DR. SALMON’S LATEST. 
finally die of marasmus, or general emaciation, 
but there are other things playing a role in the 
performance than the inflammation of the lungs. 
We oiust now return to Salmon’s first condition 
r— cne differentiation of hog cholera from swine 
plague, viz.: 
The germs are different For the de- 
scription of Ills germ of p/-g cholera he refers us 
to his report of 1885. where he says: “When 
stained for from one to two minutes in an aquous 
I solution of methyl-violet, they (the germs) ap- 
pear as elongated ovals, chiefly in pairs. The 
greater number present a center paler than the 
periphery. The darker portion is not located at 
the two poles,” etc., p. 212. 
I desire to call attention to the If act that Sal- 
mon admits that some do not “present a. wnto.. 
paler than the periphery,” and also, that he is 
positive in asserting that “the darter portion is 
not located at the two poles.” 
It has been previously said that the above is a 
description of a spore and not a germ, and Sal 
mon’s illustrations in both the reports of 1885 and 
1886 will bear out that assertion. 
Of this nonentity of Salmon’s the writer wrote 
in a paper published December, 1886: 
“If Salmon knows anything of the chemical I 
affinities of baccilli, cocci and bacteria, except 
spores, he knows that the description which be 
has given of this new microbe does not apply to 
any known form of bacteria, but to spores.” 
He seems to have then felt that he was tread- 
ing upon dangerous ground in issuing such a de- j 
scription, for on page 196 (1885) he says: 
“Tbe pale centre was very distinct, suggesting I 
"very strongly of spores.” To which the writer 
appended: “What then is the distinguishing 
characteristic of spores?” 
Hueppe, one of the most able authorities gives 
us the generally received definition as follows: 
“That by the employment of aqueous,or diluted 
alcoholic solutions the spores do not color.” 
Their outside cuticle does, however, and that is 
just the object which Salmon has described. 
The bacteria of hog colera do not develop 
spores, however! 
Salmon was just as sure there was but one bog 
cholera in the county and that that one form was 
caused by a micrococcus up to 1885, as he was 
that that some hog cholera or “swine plague was 
caused by another specific microbe,” and “that 
this microbe belongs to the species bacterium,” 
in 1885 as he now is that there are two causes of 
swine plague and two forms of that disease. 
What dependence can be placed upon such a 
contradictory observer? 
The records of scientific investigation can be 
searched in vain for such-a mass of contradictions 
as appear in Salmon’s publications, except in the 
case of Pasteur, who, bacterioragically speaking, 
is a charlatan. 
We must again call attention to Salmon’s de- 
scription of the manufactured germ of 1885. 
“The darker portion is not located at the two 
poles as in the bacterium of septicsemia in rab- 
bits”—p. 212. In the report of 1886 he says: 
“In most forms there is a slighty thicker 
border at the ends than at the sides of the short 
rod-like bodies”—p. 610. 
Here is one concession! 
The ends do stain m ore than the sides! 
This time we have no qualification about the 
ends staining somewhat. It is not “the greater 
number” which “present a center paler than the 
periphery,” but “in most forms there is a 
slightly thicker border at the ends than the 
sides.” 
The reader will be kind enough to remember that 
Salmon has asserted that there are two distinct 
swine plagues in this country, caused by two 
distinct germs. I will now give evidence that he 
is not sure upon this question, as well as show 
further contradictions of a most disgusting char- 
acter. 
“Early in March, 1886, he sent a Dr. Rose to 
Nebraska to make observations as to what was 
going on here, but ostensibly to collect material 
for study in Washington. It seems pretty ex- 
pensive work to send a man that distance to 
gather specimens from ten hogs, when some one 
on the ground could have done it t qually well, 
in the manner it was done. Hal Mr. Rose 
been supplied with cultivating tubes and a spirit 
lamp and even instructed bow to lse them, he 
might have done himself some crei it, as it was, 
“iii only one case was the result successful,” 
p. 623, 1886. 
Of this result Salmon says: Thisuw microbe, | 
j identical morphologically with the meterium of 
I hog cholera already described “ibid ’ 
How then could it be anewmicrot;? 
Again he says: “The disease calsed by this 
germ, in its duration, symptoms and lesions in 
i rabbits and mice, caunot be distinguished from 
that caused by the bacterium of big cholera,” 
p. 627, 1886. 
i Again, that “these lesions (in hegs this time) 
were as intense as any produced by feeding hog 
cholera bacteria obtained in the east” and “the 
identity of the two bacteria from Nebraska and 
! the east was thus completely established,” ibid. 
The above assertion is positive. The diseases 
are identical according to Salmon. On the same 
I page, however, Salmon is not so positive about 
this, for he says: “A liquid culture of the blood 
seemed! a pure culture of a motile oval bacterim 
resembling closely the bacterium of hog cholera!” 
On the next page, 628, 1886, Salmon proceeds 
to give the “differential characters of the hog 
cholera bacterum from Nebraska” of which he 
had said on the previous page, that the “identity 
of the two bacteria from Nebraska and the east 
was thus completely established.” 
I How then could there possibly be any “differ- 
ential characters” on the part of the Nebraska 
germ? 
