28 PROTECTION OF PLAINTS, 1920-21 



It is instructive to note where the objections came from against thus selling 

 plant pathology to people. They did not come from the farmers, they came 

 from my own colleagues in Cornell and other institutions. They said I would 

 lose my job, but as yet I have n't. The point I want to make is that up to 1907- 

 8 research in plant pathology in the average institution was generally pursued 

 on the College or Experiment Station farm. If the pathologist went elsewhere 

 then the grower was to be reimbursed, so to say, for allowing the plant pathol- 

 ogist to solve his problems. It was like a doctor paying a patient for allowing 

 him to operate on him. In 1909 we had our first industrial fellowship, which 

 brought to the Institution $1,000. Since 1909 we have had approximately 

 $80,000 in fellowships. Last year we had about $20,000 for this purpose from 

 the growers and commercial concerns of the State of New York. I think that 

 plant pathology as an economic science — as a profession — will sell itself. It 

 ought to return interest on the money invested in it. 



This change in the attitude of New York State is rather remarkable, es- 

 pecially if you know the New York farmer, for he does not spend his money 

 without thinking carefully. To have this happen in a conservative state seems 

 to m'e exceptionally good proof that plant pathology does have a place in 

 economic agriculture. 



The development of plant pathology in America has been very rapid since 

 the year 1906, but a different kind of development from that prior to 1906. 

 The development of plant pathology as a profession in the universities beginn- 

 ing with the establishment of the first chair of plant pathology at Cornell Univ- 

 ersity, is an acknowledgment of the fact that the science of plant pathology 

 is a phase of agricultural education and the result has been verj^ promising. 

 The rise and development of the Phytopathological Society on this continent 

 is good evidence that this science is a part of agriculture. 



For a long time the entomologists had the stage and the plant pathologists 

 were lost among the botanists. I think it is safe to say that the plant patholo- 

 gists of the United States and Canada constitute now as well-recognized a group 

 of scientific men as there is anywhere. I think that they are better known to 

 each other. They meet together more frequently than some other groups and 

 that in spite of the fact that the organization is very young. 



What is the justification for this rise and development of plant pathology ? 

 I think justification is found in the fact that the diseases of plants pla}^ an impor- 

 tant role in crop production. The best evidence of this are the serious losses 

 from plant diseases which occur every year. In ordering sweet potatoes for 

 example — for every two sweet potatoes that are delivered on your table, one 

 other has been lost to disease. For everj^ six cotton shirts that you buy, one 

 has been lost by disease in the cotton fields of the south. The losses from plant 



