Mr. MARLATT. The Laguna district is about 40 or 50 miles in diameter, and a great deal of its area is devoted to cotton. The actual acreage in the Laguna district under cultivation and devoted to cotton is about 80,000 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a good cotton country?

Mr. MARLATT. Fine.

The CHAIRMAN. So there would not be much likelihood of the farmers stopping the cultivation of it.

Mr. MARLATT. I do not know about that. As I remarked at the opening of my statement, these men are willing to do anything to get rid of the insect, and if they though that it was necessary for the elimination of this insect I think they would be willing to stop growing cotton for three or four years.

The CHAIRMAN. If they stopped growing cotton in the infested. district for one year and adopted the cleaning up and other measures you have suggested, would that eliminate the pest in that locality? Mr. MARLATT. One year?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MARLATT. I should be afraid to risk one year. I should want at least two years, and preferably three or four years.

The CHAIRMAN. What I had in mind was the loss to those engaged in the production of cotton that you would have to contemplate. Mr. MARLATT. It would be a very enormous loss.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would that be?

Mr. SCOFIELD. They could under the circumstances at the present time substitute other crops which are very much needed in that country. They could do that at a relatively small loss, because in the last four years they have had to lose much of two of their cotton crops because of revolutionary activities. They are more reconciled to the readjustment to growing other crops in the place of cotton. than might be the case otherwise.

Mr. MARLATT. In other words, in this district in Mexico they have lost a good deal of their crop in the last two years. They could grow other substitute crops, and Mr. Scofield, the cotton expert of the department, thinks their loss would be materially reduced by that means, those substitute crops being also needed in Mexico.

The CHAIRMAN. So that from one standpoint, at least, the revolution in Mexico may be a blessing to the United States?

Mr. MARLATT. We would not under any circumstances contemplate payment for any losses in Mexico of that kind, but I am confident that those planters, if they saw any likelihood of the elimination of this insect, would be willing to accept that loss and join us in that So our cost there would be for the supervisor and clean-up work, which we would expect to do in cooperation with the Mexican Government and their planters.

movement.

Mr. SISSON. What percentage of the cotton produced in this Mexican district is produced by Americans who own land there?

Mr. MARLATT. I think most of that cotton-producing area belongs to foreigners. It belongs mostly to Americans and to Englishmen. Mr. SISSON. My information is not accurate, but I understood that about one-third of it belongs to American planters.

Mr. HUNTER. It is in the hands of Americans, Englishmen, Germans, and Frenchmen.

Mr. SISSON. Practically all of the cotton cultivation in that section, then, is by foreigners, and the Mexicans do not engage to any material extent in the production of cotton?

Mr. SCHOFIELD. About half of those cotton growers are Spanish. The CHAIRMAN. What organization would you require for this work?

Mr. MARLATT. The details of the organization are given in the memorandum which will be submitted.

Mr. SISSON. I was not here when you made your first statement. Does the record show the manner in which this pink bollworm affects this cotton?

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir; that has been gone into.

Mr. SISSON. When does the Texas Legislature meet?

Mr. AYERS. It meets in January.

Mr. SISSON. And there is no chance of having a special session? Mr. AYERS. It is very remote.

Mr. MARLATT. It might be well to add this much in relation to the State of Texas, and that is that this protection is for the benefit of the entire South, and we can not expect Texas to pay more for her protection than we would expect Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to pay for their protection.

The CHAIRMAN. But I think this is true: You can expect the State of Texas, where the protective measures are essential, to do everything that it can do under the powers of the State to assist, particularly when that State can do some things under the police powers of the State that the Federal Government can not do. I do not believe that one State is justified in a matter of this kind. where vast interests of its own people are menaced, as well as the interests of the people of the rest of the United States. to urge the United States Government to exert all of its powers to accomplish a beneficial purpose and decline to exercise whatever power it might be able to exercise, simply because the political fortunes of some individual might be affected one way or the other. That is the most indecent kind of political manifestation.

