[faull] presidential ADDRESS 3 



by the French government to investigate two newly imported diseases 

 of the grape, native to America, which were rapidly devastating the 

 vineyards of France and causing widespread ruin, phylloxera and 

 mildew. He solved the phylloxera problem by introducing the resist- 

 ant American stocks on which the wine-producing European vines 

 were grafted — a notable phytopathological achievement in itself. He 

 solved the mildew problem through the use of a spray of copper sulphate 

 and lime. Millardet saved the vineyards of France. Bordeaux 

 mixture at once attracted general attention, for it was a means in the 

 hands of the plant pathologist of preventing not only grape mildew 

 but also many others of the commonest and most destructive plant 

 diseases. But plant pathology is under a still deeper obligation to 

 Bordeaux mixture, for its use has compelled the public to recognize the 

 value of prophylactic methods and in return has secured to the science 

 such a measure of monetary support as to assure its development. 



The accomplishments of DeBary and of Millardet typify as it 

 were the characteristics of the two interdependent stories of the 

 phytopathological edifice. The one type of research lays the ground- 

 work in determining the nature and the causes of a disease, the other 

 builds thereon an inquiry into the means of coping with the disease. 

 The work of these two men represents in a word the content and the 

 spirit of plant pathology. 



My reference to the public support given to plant pathology is of 

 more than passing interest and should be emphasized. Strange as it 

 may seem, plant pathology is mainly a government-nurtured science, 

 and in my judgment governmental support should be ranked along 

 with the contributions of DeBary and Millardet in an appraisement 

 of the three most important factors in the development of phytopath- 

 ology. Every progressive government in every land that fosters 

 agriculture and forestry has from the first drafted plant pathology 

 into its service. One of the most significant features in this connection 

 is the fact that there has been universal recognition of the pre-eminent 

 place of research in the profession of plant pathology. The call con- 

 tinuously has been for research men in this field. This general 

 insistence on research denotes two things, first that the science has 

 justified its past, and second that governments recognize the fact that 

 there are still worth-while problems to be solved. This recognition 

 of and provision for research has been of inestimable importance 

 from every point of view. To the country it has meant a fruitful 

 focussing of constant attention by skilled scientists on its plant 

 industrial problems; to the plant pathologist it has meant, theoretically 

 at least, equipment and time for investigation practically free from 



