556 
D. SALMON’. 
controvert views which we have actually expressed. It is 
fortunate that this whole subject is a matter of record, and 
that all the evidence has been printed where it is easily acces¬ 
sible. There is, consequently, no excuse for misrepresenta¬ 
tion or inexact statements. 
The personalities are chiefly based on the assumption that 
I have failed to give Dr. Smith credit for the part which he 
has had in the investigation of swine diseases. “ In a special 
report of the Bureau of Animal Industry upon 4 Hog Cholera: 
its History, Nature and Treatment,’ issued in 1889,” Dr. 
Peters says, “ there is a short history of the investigations of 
swine disease made in the United States, but we do not find 
any mention of the name of Billings, although he discovered 
at once the bacterium which the Chief of the Bureau of Ani¬ 
mal Industry had been searching for for years, and which he 
probably would not have found for some time if he had not 
had the help of an assistant whom he was not generous 
enough to credit with the discovery, and so let it pass as his 
own.” 
We will now go to the records and see how much credit 
has been given to Dr. Smith for the work which he has done. 
In the report of the Bureau for 1885, page seven, is the fol¬ 
lowing sentence: “ I have been ably assisted in these investi¬ 
gations by Dr. Theobald Smith, whose untiring service has 
been indispensable and invaluable; also by Dr. F. L. Kil- 
borne, who has had charge of the experiment station.” In 
1886, long before the report for that year was issued, and in 
order to remove any possible doubt as to the manner in which 
the investigations were conducted, I published an article in 
which the following paragraphs occur : 
“ Very soon after these experiments ’’[those of 1884] “ were 
made, the many duties which devolve upon me as Chief of 
the Bureau of Animal Industry made it necessary to place 
the investigations of hog cholera almost entirely in the hands 
of my assistant, Dr. Theobald Smith, in whose ability and de¬ 
votion to the work I had, and still have, the utmost confi¬ 
dence. While, therefore, I marked out the lines of investiga¬ 
tion, and kept a personal supervision over what was done, 
the work has been carried out by another. 