SALMON’S NEW SWINE PLAGUE AND ITS GERM. 
In the Breeders' Gazette of Nov. 11, 1886, Dr. 
Salmon wrote: “I am glad to see that Dr. Bill- 
ings lias confirmed my work of 1884 by stating 
that he has discovered a germ which exactly cor- 
responds in its microscopical appearances to that 
discovered “and“ described by Schutz in the 
Schweine-Seuche of Germany.” 
The germ described by Salmon in his report of 
1885, which represented his work of 1884, in no 
way corresponds to that discovered and described 
by me, Schutz, or Detmers. 
’ But the present report gives evidence enough 
as to the character of the person we have as 
chief veterinarian of the United States both as an 
honorable man and an honest observer. 
Above he has said, that Dr. Billing , has con- 
firmed his work of 1884 
In this report he seems to have forgotten all 
about that observation. 
In this report, as said, he makes himself out as 
the most imbecilic author of “unfounded state- 
ments" that can be found, for he himself brands 
his own statement in the Gazette as a lie when he 
says: 
“Although the investigations concerning the 
nature of this microbe are scarcely begun,”'etc., 
p. 659, 1886. 
How then could he have described it in 1884? 
On page 618 he admits that somebody has 
found the bacterium of his swine plague before 
him, but in a very peculiar manner for an honest 
investigator. He says: 
“In view of the fact that another bacterium (he 
is writing about his h. c. humbug at the time) has 
been recently7 found associated with lung disease 
and is probably the cause.” 
If, then, Salmon’s investigations “are scarcely 
begun,” and as it is the one discovered by7 Dr. 
Billings alluded to above, howr in the name of or- 
dinary7 inteliigeuee could my work confirm that 
of Salmon’s in 1884, the very trustworthiness of 
which he now7 shatters all to pieces? 
Salmon’s study of this germ can certainly be 
“scarcely begun,” if we are to judge from his 
very meagre description, but this much we will 
quote: 
“The two extremities of the longer axis are 
deeply stained. Between these colored masses a 
transverse band remains transparent without any 
I color,”—p. 671, 1886. 
November last the writer gave the following 
short description of the appearances of this or- 
ganism: 
“This germ, according to Koch’s definition, is a 
; bacterium. 
It is oval, its polar portion being differentiated 
from that in the middle of its body by staining 
quite intensely, while the intermediate portion 
(loes not take Up any7 color when the application 
of the coloring material lias not been too intense. 
It colors best in methyl-violet, gentian-violet and 
methylen-blue, in the order named; also well in 
methylen green, but not so well in fuchsin, and 
not at all in dahlia or negrosin; i. e. micromor- 
phologically it bears a marked resemblance to 
the organism described by Schutz of Berlin as 
i the cause of the German ‘Schweine seuche’— 
swine plague.” 
Let us see what Salmon says in another place, 
where we find a description of this new germ. 
“One grew in both tubes, which was more care- 
fully examined, because it resembled the bacte- 
rium of hog cholera very closely. When stained, 
however, each individual is resolved into a pair 
I of ovals, or very short rods (that describes tw7o 
individuals, not one,) with rounded extremities. 
A deeply stained narrow7 border surrounds a 
1 comparatively pale body.” Of the other germ 
Salmon wrote the same. “The darker portion is 
i not localized at the two extremities, but is of 
uniform width aroumd the entire circumference 
of the oval.” Repojrt 1885, page 312. Salmon 
seems to have renieiinbered this contradiction, so 
he corrected himself at once as follows: “There 
seems to be slightly n.iore stamed material at the 
two extremities than in the bacterium described 
in the last report.” Page 661, 1886. The reader 
will observe that Salmon is not sure about this. 
It “seems to be” so, blit a glance at his illustra- 
tions will show something more than a “seem- 
ing” difference in this direction, and above he 
has told us that “the two extremities of the 
longer axis are deeply stained.” This is not 
“seems to be, or slightly.” 
The original discovery of the germ of Ameri- 
can swine plague does not belong tome how- 
ever; or if the .identical,, to LftehVy 
Salmon, who has not really discovered it at all, 
but accidentally found out that it was there after 
somebody else had told him so. 
This discovery belongs to Dr. Detmers of 
the agricultural college of Ohio, and was 
made in 1879, who gave a very accurate descip- 
tion of the object, though mistaken with regard 
to the vital phenomena. It is to the eternal dis- 
grace of Dr. Salmon as an investigator, as a 
veterinarian, and as an American, that he has ut- 
terly ignored this work, and caused it to pass into 
almost complete forgetfulness. I am perfectly 
well aware that Loeffler tries to claim priority over 
Detmers. but he had better learn English so as to 
understand it before be stultifies his reputation 
in any such manner. To Detmers belongs the 
honor, not only of being the first discoverer of this 
germ, which is the true and only germ of Amer- 
can swine plague, but also that of doing the 
only trustworthy work upon the subject that has 
ever been done under the auspices of the United 
States government. 
Detmers’ description of this germ are to be 
found in the report of the department, 1880-81, 
pages 185 to 187, and the American Naturalist, 
volume XVI, pages 200-201. 
salmon’s contradictions with regard to this 
GERM. 
