or before the time of the inspection herein provided for, to furnish the inspecting officer with satisfactory evidence and proof that no part of said importation has been used in any orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood infested with, 'or wherein is prevalent, any of the diseases, insects, or pests named or mentioned in said section numbered four (4) hereof, and if such proof and evidence be not so furnished, it shall be conclusively presumed that said articles imported are from, and were "used in, a nursery, orchard, place, or neighb*- hood infested with, and wherein is prevalent said last men- 116 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUEE. tioned diseases, insects, and pests, and the said importation shall be treated and dealt with accordingly. Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firjn, or corporation, either as owner, agent, servant, or employe, to sell, dispose of, or give away, or plant in orchard form, in said County of Tulare, any citrus trees, citrus plants, or citrus nursery stock, or to attach to any growing trees or plants any citrus buds, citrus scions, or citrus grafts, that have been im- ported into said County of Tulare from the State of Florida, the State of Louisiana, or any orchard, nursery, place, or neighborhood in the State of California, or elsewhere, infested with, or wherein is prevalent, any of the diseases, insects, or pests named or mentioned in said section numbered four (4) hereof, until after the same has been treated and dealt with as in tjiis ordinance provided, and until after a certificate has been obtained from a Horticultural Commissioner of said County of Tulare to the effect that in his judgment the same are free and clear from all of said injurious diseases, insects, and pests. Sec. 9. If it shall appear on any inspection of any impor- tation herein provided for, that any of the articles named or mentioned in section numbered one (1) hereof imported into said County of Tulare are infested or infected with any dis- ease, insect, or pest injurious to fruit trees, vines, nursery stock, or fruit, which disease, insects, or pests are not preva- lent in that portion of said county where the said importation is received, the said Horticultural Commissioners, and said inspectors, are hereby authorized to do, and to dause to be done, all things necessary or proper to thoroughly destroy and eradicate such diseases, insects, and pests, and to do, and to cause to be done, all things necessary or proper to prevent the spread of said diseases, insects, and pests in said County* of Tulare. Sec. 10. Any person, persons, firm, or corporation, that shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance, or that shall do any act in this ordinance declared to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail of said county not ex- ceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTIGULTUEE. 117 Sec. 11. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the 20th day of September, 1907, and shall be published prior thereto in two successive issues of the Tulare County "Times," a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and published in said County of Tulare. Sec. 12. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in con- flict with this ordinance are hereby repealed, except and provided, however, that this ordinance does not repeal, and shall not be construed as repealing or in anywise affecting any of the provisions of that certain ordinance of said County of Tulare numbered one hundred and four (104), entitled, "An ordinance to provide for the prevention of the introduction and spread of phylloxera, the mysterious vine disease known as Anaheim, and all other disease of grapes and grapevines, in the County of Tulare, State of California," passed and adopted by said Board of Supervisors on the fourteenth day of January, 1907. The foregoing ordinance is adopted by said Board of Super- visors of the County of Tulare, State of California, this 4th 'day of September, 1907, by the following vote, to wit: Ayes — T. B. Twaddle, R. W. MeParland, Geo. Birkenhauer, E. Tout. Noes — none. Absent — J. W. Martin. T. B. TwADDtiE, Chairman of said Board of Supervisors of the County of Tulare, State of California. YUBA COUNTY. An ordinance to prevent the introduetion and spread of Phylloxera and Anaheim or mysterious vine disease in the County of Yuba, State of California, and to provide for the disinfection of grapevine cuttings and the limbs and scions thereof, etc. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba, State of California, do ordain as follows: Section 1. That no person or persons, firm, corporation or association of persons shall import, bring, convey, ship, haul, transport, or in anywise deliver into this County of Tuba, 118 STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HOETICULTUBE. State of California, or any part or portion of this county, nor shall any person or persons, firm corporation or association of persons receive as owner, agent, representative, assignee, or consignee in this the said County of Yuba or any part or portion thereof, any grapevines, grapevine roots or grapevine rootings, of any species, unless such person, firm, corporation or asso- ciation of persons, owner, agent, representative, assignee, or consignee, shall first receive or obtain from the State Commis- sioner of Horticulture of the State of California, a written certificate showing that phylloxera and Anaheim or mysterious vine disease, has not existed in the county from which such grapevines, grapevine roots or grapevine rootings were propa- gated, raised or grown, for the period of five years immediately preceding such shipment thereof. Sec. 2. That no person or persons, corporation or associa- tion of persons either as owner, agent, factor, broker, servant or employe, shall bring for delivery into the County of Yuba from any place without said County of Yuba, any grapevine cuttings or the scions, buds or limbs of any grapevine, with- out giving written notice of their arrival at their destination within twenty-four hours thereafter to the Horticultural Com- missioners of said County of Yuba; nor shall any of the per- sons or parties above-named, remove or permit to be removed, or use, or cause the removal of the same from the place of their arrival until inspected by the Horticultural Commissioners of the County of Yuba. If, upon such inspection, said Horticul- tural Commissioners of the County of Yuba deem that said grapevine cuttings, scions, buds and limbs of any grapevine should be disinfected to guard against either of said diseases above named then said Horticultural Commissioners shall dis- infect or cause said grapevine cuttings, scions, biids and limbs of grapevines to be disinfected at the expense of the owner or consignee. Sec. 3. Any and all grapevines or their roots, rootings, cut- tings, limbs, and the scions or buds of grapevines brought into this county, or that may hereafter be brought into this county, not in accordance with the restrictions in this ordinance speci- fied are hereby declared to be a nuisance, and it is hereby made the duty of the said Board of Horticultural Commissioners of said Yuba County to seize and destroy the same, and to take all proper measures to enforce this ordinance. STATUTES, ETC., RELATING TO HORTICULTURE. 119 Sec. 4. Any person or persons, firm, corporation or associa- tion of persons violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guUty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six inonths, or by both fine and imprisonment, or either, at the discretion of the court. Sec. 5. This ordinance shall take effect on the 8th day of December, 1906, and before taking effect shall be published for one week in the "Appeal," a newspaper printed and published semi-weekly in said Yuba County. Passed and approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba, State of California, this eighth day of Decem- ber, 1906, by the following vote: Ayes — ^W. J. Mellon, A. G. Wheaton, F. Roberts. Noes— none. D. Morrison, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yula, State of California. 120 HORTICULTURAL OFFICERS. STATE AND COUNTY HORTICULTURAL OFFICERS. ^Corrected to January 1, 1908. John W. Jeffrey, Commissioner Los Angeles John Isaac, Secretary Sacramento Ed. M. Ehrhom, Deputy San Francisco E. K. Carnes, Assistant Deputy Riverside 0. E. Bremner, Second Assistant Soaoma Gertrude Bird, Stenographer Sacramento Alameda. E. 0. Webb, Chairman. Haywards Fred Seulberger Oakland Wm. Barry '. Niles Butte. C. J. Dreher, Secretary Oroville T. F. Stile Chico Colusa. Jos. Boedefeld, Chairman Colusa E. A. Brim, Secretary Williams Wilhelm Tourte Arliuckle f Local Inspectors — Patrick Conlin, Maxwell; Elbert Brim, Williams; R. E. Bouekou, Arbuckle. Contra Costa. A. J. Taran, Secretary Martinez J. Sutton Concord Local Inspector — Dr. W. S. George, Antioch. El Dorado. Shelley Inch, Chairman Placerville J. G Irving, Secretary Placerville Ed Clark Placerville Local Inspector — H. J. Miller, Placerville. Fresno. J. M. Brooks Fresno F. C. Schell, Secretary Fresno C. B. Harkniss Fre^o HOBTICUIiTUEAL OFPICEES. 