as well as others, was so misled by this 
advance flyer, that it had to recede from 
the tenor of its editorial in its issue of 
August 14, and in that of August 21, 
asked some very pertinent questions 
which have not yet received their an- 
swers. 
An interesting question is, why should 
Professor Burrill feel it necessary to 
write such a vaciliating and condemna- 
tory letter, to Dr. Detmers even before 
any part of the report of the commission, 
of which he was a member, had been 
given to the public? Is it not positive 
evidence that Professor Burrill felt the 
weakness of his position in that report? 
Is it not certain that he felt himself 
guilty of doing a great injustice to Dr. 
Detmers, as well as to the hog interests 
of the country? Does it not show that 
he really wanted to be an honest man, 
that really he is one, but that lacking 
backbone he was forced into doing 
things directly contrary to his own 
knowledge of what was true and right. 
Just at this point I desire to publish a 
letter which especially bears upon this 
point. It is also directly related to the 
previous one by Professor Burrill. 
I telegraphed Professor Burrill August 
10, 1889, to know what had become of 
the Nebraska hogs which the commission 
took east and received the following re- 
ply: 
Champaign, III., Aug. 10,1889.-Dear 
Doctor: Have just answered your tele- 
gram to the best of my ability. When I 
saw the pigs no trial had been made up- 
on the Nebraskans with Salmon's "swine 
plague," and l am quite sure nothing was 
said about it to me by Dr. Shakespeare 
subsequently. Abundant trial had 
been made both by feeding 
and by subcutaneous innocula- 
tions with the Washington "hog 
cholera without serious effect. None 
stood the test so well as those Nebraska 
pigs." It is, however, quite possible 
that Dr. Shakespeare has tried "swine 
plague" (Salmon's) since our correspond- 
ence upon the subject. Have not seen 
anything in print on report. Am not 
certain what publicity has been given. 
The two diseases are acknowledged, the 
one,however, said to be much more prev- 
alent than the other. No attempt is 
made in the report to compare European 
work, though we did have some cultures 
from abroad. 
You can understand that it was diffi- 
or separate workers to make a re- 
p°rt. Would liked to have published 
im details, but found only certain con- 
clufions could be agreed not al- 
way3 worded as one would do it tor him- 
sed- At any rate nothing was c onsid- 
ered except what is the fact." Very 
truly ours J J. BUKRtLL. 
these two letters it is very nvi- 
.Ha W«»a Hp 
mon an ong the members Oi yiat 
mission " as also from the minority re- 
port of Dr. Bolton who did not say much 
in favor of a second "wide spread epi- 
demic of hogs in this c^u dry," as both 
Burrill and Shakespeare in their 
majority retort. w> they falsely say, 
"iv is ufe opinion oi the commission, 
cased unou their own individual observa- 
tions and examinations of the subject, 
that there at least two wide-spread epi- 
demic diseases of hogs in this country." 
The point of importance to the hog 
raisers hinges upon the words, "two 
wide-spread epidemic diseases among 
hogs in this country," one of which has 
been "called by the bureau authorities 
'swine plague.'" Attention has been fre- 
quently called to the fact that the com- 
mission did not examine a single hog in 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas or Mis- 
souri, and I have asserted time and 
again that they only examined 
properly one single hog from a natural 
outburst of hog disease in Nebraska, and 
I have lately been told that they did not 
make a single examination in Ohio but 
simply looked over some of Dr. Detmer's 
slides and preparations. But to add in- 
sult to the injury this commission has en- 
deavored to do the hog owners of the 
country we now find, by Professor Bur- 
rill's admission in his letter to Dr. 
Detmers, that this second "widespread 
epidemic disease among hogs in this 
country has only been found near Wash- 
ington and Baltimore," and by the com- 
mission "in Kentucky," but in how 
many hogs "in Kentucky" weare not in- 
formed. We do not know whether it 
was a herd outbreak or only one or two 
individuals; in fact we know nothing 
about it and they do not think it of suffi- 
cient importance to mention it in their 
report. In fact, not having mentioned 
this disease in their report, and not hav- 
ing a particle of experimental evidence 
from the commission in favor of it, we 
can say that neither as individuals or as 
a board of inquiry have they given a 
particle of evidence that they ever saw a 
case of that disease. Assertions without 
evidence do not count in science. 
