« 이전계속 »
Dr. MARLATT. It has spread over the entire cotton belt east of Arizona, and can not be now eliminated. It is simply a matter of control by methods which are being constantly improved from year to year, and which are measurably effective.
The CHAIRMAN. You think that if you are provided with the necessary funds you can prevent that condition from taking place, so far as the pink bollworm is concerned?
Dr. MARLATT. We hope to. That comes under our general appropriation, and it has been taken care of in the agricultural appropriation bill.
COOPERATION WITH STATES AND PLANTERS.
Mr. Sisson. I think you will agree that success in this whole matter depends upon the degree of cooperation you secure from cotton farmers and State authorities, and especially upon the thoroughness with which your quarantine is maintained.
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir; absolutely.
The CHAIRMAX. How successful are you in securing that cooperation!
Dr. MARLATT. We have been 100 per cent successful in the case of Louisiana, with the result that I have just mentioned in that State. Until recently we have had only partial cooperation in Texas, but the people of Texas have become more thoroughly acquainted with the problem within the last 18 months, as a result of a conference that was held here in Washington last May and which was attended by representatives from all the cotton States, a large delegation from Texas being present.
Mr. ANDERSON, Did they not send a State commission down into Mexico?
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir. But to finish what I was saying, as a result of the conference held here in May, called by the Secretary of Agriculture, representatives from the State of Texas agreed to get legislation and to secure cooperation, which was very much needled, and I am glad to say that at a special session of the legislature. convened in July last, a satisfactory law was enacted under which we are now operating. We believe that with the support that Congress is giving and with the support which we expect the State to give. we will be in a fair way to accomplish for Texas what we are apparently accomplishing in Louisiana. The problem is in a very hopeful situation. It all depends upon the continuance of cooperation, not only of the State authorities but of the individual planters.
INVESTIGATION IN MEXICO BY TEXAS COMMISSION.
Referring to the question as to the Texas commission, it may be said that the conversion of the Texas people was due to the commission that the governor of Texas sent into the Laguna, Mexico, to see what the insect was actually doing. Texas was full of doubting Thomases who denied the existence of the pink bollworm. They said " It is an old pest, which we have known from childhood," and ther thought the new pink bollworm was all a figment of the imagination of the experts. They said that there was not a pink bollworm in the
State of Texas, and that was probably true so far as their own experience went, because the control and clean-up had practically eliminated it.
The governor appointed a commission which was very representative of the cotton interests of Texas, including men representing the different cotton associations and also the leading men who had opposed our work in Texas and who had practically blocked our efforts.
Mr. Sisson. He made it up about 50–50. That is, he appointed a number of doubting Thomases, who had made speeches against the work, and then he appointed a number of men who felt that something ought to be done?
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir. Those men went down to Laguna, and they did a good piece of investigation. They went out into the fields and made their own examinations. The plan was to go into a field at different points, and when the signal was shouted, each one would pull up the cotton plant nearest to him. They would then carry these out to the open and count the bollworms and estimate the damage. They did that sort of work throughout Laguna, and got a good idea of what this new pest meant. They submitted to the governor a very valuable and enlightening report on their investigation. One interesting feature of their report was that they placed the loss due to the insect at about 5 or 10 per cent greater than the government authorities had placed it. They put the loss of that year, 1920, at upward of 50 per cent of the crop in Laguna. Our estimate of the loss for the same year was a little over 40 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN. You think that the continuation of this appropriation is a matter of great importance ?
Dr. MARLATT. The general appropriation for eradication, which, of course, we are not considering now, is very important.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean the continuation of this appropriation here?
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The appropriation you are seeking now is $50,000 in addition to what you already have?
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir. This border inspection is fundamental work. Upon it depends the exclusion of the pest, and all the other work is of no account if the border inspection lapses.
Mr. Sisson. There is another thing that, perhaps, has been considerably in your way, and that is that the condition of affairs in Mexico has been such that you could not secure much cooperation from the government there. Have you taken the matter up with the Obregon government to see whether or not you could secure some cooperation from them on the border line?
