540 
D. E. SALMON. 
Now, what are the facts about this subject? In the first, 
report of the Bureau, that containing the work of 1884, the 
cause of swine plague was spoken of and figured in liquid 
cultures as a dumb-bell micrococcus. In recent years I have 
laid no stress on that early work, because it was done soon 
after I went to Washington, when bacteriology in this coun¬ 
try was in its infancy, and when the Bureau had neither the 
instruments, the laboratory facilities, nor the assistance which 
we now know to be essential for such investigations. It is 
also well known that I had many other duties at that time, 
such as the organization of the Bureau, and the investigation 
and control of an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in the West¬ 
ern States, which caused several long absences from Wash¬ 
ington, one of which was of more than three months’ dura¬ 
tion. This is no reason why my scientific conclusions at that 
period should be received on any less evidence than is re¬ 
quired from other people, but it is an explanation as to why 
the germ then figured was not studied under different condi¬ 
tions of culture, and in its effects upon different animals so 
that its identification by other investigators would be easy 
and certain. > 
It is evident of course in the light of to-day that we can¬ 
not claim to have established the fact that the micrococcus of 
1884 was a specific pathogenic germ because we did not give 
the means for the subsequent identification of this germ 
either by other investigators or ourselves. It is significant, 
however, that a disease of swine has since been studied 
in Germany and in the United States the bacteria of which 
grow in liquid cultures as did the germ figured in the Report 
of 1884. There is only one discrepancy, and that was ex¬ 
plained long ago and before any one else had discovered it. 
It was stated in that report that the micrococcus liquefied 
gelatine. The error was owing to my cultures being then 
made in liquid media after the Pasteur method, as on account 
of lack of assistance and laboratory facilities the gelatine 
method was impracticable. Because of changes in the labora¬ 
tory and my long absence my cultures became shifted about 
and in some cases the labels misplaced. On my return it be- 