The first description of it is in connection with 
eight post mortems made in Illinois and de- 
scribed on pages 660-661, of which he says: “Be- 
sides the cultures mentioned in the autopsy notes 
at least ten others were made at the time. * * 
None of these showed any signs of growth.” 
What shall we say then when a few lines 
further down the page we read: 
“We will now proceed to a description of the 
bacteriological investigations of cultures, none 
of (which) showed any signs of growth,” (?) yet 
in two tubes inoculated from No. 6, two microbes 
were found which deserve attention.” 
The next line is interesting. 
“One (germ) grew in both tubes which was 
more carefully examined because it resembled 
the bacterium of hog cholera very closely.” 
Salmon will now tell us how “closely.” 
In his summary he tells us that the “bacterium 
of H. C.” is “motile liquids” while that of swine 
plague is “non-motile in liquids,”—p. 674. ibid. 
“No spontaneous movement can be observed,”— 
p. 672; see also p. 682. where the same differenti- 
ation is pointed out. 
The fact is the true germ of the American 
swine plague, the one described by Detmers and 
the writer, is motile in fluid cultures and Salmon 
knows it and has recorded it as may be seen in 
tbe following quotations, although they directly 
contradict bis previously quoted assertions. 
On page 661 he says of the germ which he says it 
is “non motile in liquids,” that “in liquids it is 
actively motile.” On page 662 he again says: 
“In one of the tubes just described a motile 
bacterium * * * * ” which has reference to 
the same germ. Then why did Salmon say that 
it was “non-motile?” The reason is easy to dis- 
cover. 
Because, Schutz had said the German organism 
of “Schweine-Seuche” was “non-motile” in 
blooddrops, and Salmon this time falls back on 
Schutz for support, and has therefore proclaimed 
the two diseases identical. 
We are by no means sure that Schutz bacterium 
is “non-motile” in fluids. 
1 am not sure that Schutz is on safe ground 
with all his conclusions as to the German swine 
plague by any means, as I shall show very soon. 
FURTHER evidence. 
In his summary showing the difference between 
his manufactured germ and the true germ of 
swine plague Salmon says that the latter “fails to 
grow on potatoes” (p. 674) in order to distinguish 
it from the former which grows luxuriantly on 
potatoes, buthe apparently forgets that on page 
661 of the '.2—b<- liiul already 
written of this same germ or which the “growth 
on potatoes fails,’’' that “on potatoes a thick 
straw colored shining layer of nearly smooth sur- 
face forms, which grows very vigorously and 
gradually covers the entire surface of the po- 
tato.” 
This is correct, and his illustration of such a 
growth, which, however, he ascribes to his im- 
aginary germ, exactly corresponds to that ob- 
served’by me for the true germ, but I have used 
the term “coffee colored” to describe it, which is 
the color he gives in his illustration, and not 
“straw colored;” but then they are troubled in 
their eyes at Washington, which probably ac- 
counts for it. 
In this regard it may not be uninteresting to 
note that Loeffler says that the germ discovered 
by him does not grow on potatoes, although he 
made a number of attempts, and that Schutz 
claims that that germ is identical with the one 
which he has shown to be the cause of the Ger- 
man swine plague, but not entirely with good 
reason. It is singular that Schutz does not men- 
tion a thing about the growth of his germ on 
potatoes. If it should prove that the germ of the 
German swine plague will not growr on potatoes, 
wideh assertion I take cum grano satis,then there 
is one point of differentiation between that or- 
ganism and that of the American disease, and if 
it is non-motile in fluid cultures,we have another. 
The writer knows Prof. Schutz very well. If 
! Loeffler should sayji “thing grew on potatoes” 
Schutz would reply! “As you please.” If Loeffler 
should say a “thjng did not grow potatoes” 
Schutz again woi|d reply: “As you please.” 
He never has hai courage to contradict those 
who bore a superior reputation to himself. 
However, this hl> no reference to Salmon’s 
misrepresentations,and contradictions. Atten- 
tion has already beni called to his saying that 
his germ of swine: lague fails to grow on pota- 
toes while that of is hog cholera does grow on 
them. Hence I des -e 10 call attention to another 
“unwarranted stats nent,” which follows on the 
last quotation fron him where he says t he germ 
of swine plague do ; grow on potatoes, and then 
tells how this grow i differs from that of the hog 
cholera nonentity the following words: 
“This growth is brighter in color and more 
abundant than apt ars in the potato cultures of 
the bacterium of I g cholera.” Ibid 1886, p. 661. 
That should sett the potato question. 
Why did not Sal on show this differentiation 
! in his plates? 
OTHER CONjiADICTIONS BY SALMON. 
With regard to tps bacterium of swine plague 
I Salmon again say* 
“That it was nofthe bacterium of hog cholera 
; was shown by an Jt; er want of pathogenic prop- 
j erties when inoculated into mice and rabits.” 
| Ibid 1886, p. 662. M 
But his memoryfiaust be of a more indescriba- 
I bie nature than iiil knowledge of the germ of 
{ swineplague, for on page 663 of the same report 
I he say7s of the saft object: 
“This microbe wis therefore fatal to mice, rab- 
] bits and pigs.” m 
“Rabbits, mice jr.d pigeons were thus shown 
to be susceptible.! Ibid 1886, p. 665. 
