598 BULLETIN 347 
pronounced it a possible source of wasteful expenditure of state money. 
Others were more neutral and awaited additional evidence. The majority, 
however, were of the opinion that further, 
research must be made before the practica- 
bility of any method could be actually proved. 
Stewart (1912) gave many reasons for not 
indorsing the method. He said: (x) the 
method was not supported by experimental 
evidence; (2) ‘‘ no such 
method of controlling 
a fungous disease has 
ever been attempted”’; 
(3) known facts con- 
cerning the disease did 
not make the method 
appear feasible; and (4) 
“it is better to attempt 
nothing than to waste 
a large amount of 
public money on a 
method of control which 
there is every reason 
to believe cannot 
succecd.”’ 
Murrill (1912) thus 
presents his views as 
to why the chestnut 
canker cannot be con- 
Fic. 96.— Method of cutting ie 
out a canker on the trunk. trolled by the cutting- 
The wood is cut out an out method: 
inch below the bark 
“z. It is impossible 
to locate all advance infections, these not being 
apparent even under close inspection. 
‘2, It is practically impossible to cut down 
and burn all infected trees after their discovery. 
‘“* 3, Even if these trees are cut, it is impossible 
to discover and eradicate the numerous in- Fic. 97.—Trunk from which 
fections originating from millions of spores pro- eg a 
duced on these trees and distributed by birds, wounds are completely coat- 
insects, squirrels, wind, and rain. at es roan Res 
‘““4. Even if it were possible to cut and burn all affected trees, for ten 
to twenty years afterwards numbers of sprouts would vrow up from the 