Dr. MARLATT. We have been doing all that we could in that way from the very beginning, and we have had some connection with the various Governments down there right along. The outlook now is much better than it has been. I think that the very fact that our clean-up work is indicating success will be a tremendous stimulus to Mexico.
Mr. Sisson. You must constantly keep a very watchful eye on the border to prevent the pest from getting back into this country?
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir; and that is the point of this appropriation. Now, as to this deficiency, Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the border control work were based upon the amount of traffic of previous years which we had been required to supervise and disinfect.
The CHAIRMAN. You disinfect it?
Dr. MARLATT. The control means the inspection, and for the most part, the disinfection of the entire traffic, car, freight, etc., coming from the Republic of Mexico into the United States. There are seven such ports of entry in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.
The CHAIRMAX. All of it depends upon the efficiency of the inspection?
Dr. MAREATT. Yes, sir. The amount of money required depends entirely upon the volume of traffic. We based our estimates upop the traffic records and the cost of the supervision in previous years. Now, there has been a tremendous and unexpe ted increase in the traffic between Mexico and the United States, due to the more stabilized conditions in Mexico. Ofæourse, that is a very fine thing for both Mexico and this country, but it means greater cost in conducting the border control. As an illustration, we inspected during the 12 months ending last July, 25,000 cars, and disinfected 15,000 cars, in round numbers, while during the last six months of 1921 we inspected 22,000 cars, or nearly as many as we inspected in the entire 12 months preceding, and disinfected 19,000 cars, or, in other words, 4,000 more cars than we disinfected in the 12 months' period.
FEE CHARGED FOR DISINFECTION AND INSPECTION.
Under the terms of the appropriation the Secretary of Agriculture is given permissive authority to charge a fee for this disinfection and inspection service. The fee charged is based on the cost, as nearly as we can estimate it, of the chemicals and the ordinary labor used, no charge being made for the technical supervision. Neither does it cover the rental of fumigation sheds which have been provided out of Federal funds. These sheds have a capacity of from 5 to 15 cars at each point. The fees collected from the beginning of the work in October, 1919, to the end of 1921, a little over two years, and turned into the Treasury, amounted to $176.232. while the fees collected during the first six months of the present fiscal year, or from July to December, 1921, amounted to $79.933: that is, we collected in the last six months' period nearly half the total that was collected in the entire two-year period.
The CHAIRMAN. So that you are really getting a large part of this expenditure back?
Dr. MarLATT. Yes, sir; 75 per cent of it. We are getting all of it back except the actual salaries of the inspectors and a very small travel expense. In other words, it is not a money loss to the Gorernment.
The C'HAIRMAX. Even if all of it came out of the Government, the work is one that is justified.
Dr. MARLATT. Yes, sir. The question whether we ought to put this expense on the traffic between the two countries has been brought up a good many times, but the work was started on that basis, in we have reduced the cost very much. It is $4 per car now, but in
the old days, when the fumigation was done by private parties, it ran from $9 to $10 per car. There was a good deal of objection to the fees for a considerable period, but that seems to have waned.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1922.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE R. PUTNAM, COMMISSIONER.
AIDS TO NAVIGATION,
The CHAIRMAN. You had an item of $120,000 for repairing and rebuilding aids to navigation in the seventh lighthouse district. Are these aids to navigation being considered by the regular committee that authorizes them?
Mr. Putnam. Yo, sir; not these aids to navigation. This item is to take care of damage done by a hurricane last October. There is no other committee considering this item. This item came up long after the estimates were submitted for the regular appropriation bill for the next fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Tell us all about it.
Mr. PUTNAM. This item is for the purpose of repairing, rebuilding, and reestablishing aids to navigation and structures connected therewith in the seventh lighthouse district which were damaged or destroyed in the storm of October 24–26, 1921. In order to meet the immediate urgent needs of navigation some emergency repairs of a temporary character have been made, but to reestablish these aids to navigation and make repairs permanent it is estimated that $120,000 will be required. The current appropriations are barely sufficient for the regular operation and necessary upkeep of the service, consequently an appropriation is necessary to repair the damage done by this storm.