“Mice destroyed but not invariably, in two to 
six days.” Sumniry, p.674, 1886. 
“In rabbits inoculation destroys life in from 
I three to six days.!- Jbid. 
There is more evidence of this kind, but it is un- 
necessary7 to quotelit. 
It was my intention to show by actual quota- 
tions from Salmon’s autopsies that many of them 
would suit either of the diseases which he claims 
are distinct in every other way, but a carefu 
reader of his latest mystification will see that he 
i has left a hole open'by which to jump in any 
convenient direction should the facts be quoted 
against him, as follows: 
“Our investigations have shown the existence 
of another bactefflf disease in swine which may 
even be associated with hog cholera in the same 
herd and the same animal. Page 682. 
“In hog cholera lung lesions are quite second- 
ary and only rarely seen.” Ibid, page 682,1886. 
To such stuff as that I have nothing to say ex- 
cept that it is unequivocally false. 
The fact is Salmon is preferring the way to drop 
his manufactured swindle, his germ of hog 
cholera, and to take up the true article next year. 
I wish also to flatlv deny another assertion of 
Salmon’s, which is, t hat the germ of true Ameri- 
can swine plague, hy his pneumonia germ causes 
“sclerosis of the lfier.” It does not. 
The correctness of my assertion is well shown 
by the following quotation from Salmon which 
shows his utter want of any knowledge of the 
principles of pathology. He” says: “There was, 
moreover, a partial sclerosis of the liver in most 
of the animals t-xaniined which we never encoun- 
tered in hog cholera ” 
“We must remember, however, that of these 
eight cases, five were killed, perhaps in the early 
stages of the disease, before the lesions were well 
marked.” Page 661, 1886. 
This is a question that will not interest the lay 
reader, but I will only say that any one who 
knows anything about interstitial inflammation of 
the liver, knows that it is absolutely impossible 
for it to occur and be caused by bacteria in the 
early stages of a disease of not over twenty days’ 
duration even in protracted cases, as a general 
thing. 
Salmon never saw one single cases of sclerosis 
hepatis due to any bacterium connected with 
American swine plague! 
i ue wri?SJSiinuTiV;i7?iQliss^ffE infectious septi- 
caemia,” and any one at all acquainted with 
the lesions possible or even common to any fatal 
form of septicaemia will see how conformable all 
the different phases of the American swine plague 
are to such a definition. 
Salmon quotes Schutz to support him in his en- 
deavor to build up a new hog disease in this 
country, hence I will close by considering the 
German side of the question in a rather critical 
manner. 
Loeffler comes to the following conclusion: 
“By the great importance which the diseases of 
swine have from an economic standpoint, their 
extended bacteriological investigation should 
soon bring us to definite conclusions, if the bac- 
teria produce a disease belonging in the group-of 
the eresypelas diseases, or if one is justified in 
looking upon these organisms as belonging to 
another specific disease of swine, viz.: 
“Schweine-Seuche” or “Schweine-Septicsemia,” 
and therefore to be distinguished from genuine 
eresypelas of those animals.” 
Schutz says on this point: “The previous ex- 
periments show that mice and rabbits which 
have been inoculated with small pieces of the 
spleen from a diseased swine become infected 
and die of a septicaemia, and that in the blood 
and tissues were to be found the same bacteria 
that infected the spleen of the hog, that is, the 
oval bacteria. Consequently it was proven that 
the spleen of hogs had patho-genetic action, and 
that the bacteria are the cause of this action. 
Hence, their inoculation upon mice and rabbits 
produces the same disease as is produced by the 
direct inoculation of pieces of spleen from a dis- 
eased swine.” Arbeiten, a. d. k. Gesundheits 
Amt, p. 383. 
The reader will please observe, that Schutz has 
said in the passage above quoted, that the mice 
and rabbits which were inoculated with small 
pieces of spleen from diseased swine” (swine 
plague) “septicsemisch erkrankten und starben” 
that is, derive septicaemia and die therefrom, 
and again, “Rein kulturen fortgezuchteten 
bacterien batten, nach ihrer Verimpfung auf 
Mause und Kaninchen dieselbe krankheit, her- 
vorgeufen, wie die verimpften milz stucke.” 
which rendered into English is, that pure culture 
of the bacteria had, when inoculated upon mice 
and rabbits, produced the same disease as pieces 
of the spleen of a swine that had recently died of 
swine plague. 
The necessity of presenting these facts from 
Shutz’ work will be self evident when one 
reads the following words upon a later page of 
the same, “Denn es steht nun mehr fest dast die 
durch die ovalen. Bacterien bedingte, 
und als Schweinseuche bezichnete krankheit 
auch keine septicaemia im eigentlich sinne des 
wortes, sondern eine infectiose pneumonie ist,” 
ibid, p. 402, that is, it is now proven that the 
disease which is caused by the oval bacteria and 
known as swine plague is not a septicaemia in 
the true sense of the word, but an infectious 
pneumonia. 
