RiisiiAiu H ()N Pi. AM Tumors 503 



Association '^ which elaborately described and characterized his 

 wc^rk as bringing forward " iinjx)rtaiit cvkK ncc in favor of the 

 parasitic theory " of cancer etiology. 



Once before, the jo//n/j/,'- in an editorial, " Is Cancer of In- 

 fectious Nature?" had mentioned Smith's work. One of the 

 conclusions was that he was making out " a very strong case in 

 favor of his view, and . . . that the view of the infectious cause 

 oi cancer in general [was] strengthened by his work."' The 

 " absence of complete analc-)gy between the structure of plants 

 and that of animals (and the fundamental difference in meta- 

 bolism)" still held in abeyance the question whether crown gall 

 was cancer in plants. Nevertheless, his studies of plant tumors 

 were being considered, among other points, together with the 

 experimentally induced tumors in animals (chicken sarcoma) 

 announced by Peyton Rous. Rous during 1917 sent Smith two 

 letters, one of which said: " You seem to go on gaining new and 

 important facts all the time. Best wishes for those yet to come! " 



During this period. Dr. W. J. Mayo sent Smith several com- 

 plimentary letters. So did Dr. E. O. Jordan of Chicago University's 

 department of hygiene and bacteriology. He believed Smith's 

 work " most suggestive for its bearings on human pathology." 

 Several workers at the New^ York State Institute for the Study of 

 Malignant Disease — Dr. Marsh, biologist, Dr. John A. P. Millet, 

 internist, and Dr. G. H. A. Clowes, biological chemist, aside from 

 Dr. Gaylord — consulted Smith, especially in those instances where 

 plant tumors were being studied comparably with animal tumors 

 in matters such as conductivity and permeability determinations of 

 normal and diseased tissues. Copies of Smith's crown gall papers 

 were distributed through the Institute by Dr. Marsh, and a set 

 sent to Dr. Gaylord who for a while was with the United States 

 armed forces. Dr. Millet, planning experiments with animals 

 similar to Smith's experiments chemically inducing crown galls on 

 Ricinus, cauliflower, and other plants, wrote on March 29, 1917: 

 " I have felt more and more since being here that we must look 

 to some physical, or possibly physico-chemical explanation for 

 tumor growth, and I therefore found much encouragement in 

 reading your own beliefs." In 1918 Smith and his laboratory 



'* 67(2): 123-124. Dr. George H. Simmons, editor of the fourn.il. 

 "59: 448, Aug. 10, 1912. 



