Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/inoculationpreveOObill 
 
INOCULATION 
 
 PREVENTIVE ofSWINE PLAGUE, 
 
 WITH THE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE 
 
 Administration of the Agricultural Department 
 
 IS A 
 
 PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 AN EXPOSURE 
 
 i BY 
 FRANK S. BILLINGS, M. D., 
 
 Director of the Patho- Biological Laboratory of the State University of Nebraska. 
 
 Printed and Published at the Expense of the Author. 
 
 t\ 
 
T Lf NCOXN, ]SfE"B.: 
 
 STATE J6UKN-Ali COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
 
 '•1892. 
 
 6 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 H 
 
v 
 
 O EVERY CITIZEN of the United States who, irrespective of party affilia- 
 tions, believes in a republican administration of a government " of the 
 people, by the people, for the people," and in an honest administration of the 
 government, this volume is most respectfully dedicated, 
 
 By their obedient servant, 
 
 The Author. 
 
■ • i 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 Letter of the Secretary of Agriculture to the Hon. A. S. Paddock, senator from 
 
 Nebraska, denouncing the author 9 
 
 Answer to the above 13 
 
 Secretary Rusk on the report of the Swine Plague Commission 41 
 
 Evidence showing that the report of the commission was "fixed " 44 
 
 Reviews of the report of the commission by the leading live stock papers and 
 
 eminent investigators 55 
 
 The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry begs for support from editors of 
 
 the agricultural press 73 
 
 He begs again 77 
 
 Two " open letters" to Secretary Rusk by the author 83 
 
 Report of Dr. Peters to the United States Veterinary Association on the scien- 
 tific work of the Bureau of Animal Industry 98 
 
 Inoculation critically considered 118 
 
 The Surprise, Neb., and other inoculations in 1888 137 
 
 Hon. C. H. Gere's letter to the Farmers 1 Review 141 
 
 Hon. C. H. Walker's criticism of "Bulletin No. 8 " 144 
 
 Suppressed letters favorable to inoculation not published in "Bulletin No. 8"... 151 
 
 The failures of inoculation and their causes 171 
 
 The relation of virulence to the protective power in avirus 180 
 
 The government advises that mitigation of virulence is unnecessary in a 
 
 virus to prevent swine plague 181 
 
 Mitigation practiced by the government in the face of the previous strong 
 
 statement 182 
 
 A hog or pig sick over one week unsuitable to make virus from 185 
 
 Swine plague not a contagious disease 187 
 
 Secretary Rusk's views on swine plague inoculation 188 
 
 The causes of failure in inoculation, continued 193 
 
 Failure of inoculation in Nebraska, 1891 197 
 
 Virulence in cultures has no relations to their protective power in non-recurrent 
 
 diseases 205 
 
 The prophylactic power cannot be retained in cultures of swine plague germs 
 
 for any length of time 225 
 
 The Nebraska method the only one by which to begin inoculation 231 
 
 Inoculation not dangerous nor injurious when done as directed 233 
 
 Failure or injury at Tonica, 111., in 1891 = 235 
 
 Table of inoculations in Nebraska, 1891 246 
 
 Directions for inoculation 249 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Every intelligent farmer can prepare his own virus and inoculate his own 
 
 hogs 253 
 
 Special caution 256 
 
 Pure cultures not an absolute necessity for practical inoculation 258 
 
 Open letter of Secretary Eusk to Chancellor Canfield of the State University 
 
 of Nebraska 261 
 
 Hon. C. H. Walker's answer to the above 26S 
 
 Eesume 271 
 
 Is the secretary of agriculture, Hon. J. M. Eusk, guilty of treason to his offi- 
 cial trust or not? 271 
 
 Evidence summed up in relation to the above question 275 
 
 The secretary of agriculture interferes with the constitutional rights of private 
 
 citizenship 280 
 
 The financial aspect of inoculation 281 
 
 Conclusion 287 
 
 The causes which have led to the conditions here portrayed in American 
 
 politics 287 
 
 "A democrat from Democratville " 289 
 
 " Where liberty is not that is my country " 293 
 
 The democracy of to-day 295 
 
 The liberty of the past century the greatest obstruction to the advance of jus- 
 tice in this 296 
 
 The spirit of the twentieth century 302 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 To My Readers: 
 