Mr. MARLATT. The State proposes through these representatives who have come to Washington, and we have had similar assurances by letter and telegram from prominent agencies of the State, that an active effort will be made immediately to ge this legislation. This effort will be backed by the commisioner of agriculture, by the experiment stations and colleges of the State, by the farmers' organizations of all kinds-a dozen different ones have been enumerated— by the planters' organizations, etc. All of these are backing the effort. I would rather you would get from some of the Texas Representatives present a statement as to any other reasons which might prevent immediate action by the State.

Mr. SISSON. Has any effort been made to get a gentleman's agreement that no legislation would be enacted if the legislature was called in special session by the governor of Texas except this proposed legislation? If there was a gentleman's agreement that when the legislature is called together they will enact only this legislation for the protection of the cotton crop of Texas

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Under the constitution of the State of New York the legislature, when it is called in extraordinary session, can only consider such matters as the governor proposes.

Mr. SISSON. That is true in my State, but I understand that that is not true in Texas. However, they might have a gentleman's agreement entered into by the members of the Texas Legislature that as soon as this essential legislation is passed they would adjourn.

Mr. AYRES. May I say, as a Representative of the State, that I think you will find the State will do everything in its power, but it so happens that the situation which exists in the State is such as to make a special session of the legislature almost impossible. That is, of course, unfortunate. Sometimes in our State work we are slow. We were slow in the citrus-canker work. We were not then able early in the season to make the appropriation, but we did not fall behind in the long run. We have met the Federal appropriation for that, and you will not find us lagging, I am sure, in this matter.

Mr. CANNON. As I understand it, under the act of 1912, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, he can keep out of Texas everything coming from Mexico.

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Then, as I understand it, under the same act we may absolutely stop any nursery stock or plant diseases, or anything connected therewith, at the State boundary?

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. And that power is plenary and is sufficient to cover everything necessary. Under that power you can prevent it from going from Texas to another State, and you can confine the disease to the State of Texas, or to any other State.

Mr. MARLATT. So far as it is confined by the prohibition of traffic or movement of freight, but not so far as to prevent its moving on its own hook.

Mr. CANNON. What do you mean by its moving on its own hook? Mr. MARLATT. If we permit, for example, the insect to invade Texas, it can fly across the line into Louisiana. There is an invisible line there that is not impassable.

Mr. CANNON. But it is not infested now, except in those few counties?

Mr. MARLATT. It is not even there, so far as we know.

Mr. CANNON. You can shut the bug out from the United States, and if it enters Texas, then you can confine it to Texas absolutely when it seeks to go over to another State?

Mr. MARLATT. So far as the movement of the produce is concerned we can do whatever is humanly possible, but to prevent the natural movement of the insect is something that is not under human control. Mr. CANNON. As I understand it, it is not in Texas yet?

Mr. MARLATT. No, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Then there is no use in agonizing about it. It seems to me that what you ought to do, if we make any appropriation at all, is to shut the bug out of the United States.

Mr. MARLATT. That is just the point, Mr. Cannon, and we want to have the means of doing that. We want to be able to take those measures which will shut it out.

Mr. CANNON. You have found the bug there in the Laguna dis

trict?

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir; in the Laguna district.

Mr. CANNON. But you do not find it outside of that district, and it will not spread unless it is propagated by seed that may be sent to some adjacent territory in Mexico?

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir. Some of that seed has been sent into the Rio Grande Valley.

Mr. CANNON. Where abouts?

Mr. MARLATT. Near Eagle Pass.

Mr. CANNON. On which side?

Mr. MARLATT. On the Mexican side, and those fields planted with such seed should be watched, and if the insect develops in those fields it should be exterminated. It has only a short flight across the river to get into the American fields.

Mr. CANNON. When was that seed first used?

Mr. MARLATT. It was used in the crop that is now making.
Mr. CANNON. None was used in prior years?

Mr. MARLATT. Not close to the border, but in the interior of Mexico it has been, perhaps.

