166 Pathologist U. S. Department of Agriculture 



ston and to complete his histological examinations at the botanical 

 laboratory of the University of Michigan. 



On May 8 the Board of Trustees of Delaware College met and 

 elected a man other than Smith as director of their experiment 

 station. Frederick D. Chester, professor of agriculture, besought 

 Bailey to recommend "" a good man to act as Horticulturist to our 

 new Experiment Station to be organized under the provisions of 

 the Hatch Act. The horticultural interests of Delaware," he wrote, 

 " are very important, and this position is in my mind the most 

 important one on the station." Bailey forwarded his letter to 

 Smith. Wesley Webb urged Smith to seek "' an appointment as 

 special agent to investigate the yellows," and assured Smith that 

 " the fruit growers [would] raise money to pay [his] expenses." 

 But no final arrangements were ever made. 



In June Smith received an inquiry of interest from Acting 

 Commissioner of Agriculture F. C. Nesbit: "Will you," he 

 demanded, "please inform this Department whether, from your 

 investigations of Peach yellows, you can assert that the disease is 

 or is not caused by a parasitic fungus." 



On November 19, Burrill confided to Smith that he had " found 

 a living organism in the diseased bark but [was] sure of nothing 

 further yet." Smith had sent him some trees for planting and 

 observation but, despite good care, the young ones died, and those 

 of a shipment received in the fall grew, " showing characteristic 

 'yellows.'" He also sent a box of peach fruit, "exactly" what 

 Burrill wanted. Cultures were made at once. But on July 26, 

 1889, he wrote: " I am well convinced that there is no parasite 

 unless it is of the bacteria — or other micro-forms, but am not 

 certain that it will prove anychmg." On account of other work his 

 peach yellows research had been "comparatively resting awhile." 

 Smith answered immediately and on August 5 the Iliinoisan 

 explained that all he had found was " the organism which [he 

 had] supposed the thing before." He had uncovered no " positive 

 information of [the organism] in the fruit," was not confident of 

 the bacterial theory, and wanted specimens of inoculated trees, 

 promising in return a culture. 



Where in the United States was there a reputable scientist v/ho 

 could have answered positively the inquiry of Acting Commissioner 

 Nesbit? Smith and Burrill, with their characteristic honest}' and 

 candor in science, could not. The most that they could have said 



