EDITORIAL. 
145 
.—-- . .. .... . .. 
result upon our own mind was a strong and effective desire to se¬ 
cure the benefits for our own country which must needs follow 
the introduction and establishment of the plan of Pasteur, as not 
alone one among the prophylactic measures, but as the means, 
preeminently, of perfect prophylaxy in the case. 
With this impression, we procured a supply of vaccine direct¬ 
ly from the Pasteur laboratory, hoping for gratifying and impor¬ 
tant reports of its workings—to be sadly and effectually disap¬ 
pointed. It was tested under the best of auspices, portions hav¬ 
ing been furnished to the Bureau of Animal Industry in Wash¬ 
ington and to the State Veterinarian of Nebraska, and the united 
testimony from both directions is of failure—disastrous failure in 
Nebraska, and worse than that in Washington. In Nebraska the 
result was negatively bad, simply in the fact of its being a 
failure as a prophylactic. But in the hands of Dr. Salmon it 
luite exceeded that, for the vaccine is not only inert as to pre¬ 
ventive qualities, but may prove to be the agent of the introduc- 
:ion into the United States of a fatal swine disease, hitherto 
tvholly unknown here, viz., that of rouget or rothlauf 
;he only disease amenable to the vaccine prophylaxy of 
Pasteur. In the series of letters which appeared in the Breeders ’ 
Gazette (not the Review), and the publication of which we begin 
! °-day, Dr. Salmon presents the public with the reasons he deems 
explanatory of the failure in his hands of Pasteur’s vaccine. The 
lature of the disease is not that which it has been represented to 
> e ; in respect to the important points of its incubation, and its 
luration, and the post-mortem lesions, all is different, and of 
:ourse under such conditions, nothing less than failure conld be 
expected, at the very best. 
But if our hog cholera is not rouget , and not rothlauf— what 
5 it ? German and French investigators had made the announce- 
aent months ago that there were two diseases of swine, espec- 
illy in Germany, equally fatal, and very similar in their sympto- 
latology, but very different in their nature, at least as to their 
arasitic character, one of them being undoubtedly the rouget of 
ie French or rothlauf of the Germans, the other being better 
nown as schiveineseuche. The important inquiry arises, whether 
