Klfl 



Jiji.s aiiv Incls lo I(i-iiiu l(» iis :iimI l;iy lidoi-c iis. we ah' williiii!; 

 to acccpl lliciii. We w.iiil liicls; we \\;iiit kii<»\\ Iciluc WC li;iv(; 

 lic.iid ;i iii-cMt (lr;il ;ilM»nl sciciililir iii(|iiii-v. I iiiHlcistniid lliat 

 •scieiit-e i.s the piii-suil of kiniw Icil^c, ami thai its liu.siiiess is to 

 lict facts. SciciK-c siiii|(ly (h'sci-ilx-s. It lias iiothiiii; to do with 

 ('.\j)hiiiat ions, 'rhcfcfoi-c, if science will <lesci'ih<; to lis the tilings 

 that we are tryiiiu lo h-arii, we will he greatly iinhihted to scioiicre, 

 and we i»y net iiieans ai'e in a j»osilioii, iioi- (h» we wisii it to he so 

 nnderstood that we attenijd to turn our hacks ui)(jn scieiitilic 

 in(|iiiry. The truth is that tin's (Jommissiou wants all the fads 

 it can get. 1 1 wants the liel|) of every seieiitist in the land win* 

 is interested enoUiiii to |»iirsiie a line (d' work and make deduc- 

 tions llierefr<»iii llial are useful in a work of this kind. We want 

 to go liainl in hand A\itli e\'er\ hody who can lend an iota of 

 strength to this work; Imt we do not care t(» join hands with 

 those who see siini)ly gloom and failure, and are unwilling to 

 make any decent effort to determine \\liether or not a thing can 

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

 the Conimission are for the pnrpose of finding ont. We heard a 

 great deal about the inetTectnalnes.s of the cutting-out method 

 of condiaiiiig 111 is disease, or checking its s]»read. I do not know 

 np(»n what foundation or ui»on what premises these conclusions 

 are drawn, ^^'e have attempted to follow the progress of this 

 iiupiiry and the knowledge on the sul)ject as closely as possible, 

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

 I would like tliem to tell us why it is ineffectual, and how mucli 

 cutting out the}^ 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 1 would like this meeting to believe that 

 ]»ro])ahIy one man's opinion is as good as another's. If it is not, 

 let us lind out why. I would like to ask Mr. Stewart, in resi)ect 

 to one sentence in his i)aper this afternoon, which you will re- 

 member was one continued negation, I Avould like to a.sk him to 

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

 tude and, in the very closing moments, took a positive stand in 

 that he recommended the restriction of the movement of nursery 

 stock. Ni)vr if there is no use in cutting out a diseased tree, if 

 there is no real ell'ectual value in doing any work of any kind, if 

 we are simply to sit down and let things go and take theii' course, 



