45 



It has been asked "What (lien would you have us do? Stand 

 idle Avhile the disease destroys our chestnut forests ' My 

 answer is tlris: It may he Avell to restrict the transportation of 

 diseased nursery slock, but this is all that it is worth while to 

 a I tempt at present in the line of combat ing the disease. It is bet- 

 ter (o (ilfenijtl iiothhn/ Hum to iruxlc, <i l<ir</c amount of public 

 HI one i/ on a in <'-lIi od of control irfiich (here is ci-crt/ reuxon to be- 

 lie ra cannot succeed. I believe in being honest with the public 

 and admitting frankly that we know of no way to control this 

 disease. I favor moderate-sized appropriations for investigation 

 of the disease, bnt none at all to be used in attempts to control it 

 by any method or methods at present known. 



AVhat will be the future course of the disease can only be con- 

 jectured, but it can be safely predicted that nothing which man 

 can now do will materially alter its course. However, the situa- 

 tion is by no means hopeless. That the disease has already reach- 

 ed its zenith and Avill UOAV gradually subside is quite possible. 

 There have been other epidemics, and other kinds of trees and 

 plants have been threatened Avith destruction through disease, 

 but such a thing has never actually happened. So far as known, 

 no plant has ever been exterminated by disease. It is unlikely 

 thai the chestnut will be exterminated. 



THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to the Chair that the situation 

 AVOU Id suggest discussion at this time, but it Avould probably be 

 better to continue with our programme as it Avas ably laid out by 

 those Avho have provided for this Conference, and have the dis- 

 cussion after Ave have heard the papers. We will, therefore, call 

 for the next paper, entitled "How Further Research may Increase 

 the Efficiency of the Control of the Chestnut Bark Disease," by 

 Professor W. HoAvard Rankin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New 

 York. 



1. Mctcalf, H. and Collins, J. F. The control of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A. 

 Farmers' Bui. 467, 28 O. 1911. 



2. Loc. cit. p. 11. 



3. Reported by Dr. Metcalf at a conference on the chestnut, bark disease held in Albany, 

 N. T., October 19, 1911. 



4. U. S. IX A. Farmers' Bui. 467:11. 



5. U. S. D. A. Farmers' Bui. 467:10. 



6. Metcalf and Collins. The present status of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A. Bur 

 Plant Indus. Bui. 141, Part V, p. 46. 30 S. 1909. 



7. Clinton, G. P. Report of the Botanist, 1906. Conn. Exp. Sta. Rpt. of 1907-1908: 879-890. 

 July, 1909. 