 The publication of this work has not been undertaken in any 
 spirit of anger, or of self-defense, or even in advocacy of inocula- 
 tion. As is mentioned in the text, every scientific investigator knows, 
 or should know, that, so far as his investigations are concerned, no act 
 of his but persistency can in any way hasten the acceptance of his results 
 by the scientific world. In time they will either be confirmed or shown 
 to be incorrect. So far as my investigations are concerned, that con- 
 firmatory verdict has been sufficiently well pronounced to satisfy any 
 man. The recall which the people of Nebraska gave me in 1891, and 
 their continued support, is all the necessary testimony one needs to 
 show that where best known the public has sufficient confidence in 
 the genuine correctness of my work and its value to it, to have it 
 continued. Therefore, so far as the work itself is concerned, there is 
 every ground for personal satisfaction. 
 
 But there is another side to this question, which is, the attitude 
 that has been taken by the Agricultural Department at Washington 
 towards the investigations carried on by the state of Nebraska, even 
 from the day this work was first inaugurated. The question is, 
 which side is correct, which side has been true to the public and is 
 deserving of its confidence in this matter? One side cannot be right 
 and the other wrong. The public must be the jury. The scientific 
 world and the public, so far as limitedly represented by the most in- 
 telligent among the people of Nebraska, have passed the verdict in 
 this matter in favor of the investigations of this station regarding in- 
 fectious animal diseases. The National Agricultural Department not 
 only ignores these verdicts, but does its utmost to prove them unjus- 
 tified by the facts. That is its right if justified by the facts. The 
 question is is it justified? In the following pages it will be conclu- 
 sively demonstrated that the facts not only do not justify the course 
 taken by the Agricultural Department, but that that department has 
 
 (5) 
 
b INTRODUCTION. 
 
 published unreliable and self- evidently false and misrepresenting testi- 
 mony, and also that it has willfully suppressed testimony favorable to 
 work done by the Nebraska Experiment Station ; testimony which it is 
 evident was and should be in possession of the Department of Agri- 
 culture. 
 
 It is to demonstrate this fact, to show the people of the United States 
 that their National Agricultural Department has, from the beginning, 
 taken a course unjustified by common decency and unsanctioned by 
 every principle of manly honor, and contrary to the constitution of the 
 United States, that the writing and publication of this work has been 
 undertaken by the writer, at his own expense, and not paid for out of 
 the funds of this Experiment Station as intimated regarding other pub- 
 lications of the same nature in the letter to Senator Paddock of Ne- 
 braska from Mr. Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture. To that letter and 
 the authorized publication of an infamous bulletin, known as " Farm- 
 ers' Bulletin No. 8," the public must charge the infliction of this 
 work upon it. No other course was left open to me. If our work is 
 correct in its general direction; if it promises direct and indirect 
 benefits to the people of the United States and even the inhabitants of 
 the world at large, then my course is justifiable and will be so consid- 
 ered in time. If on the other side the course pursued by the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture is justified by the facts, then the publication of 
 this work is unwarranted and will be so considered. The people must 
 pass the verdict ! Without bias, with a determined desire to present 
 nothing but facts which are demonstrable of proof, and with that 
 proof, I have honestly endeavored to present both sides of the question 
 and studiously tried to show them in their full light. In order to 
 do this, it has been necessary to introduce considerable material of an 
 historical-personal nature, but this was called out by the personal at- 
 tacks on the writer in the letters of Mr. Rusk to Senator Paddock, 
 and to the chancellor of the University, which, at the expense of the 
 people, were made public documents and sent broadcast over the land, 
 and that to Senator Paddock in some manner found its way even to 
 many laboratories in Europe. 
 
 This publication must not be considered in the light of self-defense 
 on the part of its author. The condition of things do not warrant 
 self-defense. A far greater principle is at stake. The defense of the 
 people against the machinations and deceptions of officials honored 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 with the highest trust. The position of the Department of Ag- 
 riculture challenges the intelligence and integrity of the American 
 people. For, if as I assert, and think I have demonstrated beyond 
 the power of contradiction, that the National Agricultural Department 
 boldly defies the intelligent discrimination of the people and dares to 
 openly endeavor to "pull the wool" of deceit over their eyes in its 
 " public documents," then the liberties of the people are threatened as 
 they never have been before, and the letter and spirit of the constitu- 
 tion trampled disdainfully under foot by officials who should be honest 
 servants of the people rather than disdainful and unprincipled spokes 
 in a corrupt political machine. This I claim to be the exact position 
 assumed by Mr. J. M. Rusk, secretary of the Department of Agri- 
 culture, and those who have misled him, his servants in the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. With the other subdivisions of the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture I have nothing to do, and know nothing of their 
 work. With these words I present this Exposure of a Public Scan- 
 dal in the Agricultural Department, of a government theoretically and 
 ideally established to be "a government of the people, by the people, 
 for the people," to the judgment of the people. Read carefully! 
 Reflect coolly ! Remember it is your liberties, your service, which is 
 endangered. One man counts not an iota in such a multitude. It is 
 your cause which is here presented to you, not mine. Deal fairly and 
 justly by yourselves ! 
 
