350 Chief of a Laboratory of Plant Pathology 



on the subject of DeBary. I would, in no wise, reflect upon the 

 work of that great botanist, but I would call attention to this, 

 that so many German botanists, since his time, feel impelled to 

 repeat the particular mistake he made as to bacteriological diseases 

 of plants." 



Again, despite his strong feelings, Smith endeavored to remain 

 aloof from personalities, and stress that the main motivation of 

 the discussion was the search for truth. When the year 1901 

 arrived, he received many more letters on the subject from 

 American scientists. Dr. W. C. Sturgis, botanist of the Connec- 

 ticut Agricultural Experiment Station, by letter of March 4, 1901, 

 summarized the situation rather fully: 



In view of the ascertained facts regarding B[acillus] amylovorus, I have 

 never considered it worth while to repeat cultural work with it or to 

 attempt infections. My work with it has been entirely of a preventive 

 character. 



I have not seen Delacroix's work on carnation disease, to which you 

 refer. I am never surprised by ignorance, on the part of European inves- 

 tigators, of work done in this country. The Centralblatter and other 

 Reviews pay little attention to American publications in general, and, with 

 some show of reason, practically none at all to Exp[eriment} Sta[tion] 

 Bull[etin]s and Rep[ort]s. These are apparently not classed as scientific 

 publications worthy of note. 



However, there is a good deal of excuse for Delacroix this time, inas- 

 much as my own work on the carnation-Fusarium consisted merely of a 

 few trivial observations published in a Station Report which he probably 

 never saw, while Stewart's work on it was equally inaccessible. 



I am about getting out another edition of my Bibliog[raphy} of Fungous 

 Diseases and I purpose distributing it pretty freely among European 

 botanists so that there may be less excuse for ignorance regarding work 

 done over here. 



I have been following with extreme gratification your controversy with 

 Fischer. He knows perfectly well he is wrong and his cumbrous attempts 

 to hedge are most amusing. He is so badly whipped that it seems almost 

 cruel to continue the fight. 



April 23, 1901, L. R. Jones, then at Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

 congratulated Smith: 



I was much pleased with the appearance of the Centralblatt article and 

 am glad that I followed your advice in so publishing. 



Permit me to congratulate you upon your bulletin 26. Also your recent 

 reply to Fischer. I doubt if he ventures to say anything more and so 