Schutz seems to have forgotten that he had pre- 
viously written that the disease produced in mice 
and rabbits by these same oval bacteria was a 
“septicaemia” and that it was the same disease 
as was produced by inoculations with small 
pieces of spleen of swine that had died of swine 
plague. 
If this is not a contradictio ad absurdum I do 
not know what is? 
But even after writing the last passage, quoted 
from the original, Schutz does not seem to be by 
any means sure of the correctness of his conclu- 
sion that swine plague is indeed an “infectious 
pneumonia” and not a “septicaemia” for he im- 
mediately qualifies that conclusion as follows: 
“Notwithstanding, I prefer to hold to the 
name schweine-seuche (swine plague) for the 
time being, as will be shown later, it is not proven 
to a certainty, that the lungs are the only point 
by which the disease .producing bacteria enter 
the porcine organism.” Ibid. p. 402. 
It should be known that Prof. Schutz’s inves- 
tigations were made upon a very limited num- 
ber of swine at the laboratory of the Berlin Vet- 
erinary school, and that be had at that time 
never made any study of this very variable dis- 
ease, in so far as the lesions produced are con- 
cerned, by practical study among the hogs of 
Germany in their runs and pens. Had he been 
enabled to do this, I have no doubt that he would 
have come to the same conclusion as Hueppe, 
viz.: That the disease is a septicaemia, and that 
aside from the complications of the liver, kidneys 
and other dense paranclymatous organs, that 
that of the lungs or intestines is a mere compli- 
ment of the disease, as is the case of the pneu- 
monia which frequently complicates and proves 
fatal in typhus and other severe infectious dis- 
eases in man. There is nothing specific in the in- 
flammation of the lungs in such cases. It is but 
a natural result, if the disease continues long 
enough, which must follow in all 
cases where there is an active and passive con- 
congestion of the lungs from the resistance to 
the circulation caused by the acutely diseased 
and swollen condition of the liver and kidneys, 
especially the non or checked secretive action of 
the latter organs, and again of the severe dis- 
turbance of the muscles of the heart which 
cause it to lose in contractile and driving 
energy. The bacteria also play a part in directly 
causing this calamatous complication in that they 
retard and obstruct the circulation, being like so 
many grains of fine powder distributed through 
the blood. 
Desiring as far as possible to keep the “I” out 
of my writings still it is but just to myself for 
me to say that the writer was the first to assert 
and give evidence that our American swine 
plague was and is nothing more or less than au 
“infectious septicaemia,” and that he still holds 
to that opinion and is positively confident that 
future investigators will and must come to the 
same conclusion, 
No other definition of the disease will explain 
its peculiar variations in different outbreaks and 
in different members of the swine in the same herd 
in a single eruption. I must express my surprised 
t hat as experienced a person as Schutz should have 
been so lame in his pathological conclusion with re- 
gard to the nature of swine plague, especially as 
he gives abundant practical evidence that he 
had before him cases of swineplague which did 
not fit into the form of his infections pneumonia,” 
In fact all through his article can be seen evi- 
dence that he doubts the correctness of his own 
conclusions and nowhere more strongly than 
with reference to the results of Roloff’s 
investigations, as will be presently shown. 
Salmon was perfectly well acquainted with the 
nature of the conclusions arrived at in Nebraska. 
His whole report is so directed as* to throw dis- 
credit upon them with utter disregard of the 
truth, hence he falls back on Schutz for support of 
his own misstatements that there are two “swine 
plagues” in this country, one of which is a pneu- 
monia, but in order to save his skin and appear 
original lie tries, against every principle of com- 
mon sense and every evidence of practical obser- 
vation, to give something new to his nneumonia, 
so he calls it “chronic,” which is absurd, as I have 
shown in another place. 
That he could not have carefully read Schutz’s 
work must be apparent when one sees that he 
utterly failed in observing the contradictions and 
uncertainties in the same, and especially 
failed to value Schulz’s reference to Roloff’s 
investigations which I had published last year 
in the hopes of calling the attention of Germans 
to their value before they followed Schutz and 
accepted his conclusion, that their swine plague 
is an “infectious pneumonia,” only. 
In this case Salmon is as unfortunate in the 
selection of bis support as he was when he fell 
back on Pasteur to bolster up his cocc-I of 
the years 1880 to 1886. His own eyes still seem 
to be severely afflicted. He gives evidence that 
both his visual and intellectual eyes must have 
been more severely afflicted with the cocc-I dis- 
ease than ever our American swine have been. 
Although I utterly ignore Salmon’s attempt to 
make a new disease out of our swine plague, to 
which he has given the name, hog cholera, and 
with even more positiveness declare the object 
which he describes to be the bacterium of that 
disease to be a forgery; still I desire to show by 
quotations how careful this person has been to 
evade all evidence which did not serve his pur- 
pose. 
Salmon says of “The relation of hog cholera 
(his) to this disease;” (German swine plague): 
“A careful perusal of this brief synopsis will 
convince even those who have only observed the 
gross pathological lesions that are constantly 
met with in hog cholera, or who have read the 
post mortem notes in this and the former report, 
that this new disease, described by Schutz, has 
hothing in common with hog cholera.” The de- 
scription is new, not the disease, which is prob- 
ably as old as the Biblical record. 