 The Author and Your Servant. 
 
 Lincoln, Nebraska, July 4, 1892. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO 
 HON. A. S. PADDOCK, SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA. 
 
 Depaetment of Agriculture, Office of Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. C, Jan. 21, 1892. 
 Hon. A. 8. Paddock, United States Senate. 
 
 My Dear Senator: I am in receipt of extracts from three letters 
 of citizens of Nebraska, referred by you for my information, which 
 letters assume that Dr. Salmon, chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry, has been carrying on a controversy with Dr. Billings, of the 
 Nebraska Experiment Station, making unjust and unwarranted at- 
 tacks and interfering with the latter's scientific work. The writers of 
 these letters request you to take such steps as may be possible to pre- 
 vent such attacks in future, and to cause the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry "to let your Experiment Station alone." Coming 
 from intelligent gentlemen, one a member of the State Board of Ag- 
 riculture, and one a state senator, these letters are deserving of atten- 
 tion; and as their statements are diametrically opposed to the facts, I 
 take this opportunity to place the matter before you with some detail, 
 since, if your correspondents had directed their attention to the State 
 Experiment Station, where the controversy originated, instead of this 
 department, the evil of whicli they complain might have been ar- 
 rested long ago. 
 
 It may not be known to your correspondents that, when Dr. Bil- 
 lings first became connected with the Nebraska Experiment Station, 
 in 1886, a request was made on my predecessor that his salary be paid 
 from the appropriation for the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that he 
 could have more funds to use for other purposes. It was not deemed 
 proper to comply with that request, and since it was declined, Dr. 
 Billings has kept up a constant succession of attacks on the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, not in the form of courteous, scientific criticism, 
 but made up of dogmatic assertions, clothed in the most offensive 
 language, and filling column after column in the Nebraska State 
 Journal and Western Resources, but not by any means confined to 
 these. It is a fact, which can be established by documentary evidence, 
 that when this investigator first reached Nebraska, and before he saw 
 
 (9) 
 
10 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 a case of swine disease, he began his attacks on Dr. Salmon's investi- 
 gations of this subject in an editorial covering nearly a page of the 
 Nebraska Farmer, which had been temporarily placed in his charge. 
 
 These attacks were so frequent, so virulent, and so ungentlemanly in 
 their language, and occupied so much of the space in the Station Bul- 
 letins, of which he was the author, that it was considered a disgrace, 
 not only to Nebraska, but to the Experiment Stations as a whole, 
 and resulted in a resolution of ''emphatic disapproval" passed by the 
 Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Sta- 
 tions. But the attacks were kept up, and he finally demanded a com- 
 mission of scientific men to decide whether or not he had shown the 
 investigation of the bureau to be unreliable, whether the reports of 
 the bureau were true or false, and whether, to use his own words, he,, 
 himself, was or was not a fraud. On request of the National Swine 
 Breeders' Association such a commission of scientific men was appointed 
 by my predecessor; it was constituted in accordance with Dr. Billings' 
 wishes; it was pronounced by him to be satisfactory; and yet, after a. 
 long and careful investigation, it endorsed the investigations of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry in every essential particular, and in every- 
 essential particular decided that Billings was wrong, and intimated 
 that his methods were not all 'that was to be desired. Not satisfied to 
 allow the controversy to drop here, he issued a pamphlet entitled 
 "Evidence Showing that the Report of the Board of Inquiry Con- 
 cerning Swine Diseases Was Fixed," in which he attacked the honesty 
 and veracity of the honorable scientific gentlemen composing the com- 
 mission. This disgraceful conduct, this use of the Experiment Station 
 funds to carry on these bitter attacks against the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, must have attracted some attention in Nebraska, for it was 
 publicly stated by the press that it was a condition of his recall that 
 this warfare should cease. 
 