On the other hand we have other evi- 
dence that this second "wide-spread epi- 
demic disease" is not an epidemic at all. 
and nothing but a very occasional com- 
plication or disease which but seldom 
occurs anywhere in the country. In 
bulletin No. 6, new series ii, July, 1889, 
on "Hog Cholera" of the South Carolina 
experiment station, Dr. Bolton says: 
"The following investigations were be- 
gun in November last year and have been 
continued up to the present time (about 
seven months). In the course of our 
work we have visited many widely sepa- 
rated portions of the state and encoun- 
tered the disease in all its stages. " 
We would call especial attention to the 
last assertion and hence repeat it: "In 
the course of our work we visited many 
widely separated portions of the staff 
and encountered the disease in all its 
stages." This report then says: ''In oui 
investigations we have tried to discovei 
the kind of germ or bacteria which cause 
the disease. We visited various portions 
of the state and took along all the best 
apparatus and appliances for our work. 
Material collected in this way was 
brought back to the laboratory and thor- 
oughly examined. The germs which we 
found were cultivated and grown on 
suitable materials and were tested upon 
mice, rabits and hogs. We obtained 
them from the liver, spleen, blood and 
intestinal organs. In some cases we 
failed to get any germs gt all, and al- 
though we obtained, in other cases, sev- 
eral different kind of germs, we have no 
reason to believe that more than one 
of them is concerned in the disease," 
It would then seem that examinations 
of such a character, which extended over 
a period of about seven months and to out- 
breaks in so many parts of the country, 
added to those made by the author, (Dr. 
Bolton) as a member of the commiasion, 
should have been extensive enough to 
find one single case of that second "wide 
spread epidemic disease," which being 
"swine-plague" should from its name 
be a pest of great danger to the farmers 
of this country, but Dr. Bolton's examin- 
ations lead, happily to quite a different 
result: for, in this S. C. report he says, 
after discribing the organism he found 
that "the only organism deserving special 
attention is one which we regard as iden- 
tical with the bacillus of hog cholera of 
salmon" and in his report, as a member 
of the commission he says: 
"During my work as commissioner I 
have failed to meet with an epizootic 
which I am satisfied was what is termed 
swine plague in the bureau reports, 
though previous to my appointment on 
the board I studied one such outbreak. 
In this case, however, I directed my at- 
tention to the bacteriological questions 
exclusively, and I am therefore unable 
to pronounce on the difference in the 
pathological lesions in the two diseases. 
But I am not inclined to attach any great 
importance to these differences as set 
forth in the reports. The discriptions 
otherwise I find correct and well stated. 
In my investigations as commissioner I 
have been able to find but one organism 
which, in my opinion, caused 
the outbreaks under examination, and 
that I regard as identic? ' with 
the hog-cholera germ describe the 
reports of the bureau, and I find me de- 
scription therein given correct. As will 
be inferred from what has gons before, 
I feel sure that another organism, cor- 
rectly described in the reports as the 
•swir^-piague germ,' is found under cir- 
cum 'OQ" which : *r; it highlv '"'ob- 
if 
alwav two organism- are 
„ ltaent and oper.aiv together to 
uisease, or whether the two are 
merely varieties of the same germ, must 
be decided by future investigation. The 
differences between them as pointed out 
by the bureau are sufficient to compel us 
to treat them as different germs, how- 
ever perplexing it may seem that two 
micro-organisms are capable of produc- 
ing such similar or, it may be, identical 
lesions." 
As to the other organism (Salmon's 
swine plague), we wish to call attention 
to some very striking inconsistencies in 
Dr, Bolton's remarks: 
First--He thinks it also "causes dis- 
ease." Suppose it does. There are sev- 
eral other germs which do cause lesions 
in swine plague (hog cholera), and one 
which causes very marked lesions, but 
yet which have no necessary connection 
with the plague, which they did not dis- 
cover, though it was shown to them in 
Nebraska. There is a vast difference be- 
tween causing a local, non-extending 
disease and a pest or plague. But Dr. 
Bolton is not sure even of this, for he 
says further on that he does not know 
"whether the two are merely varieties of 
the same germ" or not. Again, in one 
place he says "but I am not inclined to 
attach any great importance to the dif- 
ferences (in the pathological lesions) as 
set forth in the reports" of the bureau 
of animal industry, while in another he 
absolutely contradicts himself when he 
says "the differences between them (hog 
cholera and Salmon's swine plague) as 
pointed out by the bureau are sufficient 
to compel us to test them as different 
germs, however perplexing it may seem 
that two germs are capable of producing 
such similar or, it may be, identical 
lesions." 
Now this may at first appear as unin- 
telligible as Choctaw to some of our read- 
ers, but a little close reading will show 
that two members of this commission 
were having a very severe struggle with 
their consciences while making their re- 
port. That Shakespeare has any con- 
science at all is not made evident any- 
where. In a late publication on swine 
diseases by Professor Welch of Johns 
Hopkins he asserts that not a single un- 
doubted epigraphic outbreak of this sec- 
ond swine plague has yet been seen in 
this country. 