Now let us see if we cannot find some evaded 
evidence in Schutz1 report which will largely 
tend to contradict the above assertion of Sal- 
mon’s and which will still further go to show that 
they have Salmon’s hog cholera in Germany, and 
that his peculiar and especial nonentity, the 
bacterium of Salmon cholera, is a forgery. 
First, I will quote from Roloff, who says: 
“The surface of the large intestine presents 
large brown red spots in many places, in which 
one sees many delicate and injected 
sions. Other portions of the serosa are of a 
diffuse red, while others are yellowish and quite 
pale.’’ 
Particular attention is called to the next quota- 
tion, however- 
“The ileo-ceecal valve extends into the cavity 
of the intestines as an elongated, dense and 
cylindrical body. The surface of this portion of 
tiie intestine is of a leaden color, its continuity 
being interrupted by numerous small indenta- 
tions or openings of the size of a pin’s head. The 
crown of the valve is frequently ulcerated or 
evaded.” 
“The mucosa of the caecum, in the vicinity of 
the valve, is very uneven and of a greyish black 
color in many places, the surface being fre- 
quently broken by small clefts. * * * Sim- 
ilarly changes are to be found in other parts of 
the large intestine. One also sees round or oval 
elevations, varying from a 10 cent piece to a 
quarter of a dollar in size, which present a black 
or greyish black surface, the same becoming 
paler towards the limits of these objects; this 
surface is also marked by numerous clefts and is 
very irregular. They diminish in thickness 
from their center toward their outside 
limits. Their superficial tissues are 
every day and friable, especially in the middle 
of the object, but have more moisture and 
tenacity towards the edges. Small, but less 
prominent objects are to be seen in the vicinity 
* of the larger ones. These pathological produc- 
tions frequently coalesce and form large patches 
in close proximity to one another. Their loca- 
tion upon and in the walls of the intestine cor- 
responds to the circumscribed, thickened and 
rejected parts which were observed in the 
external covering.” Die Schwindzucht Fettige 
Degeneration, Scrophulose and Tubekulose bei 
Schweinen 1875. 
The question I now desire Mr. Salmon to 
answer is: Will he accept the above as an 
example of what may be seen in a very severe 
case of his “hog cholera” or not, or will be like 
a contemptible tool of his, the state veterinarian 
of Nebraska, be so green as to call such a 
caecum “the stomach?” 
The above is too plain evidence for Mr. 
Salmon to deny that it belongs to hog cholera. 
Now I can show him a specimen in our collection 
that so exactly corresponds to the above, that 
the description will answer for it in every particu- 
lar. 
This hog died in an outbreak of swine plague, 
Lincoln, Neb., October, 1886, from which I made 
a large number of autopsies and experiments. 
My original notes read as follows: 
“Autopsy No. 8—Middle sized black and white 
pig. No discoloration of cutis; lymph glands all 
swollen and many of them of a diffuse dark blue 
red color, others somewhat mottled in appear- 
ance. About one quart of a dark red fluid in ab- 
dominal cavity. Peritoneum covered with dark 
red spots of varying dimensions. The outside of 
the large intestine was of a dull gray color, 
clouded, swollen and covered with a thick, viscid 
mass containing many fioculi. The mesentery it- 
self was also swollen, its vessels being 
distended with a dark red fluid, and 
its surface covered with the same material. 
Several masses of a glutinous character, having 
the color of Canada balsam, floated about in the 
abdominal effusion. The large intestine was at- 
tached loosely to the abdominal wall at three 
different points. These places were marked by 
being indurated and hard, their limits being 
sharply defined and the vessels in the serosa over 
them being much more plain to be seen than in 
their immediate vicinity. The outside of the 
small intestine was of a dull greyish color.” 
Contents of large intestine semi-fluid. Mucosa 
somewhat swollen and of a dull leaden color, and 
covered with a viscid adhesive coating. 
Ileo-csecal valve intensely swollen, indurated 
and elongated, extending one and a half inches 
into the cavity of the intestine. Around its base 
and extending for about two inches in all direc- 
tions, was a pseudo-membrapeous material of a 
coal black color on its surface. The underlying 
tissues were indurated even to the serosa. The 
mass on top was dry and friable, but as 
one got deeper into it it became more 
yellowish grey until it became little 
more than grey ansemic cicatricial tissue. 
About four inches from this enormously enlarged 
valve were four large, round, sharply outlined in- 
durations, the centers of which were infundibuli- 
form (that is, pitted,) and of a black color. This 
center was surrounded by a mass the surface of 
which grew lighter in color as it approached the 
outside limits. This mass was arranged in con- 
centric layers which gave to the whole surface of 
the productions a clefted appearance. These ob- 
jects extended about one-quarter of an inch 
above the general level of the inside of the in- 
testine. A patch of the same character formed 
j by the union of seven similar objects was situated 
' about four inches deeper down the gut and 
| numerous isolated productions of similar char- 
| acter were distributed through the colon and a 
portion of the rectum. 
