544 
D. E. SALMON. 
ject does not exist, never has existed, and never will have any 
etiological connection with the American swine plague, as 
has been conclusively demonstrated in this report.” (L. c. 
P- in-) i 
In his post-mortem notes he says: 
“ Though the lesions here described must and will com¬ 
pletely fill Mr. Salmon’s picture of his ‘ hog cholera,’ described 
in his report of 1886, but in this, as in every other case, Mr. 
Salmon’s specific ‘ hog cholera microbe ’ was missed, and ‘ it 
ever will be missed ” in the American swine plague, no mat¬ 
ter who seeks it, or how much time they spend in the hunt.” 
(L. c. p. 136.) 
In another post-mortem note he says parenthetically : 
“ It does not seem as if any one could have seen more ex¬ 
tensive lesions in the large intestine, which Mr. Salmon says 
are characteristic of his ‘ hog cholera,’ yet his manufactured 
germ of ‘ hog cholera ’ never had any connection with the 
lesions in this hog.” (L. c. p. 163.) 
At the conclusion of his post-mortem notes he added: 
“ After several hours spent at this useless job, we were 
unable to find any other micro-organism than that invariably 
found in every case of swine plague we have investigated, 
and which has been described as a ‘ belted ovoid organism 
which colors at its pole ends,’ and which bears no resemblance 
to the Washingtonian-Bureaucratic nondescript.” (L. c. p. 
164.) ' I 
I have already made enough quotations to demonstrate 
Billings’ position on this question in 1888, when his report 
was written; but it is my object to show that this was the 
main idea of that report—the conclusion upon which the 
whole structure was built. As so much depends upon this 
one fact I trust that you will bear with me while I demonstrate 
that from the beginning to the end of the four hundred pages 
these assertions are repeated as the corner-stone of the whole 
argument. 
Describing an autopsy made by himself and Dr. Roberts, 
of Creighton, Neb., he adds: 
“ The above case is of special interest, and is only intro- 
/ 
