Studies on (jiown Ciai.i. oi Plants '1-13 



tumors which liad dcvckopcd in tlie leaves some weeks after tlie 

 stem inoculations. These secondary leaf-tume)rs were shown to 

 be possessed of stem structure, that is, to have the structure of the 

 primary tumor, and thus to suggest a simihirity following " the 

 law of cancer in man and animals." '■ Dr. William Bradley Coley, 

 famous New York physician and surgeon, told the meeting that 

 he believed Smith's work "' extremely valuable." That he adhered 

 to this opinion was borne out by letters written years later to Smith. 

 Dr. Coley was not only professor of clinical cancer research in 

 Cornell University Medical School but also surgeon-in chief, con- 

 sulting or attending surgeon at several hospitals, including the 

 Memorial Hospital of New York where some of the earliest and 

 most valuable cancer research in connection with a hospital was 

 done in this country. For a number of years Dr. James Ewing, 

 also a participant in the discussion and wdiom Smith always held 

 in high esteem because of his sincerity of beliefs and devotion to 

 truth, directed this cancer research. At the Buffalo meeting he 

 stated his view that, while he found " certain aspects extremely 

 interesting," he believed, " We are making a great mistake in 

 calling carcinoma one and the same disease. Cancer in man is 

 different from cancer in animals." In a letter of May 31, 1916, 

 Dr. Coley encouraged Smith by telling him that he had sent extra 

 copies of Smith's papers to men who he was sure w^re " especially 

 interested in the subject. Most of the pathologists that I have 

 talked with, are still very skeptical about the possibility of being 

 able to draw an analogy between plant tumors and human tumors. 

 Needless to say I am not in accord with such views. I am a firm 

 believer in applying the rules of logic in the field of Medicine as 

 well as in other fields of science." June 25, 1916, Dr. Coley again 

 congratulated Smith " upon the convincing and lucid arguments 

 you so ably presented [in another article by Smith entitled " Fur- 

 ther Evidence that Crown Gall of Plants is Cancer." '^} I have, 

 for 25 years, in season and out of season," he continued, 



held the same views, and in spite of the advice of my friends, the path- 

 ologists, that I would lose "" caste " if I published them, I have kept on 

 expressing my opinions. Each year has brought firmer conviction of the 



""^ Erwin F. Smith, Further evidence as to the relation between crown gall and 

 cancer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences 2: 446, Aug. 1916. 

 '" Scietice, n. s., 43(1121): 871-889, June 23, 1916. 