Is that hog cholera, Mr. Salmon? 
Well if it is, your fx-audulent bacterium never 
came from that pig, for exactly similar lesions 
were produced by the bacterium which Detmers 
and others have shown you about and which you 
are now trying to lay claims to by creating a new 
swine plague which also existed in this case, viz: 
infectious pneumonia. “Thoracic cavity.” 
“Both sides contained a reddish yellow fluid, in 
which floated masses of a honey colored gelatin- 
ous material. Lungs adherent both sides; an- 
terior portion of both lungs solidified, cedema- 
; tous; caseous broncho pneumonia with formula- 
J tion of cavities.” 
It will not do for Salmon to tell me, as he has 
j the public in his report, that: 
“Our (his) investigations have shown the exist- 
! ence of another bacterial disease n swine, which 
may be associated with hog cholera in the same 
j herd and "in the same animal,” for I shall defy 
him and his tools by pronouncing that assertion 
unqualifiedly false. 
It will not do for him to call on Schutz to sup- 
port him in his endeavors to swindle the Ameri- 
can public by forging a description of bacteria, 
which do not and never have existed except in 
the cocc-Id intellects of the bureau of animal 
industry, for Schutz himself is uncertain 
whether or not the disease described by Roloff is 
not also caused by the bacterium of swine 
plague discovered by Loeffler and himself in 
Germany, and Detmers and myself in this coun- 
try, and leaves a loop hole to crawl out of should 
future investigations show that Roloff’s intestinal 
lesions also belong to the German swine plague. 
Schutz says: 
“In anticipation of future remarks I will draw 
attention to a disease of swine described by 
Roloff under the name of “Kasigen Darment- 
zundung” which he (Roloff) looked upon as a 
form of tuberculosis, but which, with the 
greatest probability, should belong m the group 
of diseases caused by the oval bacteria.” 
Thereby we must not leave out of consideration, 
the fact that the intestinal wall can be affected 
from the circulation, and consequently that the 
caseous condition of the intestines need not 
necessarily be attributed to the presence of the 
bacteria, in the intestinal canal,” p. p. 412, 413, 
Arbeiten a. a. Kais. Gesundheitsamte, 1886. 
With regard to Salmon’s inoculation experiments 
the writer has only to say that as no such 
bacterium exists in the American swine plague 
they have no value—either pro or con the 
prevention of the disease in that manner. 
One word more and I am done. It is this, that I 
will not accept the verdict of any person upon 
artificially prepared specimens which may be 
shown to them in or by any one connected with 
the bureau of animal industry. The trust- 
worthiness of that organization has been pretty 
well shown up in this and other papers. If Mr. 
Coleman means to be just to our live stock in- 
terests, let him employ some actually independ- 
ent workers. We will place our own laboratory 
and means at his disposal and do our utmost to 
help arrive at the truth, confident in the correct- 
ness of our own work. 
Lincoln, Neb., 22, 1887 
Hog- Cholera and Swine Plague Tw 
Distinct Diseases 
Report of *■»•« Department of Agriculture, 
1»S6, Reviewed by Frank S. Hillings, 
Director of the Patho-Biological Ex- 
periment Station of the State Univer- 
sity of Nebraska. 
Dr. Salmon introduces his portion of this re- 
port as follows: “In view7 of the results of in- j 
vestigations which have showm the existence of j 
two distinct diseases in swine, perhaps of equal 
virulence and distribution, a change in the 
nomenclature becomes necessary in order to 
avoid any confusion in the future. Since these 
two diseases have been considered as one in the 
past, and the names swine plague and hog chol- 
era have been applied indiscriminately, we pre- 
fer to retain both names with a more restricted 
meaning.” 
“Using the name hog cholera for the disease 
described in the last report as swine plague, 
which is produced by a motile bacterium.” 
“And applying tbe name swine p’ague to the 
■other disease, (only lately discovered) the chief 
seat of which is in the lungs.” 
“This change is the more desirable since recent 
investigations have shown that the latter disease 
exists in Germany, where it is called swine 
plague. P. 603. 
Before entering upon the discussion of this 
very unpleasant question, I desire to say, that it 
is not to oppose Dr. Salmon, as Mr. Salmon that 
this review and criticism is written, but rather to 
force the question so upon the authorities at 
Washington that it must be brought to some 
definite conclusion before the end of another 
year. It is now some eight years since this de- 
partment commenced investigations upon the 
disease of swine known as hog cholera and, writh 
the exception of the admirable wrork of Dr. Det- 
mers, nothing of importance has been added to 
our knowledge of that disease by any other 
worker. The w7ork of Salmon has only added 
confusion to a subject which Dr. Detmers left in a 
comparatively clear light. 
The present report of Salmon is such a mass of 
misstatements, errors and contradictions that its 
nature can only be described by one word, and 
that is imbecilic. 
To make my own position plain I w7ill say: 
First—That I unequivocally7 deny that there are 
tw7o distinct diseases of swine w7hich have been 
known heretofore either as hog cholera or swine 
plague. 
Second—I deny that there are two distinct 
germs causing two distinct diseases known by 
either of these names. 
