50 
EDITORIAL. 
the repetition of portions of the long and thoroughly scientific 
paper referred to. We hope to confine our quotations, however, 
to points of special interest to our readers and ourselves, and, 
particularly, as the author has addressed to ourselves a reply to 
a letter, heretofore published, from a prominent and able investi¬ 
gator and laborer in the same scientific field—Dr. Salmon. 
As the length of Dr. Billings’ paper renders its publication in 
its entirety in a single number of the Review impracticable, and 
necessitates its appearance in separate parts, a recapitulation of 
its contents in advance will not be out of place. 
The first part of the report is devoted to a statement of the 
results accomplished and reported previous to his own adminis¬ 
tration of the office, and includes those of Dr. Klein in 1876, and of 
Drs. Law, Detmers and Salmon subsequently. His review of the 
labors of Dr. Detmers is especially complimentary, and his 
favorable impressions are conveyed in his usual emphatic way of 
expressing his views. Here is what he says: 
‘ ‘I shall show that every right of priority for the original discovery of the 
only and true germ of American swine plague belongs to Dr. Detmers, and 
should the disease-producing germ prove eventually to be identical (as I am now 
inclined to believe against my former opinions) with the germ discovered by 
Loeffler and Schutz in connection with the German swine plague, although 
these claims do not interfere with my own as an independent and secondary 
discoverer of the same micro-organism. My work in this regard not only con¬ 
firms that of Dr. Detmers in every essential, but I hope goes to correct some of 
his misconceptions, and will, I know, place this question of the etiology of 
American swine plague upon an impregnable scientific foundation. I also desire 
to testify to the extreme value of Dr. Detmers’ field observations which give 
much evidence as to the nature of this porcine pest which it would take a long 
time to collect in the same practical form.” 
Following this, a large portion of the report is appropriated to 
an examination of the methods of these investigators in conduct¬ 
ing their experiments, and while the various errors attributed to 
them are described and explained, due credit is awarded to well 
performed and successful work. 
Referring especially to Dr. Detmers, his failure is attributed 
to want of proper instruments, a lack of coloring or staining 
ability, and deficiencies in means of investigations rather than to 
actual error in his interpretations of facts. 
