The Great Horticultural Graft
A scathing editorial from The Ranch magazine accuses the state legislature of creating a bloated, ineffective bureaucracy under the guise of agricultural protection.
During the early days, the horticultural board got in its graft on the treasury for $5,000 to $10,000 per annum. The political upheaval of '96 ousted the board, and the law was changed so that fruit growers in each county could have a fruit inspector appointed. The state commissioner received $1,000 per annum and $500 expenses, and the county inspectors $2 per day. The last session of the legislature, however, amended the horticultural law, doubling the commissioner's salary and raising county inspector pay to $4 per day plus expenses. There are now twenty-five county inspectors, and when all 38 counties are supplied, the total cost to taxpayers will reach $61,000 annually. The Ranch asserts that the whole scheme of protection by county inspectors is a farce. There is not a district in the state where fruit interests have been successfully shielded by these gentlemen. In sections where fruit growing is carried on on a commercial scale, orchardists spray their trees and find immunity from pests—not by reason of the vigilance of the inspectors, but because it is a business proposition. The system is valueless, and a raw political graft.
“The Ranch asserts that the whole scheme of protection by county inspectors is worthless and a farce.”
This 1903 critique of 'political graft' in agricultural oversight mirrors modern debates over the efficacy of state-funded regulatory boards and the tension between industry self-regulation and government intervention. The skepticism toward 'inspector' jobs as patronage positions remains a recurring theme in Washington state civic discourse.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.