The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what the difficulties are and why this must be done.
Mr. PUTNAM. First, I will show you the locality by this chart. This work is in the vicinity of Tampa Bay, Hillsboro Bay, San Carlos Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, on the west coast of Florida. Tampa is one of the important seaports of Florida, and a great deal of traffic from the southern coast to Cuban and various ports on the Gulf of Mexico goes from Tampa Bay. The shipping through Tampa and Hillsboro Bays in 1919 carried 1,010,702 short tons, valued at $44,548,111, and also 116,806 passengers. The damage done by the storm consisted in the destruction or serious damage of 21 aids to navigation as well as the loss of 2 buoys and the damage of a lighthouse depot. The aids that were destroyed and that will have to be rebuilt are shown on this large scale chart of Tampa Bay. Those marked in heavy black were destroyed by the storm, and the estimate submitted is for replacing them. The two others (indicating] are buoys. There are two additional lights north
of Tampa Bay and four more at San Carlos Bay and Charlotte Harbor, south of Tampa Bay. In the case of two of these main lighthouses, they were not completely destroyed but considerably damaged. That also applies to the depot on Egmont Key, at the entrance to Tampa Bay. Considerable damage was done there. The details of the work required to be done are shown in the unit cost statement printed at page 40 of the Budget estimates. The storm of October 24–26, 1921, was an unusually severe one; the tide in Tampa Bay rose over 10 feet, the highest since 1848.
The CHAIRMAN. Those lights were completely destroyed?
Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir; except the two main lighthouses to which I referred and five beacons, which were badly damaged.
The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take to repair them?
Mr. PUTNAM. It will probably take eight months or so to completely rebuild them.
The CHAIRMAN. Then why do you want this money in a deficiency bill, if it is going to require eight months to do the work?
Mr. PUTNAM. This work is urgently required, and if it does not go into the deficiency bill it will have to be postponed for a year or more until it could be included in the next regular annual estimates. This came in too late to submit to the committee in connection with our regular estimates this year.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the matter is an urgent one?
Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir. I have here some extracts from letters from various shipping interests, and I would like to read a part of them into the record. These extracts show the urgency of the situation:
From J. W. Morris, general agent Port Tampa Terminals, Atlantic Land & Improvement Co., Port Tampa, Fla., January 23, 1922:
“I trust that the Department of Commerce will authorize the construction of large, permanent beacons in place of these temporary markers, and that the work of erecting these beacons will not be greatly delayed. Navigation of deep-draught vessels in Tampa Bay is now seriously hampered for the want of these large, visible structures."
From P. J. Saunders, vice president Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., Jacksonville, Fla., January 25, 1922:
“ Since the hurricane at Tampa last October the lights, beacons, etc., have been in bad shape. Will be glad for you to take it up with the proper officials and see that these aids to navigation are replaced with permanent structures.
“ Within the past month our Tampa ship on one occasion was delayed 24 hours, on another 3 hours, being unable to locate the proper lights and beacons. On both trips the passengers and mail were delayed between Key West and Tampa, and also between Havana and Tampa, owing to the fact that this ship has a through schedule.
“Would appreciate prompt action on your part.”
From A. E. Sharpley, master steamship Miami, Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Co., Miami, Fla., January 26, 1922:
" It will be absolutely necessary to have these range lights on these long, narrow dredged cuts placed in a better condition, as it is almost impossible to see the small temporary beacons and lights now in use, and it is urged that larger structures and lights be replaced.”
From Tampa Bay Pilots' Association, Tampa, Fla., February 6, 1922:
“ It is neeilless to impress upon you as the head of this lighthouse district the importance of replacing the channel marks carried away by the October hurricane with permanent beacons so that vessels can safely navigate, par. ticularly in bad weather.
“ We realize and appreciate your efforts in having replaced some of these markings with pilings, etc., but same are entirely inadequate, being too low and can only be seen at a limited distance.