121 Humboldt. D. D. Averill, Chairman Areata J. E. Jannsen, Secretary Eureka G. E. Stewart Rohnerville Local Inspector — ^Robert H. Hutchins, Eureka. Imperial. A. G. Aplin, Chairman Imperial W. E. Wilsie, Secretary El Centro Francis Heiaey Brawley Inyo. W. H. Wells Round Valley A. P. Smith Big Pine R. C. Spear Lone Pine Kern. C. A. Maul Bakersfield Col. L. W. Burr Bakersfield Kings. B. V. Sharp, Chairman and Secretary Hanford J. E. Tilton Hanford E. C.' Eceles Lemoore Lake. Wm. Johnston, Chairman Lakeport Geo. A. Lyons, Secretary Lakeport A. M. Herrick Lower Lake Lassen. I. N. Jones, Chairman SusanviUe J. B. Christie, Secretary Janesville George Bean Bieber Los Angeles. A. R. Meserve, Chairman Los Angeles Ervin A. Dingle, Secretary Los Angeles C. E. Bemis Covina Local Inspectors — ^A. T. Garey, Los Angeles; C. A. Day, Pasadena; Wm. Wood, Whittier; E. J. MUls, Los Angeles; C. L. Northcraft, Pomona; G. R. Craig, Los Angeles; L. H. Mayet, Hollywood; C. B. Blain, Duarte. 122 HORTICULTUEAL OPFICBES. Madera. W. M. Hughes Madera Merced. N. H. Wilson, Chairman Merced Dr. J. L. McClelland, Secretary Los Banos John E. Canevaro Snelling Monterey. D. G. McLean, Chairman Salinas J. B. Hickman, Secretary Aromas J. B. Sayler Pleyto W. H. Volck, County Entomologist Watsonville Napa. J. W. Grigsby Napa A. D. Butler Napa F. W. Kohler St. Helena Orange. E. W. Camfield, Chairman Orange A. H. Stutsman, Secretary Tustin J. J. Schneider Anaheim Placer. "W. J. McCann, Secretary Auburn H. J. Snook Weimar W. H. Tudsbury Loomis Riverside. R. P. Gundiff, Chairman Riverside H. K. Smith, Secretary San Jacinto H. H. Holmes Corona Local Inspectors — Frank P. Babel, Wm. C. Mclntyre, A. C. Vaught, D. B. Stephenson, E. A. Twogood, Riverside; D. D. Sharp, W. G. Corlett, Arlington ; C. W. Wrestler, V. H. Blair, Corona; Geo. C. Conklin, Perris; E- W. Slygh, Moreno and Armada; ^. F. Shirley, Banning; C. L. Edmunds, Thermal; J. G. Oloan, Hemet; Sylvester Sterrett, Coachella; E. W. Durant, H. A. Clark, San Jacinto; W. C. Clewett, Blsinore. HOETICULTUKAL OFFICHSIS. 123 SacFamento. Lester D. Green, Chairman Vorden Geo. H. Gutter, Secretary Sacramento F. M. Grunshaw Sacramento Local Inspectors — ^Robert Shields, Mills Station; J. A. Nel- son, Vorden. San Benito. F. L. Bamheisel, Chairman HoUist«r Prof. F. T. Bioletti Hollister W. W. Canfield San Juan Local Inspector — ^Leonard H. Day, Hollister. San Bernardino. Joshua Hartzell, Chairman East Highland S. A. Pease, Secretary San Bernardino J. T. Morris Ontario Local Inspectors — Christian Jessen, Oak Glen District, Red- lands; J. J. Reeves, Redlands; W. Riley Fox, Colton; W. J. Clark, Rialto ; Isaac Jones, Etiwanda ; Edwin Motsinger, Cuea- monga; J. B. Goodrich, Upland; 0. J. Newman, Chino. San Diego. C. 0. Nichols Bostonia F. Austin, Secretary San Diego Heman Copeland Chula Vista San Mateo. S. Hunter, County Entomologist Redwood City San Joaquin. J. N. Southrey, Chairman and Secretary Stockton R. C. Tubbs Lodi Dennis Vishu Stockton Local Inspectors — J. P. Stevenson, W. D. Garden, J. F. CosteUo, 0. N. Harrison, H. H. Ladd. Santa Barbara. W. H. Schuyler Lompoc Dr. Lorenzo A. Yates, Secretary Santa Barbara C. J. RusseU Santa Maria 124 HORTICULiTUBAL OPPICBBS. Santa Clara. Earl Morris, County Entomologist San Jose Santa Cruz. C. H. Rodgers, Chairman Watsonville F. W. Hitchings, Secretary Corralitos L. N. Trumbly .Santa Cruz W. H. Volek, County Entomologist Watsonville Shasta. C. N. Tharsing Anderson Geo. A. Lamiman, Secretary Olinda Wm. C. Weaver Anderson Siskiyou. L. T. Hebbring, Chairman Gazelle George Chambers, Secretary Montague James Estes Etna Sonoma. A. R. Gallaway, Chairman Healdsburg W. I. Neweomb, Secretary Sebastopol Stanislaus. W. F. Wheeler, Chairman Oakdale A. L. Rutherford, Secretary Modesto J. N. Stuhr Newman Sutter. H. P. Stabler, Secretary Yuba City R. C. Kells. Yuba City James Haynes Yuba City Local Inspectors — A. E. Davis, Live Oak; J. D. Grajit, Yuba City ; R. N. Kells, Yuba City. Tehama. T. H. Ramsey, Chairman Red Bluff Jas. Feeley, Secretary Red Bluff R. W. Coates Red Bluff HORTIOULTUEAL OPFICEKS. 125 Tulare. P. D. Fowler, President and Secretary Tulare C. S. Riley Visalia A. C. SeliTilz Porterville Local Inspector — 0. C. Williams, Dinuba. Ventura. I. W. Wolfe Nordhofe J. P. Mclntyre Ventura J. B. Alvord Ventura Local Inspectors — ^Walter H. Fleet, Piru; C. C. EDdns, Fill- more; F. C. Foster, Santa Paula; W. B. Cooper, Oxnard; J. W. Graham, Saticoy. Yolo. August Brinck, Chairman Winters Hayward Reed, Secretary Broderick T. D. Morrin Rumsey Local Inspectors — ^Wm. Hughes, Woodland; J. W. Ander- son, Davisville. ^ Yuba. W. B. Meek Camptonville Geo. W. Harney, Secretary Marysville Howard Reed MarysvUle Tmm^^smmii€i9i£^m^^^^^^^r ws^sm^^^^&^^mmwjm^^^