109 



has any Cacis (o 1)i-ii!.u lo us and lay before iis, we are willing 

 to aceepi I hem. We want fads; ^\(; A\aiit kiiowle^i^c. We have 

 lieai'd a, i;i*eat <h'al ahont scieitMlic iiu[iiiry. 1 uiiderstaiid that 

 science Ls the pursuit of knowkulj^e, and that its business is to 

 i>et facts. Science simply describes. It has nothing to do with . 

 explanations. Therefore, if science will describe to us the things 

 that we are trying to learn, we will be greatly indebted to science, 

 and we by no means are in a position, nor do we wish it to be so 

 understood that we attempt to turn our backs upon scientific 

 inquiry. The truth is that this Commissiou wants all the facts 

 it can get. It wants the help of every scientist in the land who 

 is interested enough to pursue^ a line of work and make deduc- 

 tions (herefrom that are useful in a work of this kind. We want 

 to go hand in hand with everybody who can lend an iota of 

 strength to this work; but we do not care to join hands with 

 those who see simply gloom and failure, and are unwilling to 

 make any decent effort to determine wiiether or not a thing can 

 or cannot be done. The experiments that are being made by 

 the Commission are for the purpose of finding out. We heard a 

 great deal about the ineffectuabiess of the cutting-out method 

 of combating this disease, or cliecking its spread. I do not know 

 upon what foundation or upon what premises these conclusions 

 are drawn. We have attem])ted to follow the progress of this 

 inquiry and the knowledge on the subject as closeh^ as possible, 

 and yet gentlemen tell us that it is absolutely ineffectual. Now 

 I would like them to tell us why it is ineffectual, and how much 

 cutting out they have done, and what real knowledge they have 

 derived from that kind of work. If it is going to turn upon 

 someone's opinion, then I Avould like this meeting to believe that 

 probabl}^ one man's opinion is as good as another's. If it is not, 

 let us find out ^^ily. I would like to ask Mr. Stewart, in respect 

 to one sentence in his paper this afternoon, which you will re- 

 member was one continued negation, I would like to ask him to 

 tell us why in that paper he broke away from the negative atti- 

 tude au<l, in the very closing moments, took a positive stand in 

 that he recommended the restriction of tlie movement of nursery 

 stock. Nov/ if there is no use in cutting out a diseased tree, if 

 there is no real effectual value in doing any work of any kind, if 

 we are simj)ly to sit down and let things go and take their course, 



