EDITORIAL. 
54:7 
sion ? when, as we have seen, the disease is not confined to swine, but a little 
careless study would have shown that pigs could easily communicate it to other 
species of animals. Dr. Frosch pays the methods of bacteriological study pur¬ 
sued in the laboratory of the Bureau of Animal Industry the deservedly high 
compliment of doubting any “ etiological relation of the bacterium of Salmon’s 
‘ Swine-plague’ to the pest, especially to a second plague of like extent.” 
But Jeffries’ work removes all doubt upon this matter, and we know that 
the Bureau of Animal Industry has found another disease of swine, which is a 
septic pneumonia, and is not alone confined fo swine, and which for some reason 
or other they choose to term “ Swine-plague.” Furthermore it is not impossible 
that one animal may be infected with both maladies simultaneously. 
The so-called swine-plague of the Bureau of Animal Industry is one of 
those septic diseases due to filth, and is seen chiefly where putrefying city swill 
is fed, and farmers around Boston find that if the swill is boiled and then fed 
before there is time for putrefactive process to commence again, that they are 
not troubled with it. In this respect it resembles closely the German schweine- 
seuche. If this be a true swine-plague, make the most of it. 
# ■ Dr * Smith’s article is, as I have said, in reply to Dr. Frosch’s first article. 
In it he attempts to uphold the work done under the auspices of the Bureau of 
Animal Industry, and to throw discredit upon the work done in Nebraska, and 
also to answer the criticisms in Dr. Frosch’s first article. 
Dr. Frosch s reply to Dr. Smith has its chief interest in his closing sentences. 
After briefly answering Dr. Smith’s remarks, and saying that there is no need of 
his defending Dr. Billings, as he is abundantly able to defend himself, Frosch 
ends with : “ From the present publication of Smith’s, however, which could 
not be seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it is evi¬ 
dent that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the ‘ Hog-cholera ’ germ or 
that of the ‘Swine-plague,’ so now we know the condition of things in that 
regard.” 
Whether Frosch’s feelings of admiration for the honesty and generosity of 
the pseudo-scientist whose work he supposed he was reviewing when he wrote 
his first article, were equal to his feelings of pity and contempt for the assistant 
who was obliged to give the credit for his hard work to his chief, or lose his 
oflicial head, and yet serve as a pillar for his doughty chief to hide behind in 
case of an attack, I leave to your imagination. 
You will see that Jeffries in his paper gives Smith the credit for the work 
he has done. It has been no secret to me for the last year and a half as to who 
was actually conducting these investigations in the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
Having taken the investigation of swine diseases as a fair sample of this 
Bureau’s scientific labors, are we to be expected to place any dependence upon 
the accuracy of the statements emanating from its officers concerning such 
work, especially when they conflict with the results obtained by men like Paquin 
and Billings, unless the work of the former is confirmed by experiments con¬ 
ducted by independent and unprejudiced observers of recognized ability? 
How can we as a profession feel anything but disgraced when we think of 
the opinions which must be held in Koch’s laboratory, the greatest bacteriologi¬ 
cal laboratory in the world, concerning our Bureau of Animal Industry and its 
scientific work? 
