U. S. VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 
407 
cepted authorities. The germ which Billings believes to be the cause of Texas 
fever he describes as morphologically tbe same as the germ which he finds in 
swine plague. He says: “These two organisms are neither to be classed with 
micrococci or bacilli.” He classifies them as bacteria. He describes them as 
having a “longitudinal diameter about twice that of their transverse diameter.” 
. . . “They are ovoid.” . . . “Their ends are rounded.” Like the 
swine plague germ, he says, they are motile. Inoculation of cultures, he claims, 
produced the disease in cattle. 
It will be seen that the observations of Smith and Billings are quite contra¬ 
dictory. With Smith the bacteriological investigations were negative, but he 
found intra-org'anismal blood infection closely related apparently to that found in 
malaria in man, which is claiming so much of the attention of scientists to-day. 
Billings claims to have positive bacteriological results, which, he says, he has 
proven by producing the disease by inoculation of other cattle with pure cul¬ 
tures. I am personally unacquainted with the organism which Billings describes; 
but through the kindness of Dr. Smith have seen the intra-organismal elements 
which he describes. These certainly look like the bodies found in the red blood 
corpuscles of persons suffering from malaria. 
Paquin, of Missouri, has done considerable work upon this disease, the re¬ 
sults of which were published in “ The Journal of Comparative Medicine and Vet _ 
erinary Archives ,” vol. XI, Nos. 7 and 8. His work is certainly open to 
very severe criticism. His material was collected in a very loose manner, and 
under such conditions as to make the investigation of no scientific value. Organs 
can not be collected in several different places remote from the laboratory where 
the investigations are to be made, and kept free from post-mortem inspection, 
even though they be wrapped in cloths soaked in corrosive sublimate solution 
and immersed in glycerine. Yet Paquin says ; “ During my trips in Texas and 
the Indian Territory, September, 1888, I collected soils manures, urines, ticks, 
livers, spleens, kidneys, bile, specimens from unborn calves, fodders, and waters 
from various sources on infected grounds. Later, Dr. M. Francis, of the Agri¬ 
cultural College and Experiment Station of Texas, furnished me with a great 
number of articles of the same order, and later still, Dr. Dinwiddie, of Arkansas, 
gathered several. ‘ The specimens of blood, bile and urine were nearly all sealed 
in glass tubes (pipettes) without being exposed to the air.’ He describes several 
germs which he believes to be different forms of the same organism, and the 
cause of Texas fever. He inoculated cattle with a modified virus, though it is 
not very clear how he modifies it, and claims to be able to confer immunity 
against the disease to cattle so inoculated.” 
TUBERCULOSIS. 
This very extensive and fatal disease has claimed a large share of the atten¬ 
tion of investigators. Dr. Harold C. Ernst, of Boston, read a very instructive 
paper before the Association of American Physicians, Washington, September 
20th, 1889, entitled “ How Far may a Cow be Tuberculous Before her Milk 
becomes Dangerous ?” Dr. Peters was associated with Dr. Ernst in this work. 
“ One hundred and seventeen sets of cover glasses were examined from as many 
different samples of milk. Of these specimens thus spoiled, twelve turned sour 
before the examination was completed. These samples were obtained from 