To return to Professor Burrill's letter 
to Dr. Detmers, upon a point which 
would have neither interest nor value to 
the farmers, did it not show most conclu- 
sively that Professor Burrill was terribly 
conscious that he had given his support 
to a false statement. What matters it to 
the farmers who first discovered the 
germ of hog cholera? Certainly nothing. 
But if a man can give false evidence in 
one direction, it is to be assumed that his 
veracity cannot be trusted in any other. 
Why should Professor Burriil have 
been so anxious to apologize to Dr. Det- 
mers for his actions, even before the re- 
port had been given to the public? 
It may not be known to but few of our 
readers that Professor Burriil worked 
more or less with Dr. Detmers when the 
latter was studying swine plague at 
Champaign, Ill., and this is why Burriil 
wrote Detmers, "I cannot help knowing 
that the germ you worked with 1878-80 
was the same as that now held by you to 
be the cause of the disease you called 
swine plague. I knew this without ex- 
amination this last winter. I have not 
said that you are not entitled to priority 
m this, neither has the board." 
Let us see what they did say: 
"It is the opinion of the commission 
that the microbe that Dr. Detmers at 
present regards as the specific cause 
of 'hog cholera' is probably the 
same microbe which is considered by the 
bureau authorities as the specific cause 
of hog cholera; but, according to the 
present requirements of bacterial re- 
search and interpretation, it is impossible 
to declare that the organism as described 
by him in his reports published by the 
department of agriculture was the same 
thing." 
Dr. Bolton says about the same thing. 
But these men knew that they were giv- 
ing rise to a false impression in order to 
support the tottering fabric of the bureau 
of animal industry, which they did as 
follows: 
CONCLUSIONS. 
"It is the opinion of the commission, 
based upon their own individual observa- 
tions and examinations of the subject, 
that there are at least two w'ide-spread 
epidemic diseases of hogs in this coun- 
try. which are caused by different micro- 
organisms, but which have clinical his- 
tory and pathological lesions more or less 
similar, and very difficult to distinguish 
without the aid of a microscope and re- 
sort to bacteriological methods; and that 
these two epidemic diseases have been 
fairly well described in the recent an- 
nual reports of the bureau of animal in- 
dustry." 
In all honesty a man's work must be 
judged by the light of his time and if, as 
Burriil admits, Dr. Detmers did have the 
same germ in 1878-80, then the latter 
should have full credit for it, and all 
honest investigators have cheerfully 
given such credit where it was deserved, 
as in the case of Breuel and Pollender, 
w'ho discovered the germ of Anthrax in 
1855 and 1857 respectively, and is the 
case to-day as regards the noted Robert 
Koch and his germ of human cholera. 
But Salmon seems to have been fully 
stisfied with the verdict of the commis- 
publication to my mind it is'not the dis- 
covery of the germ in the liquids of af- 
fected animals which entitles a man to 
credit, but it is the isolation of the patho- 
genic species, its accounts, description 
and the production of experimental evi- 
dence to show that it causes the disease. 
This is all very true, but supposing the 
discovery and description is such that 
any honest man can and must recognize 
their correctness, what then, when mod- 
ern methods of isolation and experimenta- 
tion had not been developed? 
Again we ask had Breuel Pollender 
done any of these things with bacillus 
anthrises? Has Robert Koch completed 
these conditions beyond question with 
his celebrated "komma?" Has Dr. Sal- 
mon given one single description of the 
germ of hog cholera which did not "dif- 
ferentiate" from some other germ by the 
same author? But we forgot. Dr. Sal- 
mon now admits that he has done abso- 
lutely nothing, and though the "commis- 
sion" almost strangled themselves to give 
him credit he now washes his hands 
of all credit and blame and puts 
it on an unfortunate scarcely men- 
tioned in any of the reports, and abso- 
lutely not in connection with the discov- 
ery of any germ. 
Dr. Salmon does it in this manly and 
honorable manner in the Journal of Com- 
parative Medicine, January 1, 1890. "I 
may add here, that while the investiga- 
tions have been directed by me, and have 
been carried out according to my plans, 
all the reports from 1885 to 1889, inclu- 
sive, so far as they relate to experiments, 
bacteriological observations and post 
mortem examinations have been written 
by Dr. Smith, and consequently all the 
criticisms of their contents aimed at me, 
personally, fall flat, because I am neither 
। tueii. authoi nor have Imade any change 
in the record of observation." 
