564 
D. E. SALMON. 
The objection to Dr. Peters’ view, as stated here, is that 
it is too sweeping and dogmatic. His experience, however, 
has been limited to a few outbreaks among hogs in the vicin¬ 
ity of Boston, which were chiefl} T fed on swill. From this 
limited experience with hogs kept under one set of conditions, 
he wishes to generalize his conclusions and make them apply 
to hogs in all parts of the United States, and fed upon all 
sorts of food. And he is so intolerant towards the investiga¬ 
tors of the Bureau that because their observations do not 
agree entirely with the conclusions which he has reached, he 
brands them as dishonest and unworthy of credence. In do¬ 
ing this he departs from the methods and traditions of true 
scientists, and injures his own reputation more than he does 
the reputations of those whom he attacks. Whether the dis¬ 
ease which we have called swine plague is a true plague or 
not depends upon the extent of territory over which it occurs, 
and the amount of losses from it. This disease has so far been 
found in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, District of 
Columbia, Kentucky, Illinois and Iowa, as well as in Ger¬ 
many, so there is a certainty of its being widely distributed. 
The exact losses from it are, of course, unknown, but we have 
been satisfied from our investigations that they are sufficient¬ 
ly large to fully justify the name applied to it. Much more 
evidence has been accumulated to show its destructiveness 
here than exists in regard to it in Germany, and as has already 
been stated, the propriety of the name has not been ques¬ 
tioned there. 
A public official should not be unduly sensitive to criti¬ 
cism, nor object to it when it is reasonable and fair. But Dr. 
Peters has gone beyond this, attacking the honor and credi¬ 
bility of every scientist connected with the Bureau ; his paper, 
going to those ignorant of the facts, is calculated to bring 
reproach upon our Department of Agriculture, our scientists, 
our institutions, and our country. The natural consequence 
of such documents is to retard the progress of science, to 
make farmers suspicious that the funds appropriated for in¬ 
vestigations in their behalf have not been judiciously expend¬ 
ed, and to make it more difficult to obtain appropriations for 
v 
