240 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY [Vol. 2 



interpret my motives, as I interpreted yours, that is, as an impersonal 

 attempt to present the truth as you see it," etc. 



I was glad to receive this wholly voluntary statement from Doc- 

 tor Ball, for the impression made by the original article and this ab- 

 stract of it is unfortunately both personal and controversial. The 

 reader of either article will certainly infer from its general tenor as 

 well as its language that my judgment in this matter is not entitled 

 to serious consideration, to quote his own words, "Doctor Headden is 

 not, however, a horticulturist or a plant pathologist . . . and 

 his conclusion ... is open to serious question." This in fact 

 seems to be the weightiest argument produced why the conclusions of 

 Bulletin 131 of this station should be seriously called in question. 



Next to the preceding in importance is the allegation that I have 

 based my conclusions on insufficient facts. He says, "It might also 

 be well to state that the conclusions of the Colorado bulletin are appar- 

 ently based upon few observations in the field, the greater amount of 

 work having been done in the laboratory hundreds of miles from the 

 spot where the damage occurred." Further in his conclusions he 

 states, "That the entire subject of arsenical poisoning is a matter 

 for careful and exhaustive investigation and any statements preced- 

 ing that investigation should be of the most guarded nature. ' ' 



Such statements are certainly unfortunate if the article is not per- 

 sonal, and is not controversial. 



I am not quite clear as to what Doctor Ball's object is in these ar- 

 ticles. I cannot find in either of them that he has made any investi- 

 gation of the facts presented in Bulletin 131 of this station. He seems 

 to be willing to accept my chemical findings but wishes to deny my 

 conclusions without good reasons. He seems to be motived principally 

 by a desire to defend the use of arsenical sprays by asserting that 

 arsenic cannot be the cause of the death of certain trees, which he 

 thinks were killed by something else. This is certainly not reason- 

 able, for I have not attacked the practice of spraying but have simply 

 pointed out certain injuries which it has already produced and given 

 warning of the serious dangers attending the application of arseni- 

 cals to our trees, especially in the excessive amounts heretofore used. 

 Doctor Ball seems to object to my doing these things without any fur- 

 ther reason than that he seems to think that it is a naughty thing for 

 me to do, and accordingly delivers himself as follows: "If,, on the 

 other hand, he is mistaken in his conclusions, the publication is most 

 unfortunate, as it Avill no doubt cause a decided reaction against a 

 now highly successful method of spraj^ing and bring consequent finan- 

 cial loss to the fruit industry." 



