U. S. VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 
429 
in Texas in the field, the specimens sent to ns were all impure, 
what about those cases we have had under our eyes, and watched 
from the beginning every step of the disease and gathered speci¬ 
mens as pure as it could be done at once ? I do not claim absolute 
perfection, but we have worked with sincerity and with exactness, 
desiring to be of service to the medical profession, not working for 
ourselves or for our own glory. We have been honestly striving 
to clear up some mysteries concerning Texas fever and not trying 
to create the impression that we were great investigators. 
But if we assume that all we have done, so far as the germ 
itself is concerned, is incorrect, there is still something that should 
have been noticed if this question was to be considered at all, and 
that is, some of the questions relating to Texas fever, outside of 
the germs, outside of the actual causation. I mean to say that 
there have been points brought out by our investigations that un¬ 
doubtedly shed more light than ever existed before on this subject 
of the germ of the disease. 
The Chairman of the Committee on Diseases, as I say, has 
presented a strong point of the gentlemen who have studied Texas 
fever in Washington and has merely given the weak points of our 
investigation. He has laid much stress upon his opinion that Texas 
fever in cattle is similar, if not identical, to malaria in man. If 
he meant by that that Texas fever is just like malaria in man, or 
something like it, I believe he is greatly in error. In the first 
place, malaria in man is not taken from one State to the other. 
You can go to the Indian Territory or Missouri, where they have 
malaria and then go to the North, and our children and families 
do not take it. Texas cattle feeding on infectious ground, taken 
North, communicate the disease so that native stock exposed to it 
die from Texas fever. There is certainly this difference so far as 
the actual nature of the disease is concerned. It may be true that 
the two germs referred to are somewhat alike, but as to the nature 
of them and the method of transmission of the disease there is cer¬ 
tainly a great difference. 
Some statements have been made to this effect which are so 
vague as to hardly justify a reply. 
We have made inoculations with as much care as could be done, 
