REPLY TO DR. AUSTIN PETERS* CRITICISM. 
557 
“ Now one of the very first results of this arrangement 
was the conclusion by Dr. Smith that hog cholera was caused 
by a motile bacterium, which certainly was a different germ 
from the one that I had described in 1884.” (Breeders’ Ga¬ 
zette, Nov. nth, 1886). 
The very article in which these sentences occur was re. 
ferred to by Dr. Frosch, and this reference was reproduced 
by Dr. Peters, so there can be no excuse for either of them 
to plead ignorance of its contents ; and yet, in spite of this 
plain statement, Dr. Frosch, after mentioning the article, pre¬ 
tends that he did not know until the publication of Dr. 
Smith’s recent paper, the part which the latter (Smith) had 
taken in the work. And Dr. Peters, taking his cue from 
Frosch, chimes in with the same order of statements. 
This is by no means all the credit that has been given. 
In the report of the Bureau for 1886, page 7, I said : “ For 
the careful and accurate manner in which the experiments 
referred to above have been carried out, I am indebted to 
Dr. Theobald Smith, director of the laboratory, and to Dr. 
F. L. Kilborne, director of the experiment station, both of 
whom have shown the most commendable activity and inter¬ 
est in the work, and whose intelligence and zeal have enabled 
us to satisfactorily decide some of the most difficult ques¬ 
tions which modern science has been called upon to eluci¬ 
date.” It will be noticed that although Dr. Smith came to 
me a young man, I had very soon made him director of the 
laboratory, and I recognized in my reports not only his work, 
but the position which he filled. This report for 1886 was 
the one that contained the first record of his work in con¬ 
nection with the disease which we call swine plague ; and we 
therefore have the most explicit evidence that he received 
full credit for his work with both diseases. 
In the Bureau report for 1887 and 1888, which was pub¬ 
lished in one volume, I said (page 7) : “ In conclusion, it af¬ 
fords me pleasure to acknowledge the ability, energy and de¬ 
votion to work shown by Dr. Theobald Smith and Dr. F. L. 
Kilborne, in conducting the experimental work, the details of 
which are given in this report.” In the Special Report on 
