032 
D. E. SALMON. 
unreliable. I have shown you how Billings’ conclusions stand 
or rather fail to stand, when tried by Frosch’s investigations 
Now let us see how the Bureau’s conclusions fare when com 
pared with these and other recent investigations. 
In 1885 the Bureau described the germ of hog-cholera—; 
germ so different from any previously described in swim 
diseases, that for a long time our conclusions were no 
accepted as correct by any other investigators. In 1886, sooi 
after Schutz’s report appeared, we showed that the germ o 
hog-cholera was essentially different from that of the Germar 
Schweineseuche , and that we had another disease with ; 
germ which appeared to be identical with the germ o 
Schweineseuche. It is unnecessary at this time to go int( 
particulars as to how these conclusions have been contested 
both at home and abroad ; but, fortunately, they are now botl 
vindicated by independent investigators. 
As to the hog-cholera germ, its pathogenic character and 
difference from the Schweineseuche germ we need no furthe 
evidence than is given by Frosch. The latter, however, ha 
seen fit to contest the specific and pathogenic character of ou 
swine-plague germ, particularly as related to a plague 0 
equal distribution with hog-cholera. This opinion of his i 
not founded on any investigations of his own, but upon cap 
tious criticisms of our methods. It may be said in the firs 
place that we never claimed that swine-plague had an equa 
distribution with hog-cholera. This was a question whicl 
could only be decided by more extensive investigations thai 
we have been able to make. We did say that it was a wide 
spread plague, and we see no reason to change our views. 
As to whether Frosch was right in his assumption that th< 
swine plague germ discovered by us was not the cause of ; 
specific disease distinct from hog.cholera, we must decide b] 
the results obtained by other investigators. The Commission 
of Inquiry recognized the existence of such a disease ; Welch 
of Johns-Hopkins University, has studied it; Jeffries had un 
doubted cases of it; and even Billings, after first accepting i 
as identical with his swine-plague, and later denying its es 
istence, comes around finally and admits that he has seen ; 
few cases, 