Why then did this same Dr. Salmon say 
in the same journal, April, 1888: "I 
have sent to the leading investigators of 
Europe cultures of the germ of hog 
cholera, together with copies of my re- 
port," and again, in the same place, 
"Early in 1886 I published a series of 
articles in which I demonstrated that 
hog cholera was a distinct disease and a 
very different disease from rouget or 
rothlauf," which fact he only copied 
from the work of Schritz and Loeffler in 
Germany published many months pre- 
viously? W'hy then is'the "I" of the 
bureau of animal industry so suddenly 
attended with this wonderful degree of 
modesty and self abnegation? 
It would be interesting to the public to 
know what manner of man this Dr. 
Smith can be to be thus made a tool and 
foot ball of by the chief of the bureau of 
animal industry. Frank S. Billings. 
II Patho-Biological Laboratory, Chicago, 
CONCERNING THE PORKERS 
THE SWINE PLAGUE COM- 
MISSIONS REPORT. 
Dr. F. S. Billings Swings His Pen in 
His Usual Forcible and Clear 
Cut Style. 
Some Correspondence Given -Dr. Smith a» 
the Football of the Chief of the 
Bureau of Animal In- 
dustry. 
Additional Facts. 
Under the heading, "The Report Was 
Fixed" the editor of The Nebraska State 
Journal publishes the following in alate 
issue: 
The suggestion made by The Journal 
after the report of the swine disease com- 
mission was published last summer that 
some undue influence was exercised on 
the members thereof to induce them to 
suppress all that they had really found 
out by their protracted investigation, is 
pretty well borne out by a letter ad- 
dressed by a member of the commission 
Jo Dr. Detmers of Columbus on the day 
before the report was published. The 
letter was as follows: 
"Agricultural Experiment Station 
University op Illinois, Champaign, 
III., Aug. 13, 1889.-My Dear Dr. Det- 
mers: I suppose you have seen by the 
papers that the report of the 'board of 
inquiry concerning diseases of swine' 
been presented to the Washington 
;s, and 1 suppose too that you 
are disapp<J.vAnd at 1^-st in my signing 
the i'' .. - respect to Hv work. 
Yet i know fully that - ■? would not feel 
hard «f you knew wtas 1 did do and 
wuai i tried to do and failed. I couia 
not help knowing that the germ you 
worked with 1878-80 was the same as that 
now held by you to be the cause of the 
disease you called swine plague. I knew 
this without examination this last winter. 
I have not said you are not entitled to 
priority in this, neither has the boaid 
A^pGr; I'W^as an induddua 
what I know and what should have been 
said in this report. 
While I could not help doing what was 
done, I was far from satisfied. 
As to there being two diseases with 
different germs we were all agreed, but 
not satisfied as to the commonness of oc- 
curence of the one called swine 
by the Washington fol W e lound one 
outbreak avav from the east where it 
oni.Tr ' -vn found near Washington 
and Baltimore. It is not probable that 
it is a prevalent and serious malady, 
though it seems bad enough when once 
introduced to a herd. The most that 
troubled me about it was whether or no; 
it was a peculiar variety of the common 
germ. But it has so many points of dif- 
ferer e and holds them so tenaciously in 
all process of culture that it seemed to 
me impossible to consider them as one 
thing in any sense. This one new out- 
break was in Kentucky. I wanted to go 
back and further study the disease there, 
but neither had opportunity or permis- 
sion. Hoping to see vou soon, I am faith- 
fully yours, T. J. Burrill." 
The language of the letter is positive 
proof that the commission was making a 
certain sort of report under compulsion, 
and as the commission was acting under 
the authority of congress and was paid 
by an appropriation of $30,000 made bv 
congress, The Journal calls for a con- 
gressional investigation of that report 
which has cost the country such a smart 
sum. 
Let the committees on agriculture in 
the senate and the house at once look in- 
to the matter and see what screw was 
loose and see who had sufficient hold on 
the members of the commission to force 
a crooked report in favor of Mr. Sal- 
mon's alleged "germs." Also how it 
came that the report of the commission 
was to the effect that there were two 
"wide spread" infectious swine diseases, 
with two different germs, when as a mat- 
ter of fact the commissioner owns up that 
there was no proof submitted that the so- 
called "swine plague" prevailed to anv 
extent anywhere and was not found 
anywhere except "near Washington and 
Baltimore." Let congress clear up this 
crookedness at once for no more impor- 
tant matter can engage the attention of 
that body just now than that of the dis- 
eases of our domestic animals. 
As the editor of The Journal notices, 
this letter was written by Professor T J ' 
Burrill on August 13. 1889. Attention 
has been frequently called to the fact 
that advance sheets of a part of this re- 
port only, the so-called "majority re- 
port," were sent to certain of the agricul- 
tural papers of the country a week or so 
in advance of the distribution of the com- 
plete document; the public being first in- 
formed of it in the issue of the Breeder's 
Gazette of August 14, 1889, which paper,