Mr. CANNON. This $500,000 is to be expended for agents and inspectors and for the payment for property that may be destroyed

Mr. MARLATT (interposing). We are not paying for any property destroyed in the United States. But in the case of a Mexican field. or some small planting, found to be infested, I doubt if we could bring the same gentlemen's agreement to bear, or the same coercion. The only way to arrange that would be to pay for the destroyed

cotton.

Mr. CANNON. How long has this insect been in Mexico-for how many years?

Mr. MARLATT. About six years.

Mr. CANNON. Does it not seem to you that with the power that the Secretary of Agriculture has and that the United States Government has, and which it has exercised, we could trust to the selfish interests involved? We are all selfish in matters affecting our States. Don't you think that, without making this appropriation. we could trust to all of those forces to take care of this bug, without making any additional appropriation? You have an appropriation under which you are sending experts down to Texas, and you have even sent them across to Mexico.

Mr. MARLATT. That is true, but we have not done that work except in a very limited sort of way. When you come to try to prevent the movement of a pest of this kind, you must have more than a bird'seye view of the situation.

Mr. CANNON. You have perfect protection from one standpoint, if the State of Texas would give you authority to prevent this disease or these bugs from crossing from one county to another. In other words, there should be an embargo, if that is the proper word, under the State law, so that the rest of the State of Texas could protect itself against infestation from two or three counties.

Mr. MARLATT. That is all right, except for the natural flight of the insect. You see these county lines and State lines are no barrier against the flight of the insects.

Mr. CANNON. Texas is one of the principal cotton-producing States in the United States, is it not, or is it not the principal one? Mr. SISSON. It produces more cotton than any other State.

Mr. CANNON. It produces more cotton than any other State. I would suggest that the State authorities should find ways to protect the people of the State, and when that is done the balance of the Country is protected.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it so pressing, after waiting six years, to do this work in this way? During five years no action was deemed

necessary.

Mr. MARLATT. Mr. Hunter has pointed out the origin of this insect in Mexico. Certain interested planters brought in a quantity of cotton seed from Egypt in 1911, about six years ago. At that time Egypt was only slightly infested. Mr. Hunter has pointed out that Egypt has only been infested for a short period of years, and six years ago there was only a little of the insect in Egypt. The presumption is that the seed that was brought over from Egypt to Mexico was practically clean. There was perhaps very little infestation, say, 1 to 1,000 seed. That seed was planted, not in the Laguna district but in a district outside where cotton growing is not very much developed, and the year following the seed so produced was conveyed from that outside district to the Laguna district. It has taken six years for the insect to become abundant enough to be noticed, and it was first noticed by the planters in the Laguna district last fall. Mr. SISSON. It first appeared south of Laguna?

Mr. MARLATT. No. East of the Laguna district.

Mr. SISSON. From where was it originally imported into the Laguna district?

Mr. HUNTER. From Monterey. The seed was shipped to the Laguna district in 1912.

Mr. SISSON. The Mexican boll weevil crossed the border going north and east. That was the general direction of the movement of the boll weevil. Now, if the insect is in the southern or more southerly part of the district, it would take it some time to multiply and proceed north. Does that account for its not having been near the border prior to the last year or two?

Mr. MARLATT. The reason that it is not near the border now and throughout Mexico is that the people near the border have gotten seed for planting purposes from the United States. A very few planters recently obtained seed from the Laguna district. As a rule they get seed from the United States.

Mr. SISSON. What is an inspection worth that is not accurate?
Mr. MARLATT. Nothing.

Mr. SISSON. An inspection to be efficient must lead to the absolute limination of the insect in the infested districts?

Mr. MARLATT. As nearly as possible. It should be a plant inspection: but if the insect is at all abundant, a field inspection for a day er two will determine its presence or absence. The fact that you do fot find it does not prove that it is not there.

Mr. SISSON. I presume you would find it if it were there in abundance?

Mr. MARLATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISSON. If the inspection is a very casual one, the money that ou expend would be thrown away. Suppose you make a casual spection and leave the insect there, then all the work would have een thrown away. Does not the inspection have to be accurate?