REPLY TO t)R* AUSTIN PETERS* CRITICISM. 559 
most ample evidence that the imputation which it conveys 
was fully justified by the facts. No one can have anv excuse 
for being ignorant of the fact that the Bureau of Animal In¬ 
dustry is not a political organization. The law provides that 
the Chief “ shall be a competent veterinary surgeon,” thus tak¬ 
ing the appointment as far as possible out of the realm of pol¬ 
itics. The Chief has no power to make appointments or dis¬ 
missals, and, consequently, there is no political work for him 
to do, and no excuse for his being a politician. The present 
Chief was appointed by the late Dr. Loring in 1884, without 
any political influence whatever being brought to bear, and 
solely because of his competency as a veterinary surgeon, and 
his qualifications to perform the arduous and responsible du¬ 
ties of the position. He has served under three administra¬ 
tions, two of which were Republican and one Democratic, 
and there has been no effort of any head of the department to 
displace him, or any of his scientific staff. How different this 
would have been if the Bureau had been in any sense a politi¬ 
cal organization. 
More than this, I adopted the plan of transmitting the re¬ 
ports of Dr. Smith and the other scientists under my direc¬ 
tion as soon as it appeared proper to do so. By consulting 
the report of the Secretary of Agriculture for 1889, page 75, 
it will be seen that the report of these investigations is intro¬ 
duced as follows : “ The following brief account of the inves¬ 
tigations, conducted under my direction, into the nature of 
infectious animal diseases, has been prepared by Dr. Theobald 
Smith, who is in charge of this branch of the work of the 
Bureau of Animal Industry.” In the report of the Secretary 
of Agriculture for 1890, page 105, I have introduced Dr. 
Smith s report in precisely the same language as that just 
quoted. After this plan had been adopted by me and carried 
out for two years, Dr. Peters appears upon the scene and 
tries to convey the impression that he is the first to suggest 
it; that it has never been adopted, and that we are deserving 
of the contempt of other nations and our own people, because 
it has not been done. 
There are other personalities in Dr. Peters’ paper which 
