The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 94, July 1990 - April, 1991 Page: 40
692 p. : ill. (some col.), maps, ports. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
of the Federal Horticultural Board in 1917, wrote, "Its [the boll wee-
vil's] advance has been marked by incalculable losses which have
affected the entire industrial structure of the South."7 Now the pink
bollworm threat followed the boll weevil on the horizon, renewing and
aggravating fears of agricultural and, therefore, economic disaster.
In the early days of the fight, Texas cotton growers feared the "quar-
antine" and "non-cotton" zones enforced by federal and state officials
as much as they feared the pink bollworm. Some growers visualized a
non-cotton zone as certain ruin for themselves and their communities.
One Liberty County farmer, A. I. Moore, testified before a joint Texas
Senate-House Committee investigating the pink bollworm threat when
the controversy was at its height: "Yes, sir, when that quarantine was
put on, I had sixteen Negroes clearing land, costing me thirty-two dol-
lars a day, ten head of mules breaking land, and I had my cultivator, all
necessary feed and the seed to plant that cotton, and I could have made
one hundred and fifty bales of cotton [in 1918] as sure as there is a God
in Heaven, but I obeyed the law and was ruined."'
There was good reason to fear the pink bollworm. Like the boll wee-
vil, it had entered the United States from Mexico and was believed to
have entered Mexico and Brazil in cottonseed brought from Egypt in
1911. Authorities in the United States did not learn that the pink boll-
worm was in Mexico until late in 1916. On November 6, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture secretary David F. Houston wrote Texas agricul-
ture commissioner Fred W. Davis that the pink bollworm had become
established in the cotton-growing district of Laguna in the State of
Coahuila as determined from "material sent by a planter of this district
under the supposition that he was sending examples of the work of the
Mexican boll weevil.""
It was not uncommon for planters and entomologists in other coun-
tries to ask experts in Washington, D.C., to identify their crop pests. In
192o Dr. Hunter testified before a legislative committee that Egyptian
entomologists sent cotton insects to Washington, D.C., for identifica-
tion. The Mexican planter, whose avenues of communication with his
own government were restricted by political turmoil, followed that
practice. Identification of the specimens as the pink bollworm stimu-
7W. D Hunter, "The Fight Against the Pink Bollworm in the United States," Yearbook of the
United States Department of Agrculture l919 (Washington, 1) C.. Government Printing Office,
1920), 355-
""Proceedings" of Joint Senate-House Committee," 512
"Ernest E. Scholl, "Report of the Pink Bollworm of Cotton (Pectnophora gossypsella, S ),"
Texas Department of Agriculture Bulletn, LXV (Mar.-Apr, 1919), i, 83 (quotation). Ex-
tensive use is made of this detailed history of the Texas pink bollworm infestation during
1917-1920.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 94, July 1990 - April, 1991, periodical, 1991; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101214/m1/64/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.