Third—I positively assert that Salmon’s asser- 
tion of a distinct germ for the disease which he 
now calls “hog cholera” is erroneous, and that 
the description of that object is a forgery; that it 
does not exist or occur in any form of the Ameri- 
can swine plague, and that neither Salmon or 
anyone else can demonstrate the presence of that 
object in the tissues or blood of any hog that has 
died of swine plague in any7 part of this country, 
if the examination is made before cadaveric 
changes have taken place. 
Fourth—That the object described by Salmon 
as the germ of hog cholera cannot be cultivated 
from the tissues of any animal that has died of 
hog cholera or swrine plague. It now remains for 
me to prove the correctness of these assertions 
from the work of Dr. Salmon. 
It will be at first necessary to call attention to 
a very important fact that will probably escape 
the attention of the ordinary reader and non- 
professional reviewer, and that is that Dr. Sal- | 
mon has been busied upon investigations of the I 
diseases of swine for the agricultural department 
at Washington ever since the year 1878. That 
during that rieriod he has enjoyed advantages 
for such work, not only superior to any other 
man in the country, but also as the only person 
in the country that was employed to do such 
work with the exceptions of Drs. Detmers and 
Law, neither of whom had his opportunities or 
assistants. 
That up to the time of the issue of the last re- 
port of tnedepartm int, 1885, Dr. Salmon never 
knew of but one disease to be called swine 
plague—(which he now admits): that up to that 
time he considered the micro-organismal cause of 
that disease to be a micro-coccus, and that only 
—as may be seen by reading the following pas- 
sage from the report of 1885. “Anticipating 
somewhat the conclusion which we arrived at 
later concerning the real cause of this puzzling 
disease, we must say, at this point, that we no 
longer consider a microccoccus'as the cause of 
all outbreaks of thej disease known as swine- 
plague,” p. 186-and this assertion he reiter- 
ated as late as November last. See Breeders' 
Gazette, November 1, 1886. The interesting 
question now comes to mind, what has become 
of those outbreaks of swine plague that are 
caused by7 that microccoccus? They were not 
mentioned in the report of 1885, and no allusion 
is made to them in that of 1880, notwithstanding 
the fact that Salmon spent all his time from 1879 
to 1886 in discovering that micro-coccus and de- 
fending its position as the cause of American 
swine plague. 
All that time was wasted! Thousands of dollars 
were wasted by Salmon in doing—nothing! When, 
then, did Salmon discover that there were two 
diseases caused by two different germs that were 
heretofore known as hog cholera or swine plague ? 
After German investigations had shown him 
that a germ having apparently the same appear- 
ance as that described by Detmers as far back as 
1880 was the cause of the German swineplague. 
Why did he not then accept the Germans’ de- 
scription of that germ? 
Why did he manufacture a description of an 
object which he cannot, nor any7 one else, derive 
from tbe tissues of swine that have died from the 
American swine plague? 
Dr. Salmon’s description is not that of a germ 
at all; it is that of a spore as every one who 
knows anything of bacteriology must admit who 
reads the description and studies his plates. 
Salmon denies that the bacteria of the 
American swine plague develops spores, so that 
knocks the bottom out of any argument in that 
direction for the present. See p. 611, Report 
1886, where he says: 
“All the facts brought out by the study of this 
bacterium lead to the conclusion that a distinct 
spore state does not appear either within the 
animal body7 or in nature.” 
The writer must endorse that assertion at 
present in the face of some very7 positive natural 
facts which strongly7 point to the probability7 that 
a permanent spore may be developed by this 
germ under certain unknown conditions. 
According to Salmon then we have two distinct 
porcine diseases in this country, both having 
approximately, “Equal violeuce and distribu- 
tion.” 
He gives two reasons for this assertion: 
1. That they are caused by two distinct germs. 
2. That the pathological lesions are different, 
so different that one can easily7 distinguish one 
disease from the other. 
The trouble is to fix Salmon positively, for he 
fails in giving us an exact definition of his true 
ideas on the latter postulate, but from the gen- 
eral tenor of his writings we may assume, and 
not iujustly, I think, that Salmon’s hog cholera 
is an enteritis or inflammation of intestines,especi- 
allv of the large intestines, characterized by 
ulcerations,nceplasmatic and necrotic processes— 
that is, the production of the peculiar button-like 
objects seen in the large intestines quite fre- 
quently in swine plague with the death of the 
tissues of which they composed or even the lining 
membrane of that intestine. 
Tbe writer is willing to accept that as a partial 
definition of the pathological changes which may 
occur in swine plague. 
With regard to his second disease, which Sal- 
mon calls '‘swine plague,” he is more definite. 
He tells us that it is ann-infectious pneumonia of 
swine.”—P. 659, report of 1886. Further down the 
same page he speaks of it as “a chronic pneu- 
monia.” 
Why Salmon should designate this disease as 
“a chronic pneumonia” is something beyond my 
comprehension, unless it was to appear original, 
as Schutz had defined the German disease as an 
“acute infectious pneumonia.” 
A disease that kills, generally, in ten to twenty 
days cannot be called “chronic,” by any means, 
though there may7 be many cases in which the 
pneumonia may become chronic and the animal