 Soon after his reappointment I received a letter from him asking that 
 $5,000 of the funds of the Bureau of Animal Industry should be 
 turned over to the State Experiment Station, to be expended by him 
 in his investigations, the conditions being that the persons employed 
 should be selected by him, and that the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 should have no connection with the work, and no control or super- 
 vision over the expenditure of the money. At the same time he as- 
 sured me that he should do his utmost against the bureau. Such a 
 proposition, it is needless to say, was not accepted, and since that time 
 it has not only been Dr. Salmon and the bureau that he has attacked, 
 but myself and the Department of Agriculture as a whole. 
 
 Under the date of August 20, '91, he published an open letter ad* 
 dressed to me, in which he quoted from department reports, garbling 
 his extracts, and misrepresenting the position of the writers in order to 
 deceive his readers, and convey the impression that the department had 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. II 
 
 been inconsistent in its reports. He asked that a man be sent to Ne- 
 braska to investigate his methods and the results of his inoculations; 
 but he was careful to dictate as to the man whom he would receive, 
 and to couple this with the threat that various influential men " are 
 all anxious to bring this about, and I will respect their desires quietly 
 and gentlemanly if I can, bitterly and determinedly if I must." As- 
 I declined to consider this proposition until the return of Dr. Salmon 
 from Europe, he telegraphed me under date of September 29, in the 
 following peremptory language, "Parsons only will be accepted. Time 
 expires October first." 
 
 A second open letter appeared soon after, which occupied four col- 
 umns in Western Resources, and the main point of which was that he 
 did not want a scientist sent to Nebraska to observe his methods, and 
 would not receive one. 
 
 Still later, in the Nebraska State Journal of December 10, 1891, 
 Dr. Billings published an open letter three columns in length, headed 
 "Let Uncle Jerry Answer." "Is the secretary what he pretends to 
 be? Dr. Billings questions the sincerity of his friendship for the 
 farming classes," etc., etc. 
 
 Without going into a discussion of the merits of the scientific opin- 
 ions involved in the controversy, you certainly will agree with me that 
 it is gross impropriety for an investigator in an Experiment Station ta 
 attempt to dictate to a department of government what kind of an. 
 investigation it should make of a matter in which he has a personal 
 interest, and whether it should make any investigation at all or not. 
 And no one can fail to recognize the impropriety of an investigator 
 paid out of an appropriation made by congress for the advancement 
 of agricultural science, spending his time and using the resources of 
 the station for discrediting the investigations of the National Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture, and for abusing the secretary of agriculture, 
 and the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
 In regard to the investigations asked for by Dr. Billings, I would 
 state that I am not making investigations of the Experiment Stations, 
 as their work is essentially separate and distinct from the scientific 
 work of this department. If I should attempt such an investigation, 
 however, I should not allow interested parties to dictate to me where, 
 when, and by whom the investigation should be made. 
 
 You will find by investigating the matter that during neither his 
 first nor second engagement has Dr. Billings been attacked by Dr. 
 Salmon; on the contrary, Dr. Salmon has been the subject of contin- 
 ued attacks and abuse by Dr. Billings, and has allowed most of 
 them to go unnoticed. When the misrepresentations and false 
 claims of Dr. Billings have been exposed, however, and he has been 
 driven to the wall, he finds it convenient to pose as a persecuted and 
 long suffering individual, who has been quietly and disinterestedly 
 
12 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 laboring in the cause of the farmer. In this way, and by raising the 
 cry of " Nebraska's interests" have been attacked, he hopes to excite 
 sympathy and receive support. After clamoring so long for an op- 
 portunity to demonstrate the success of his inoculation as a preventive 
 for hog cholera, it was certainly very ridiculous to find him evading 
 the opportunity which Dr. Salmon gave him for making a compara- 
 tive test at Ottawa, 111. He wanted an investigation, but not by sci- 
 entists. Here was a chance to demonstrate the value of his methods 
 to a committee of intelligent farmers, but instead of accepting with 
 alacrity, he did all he could to delay the test. The experiment, how- 
 ever, was made. One of his pupils, whom he declared to be compe- 
 tent, operated by his method and the result, proves, beyond a doubt, 
 that Dr. Salmon was correct in stating that inoculation was dangerous 
 and might spread the disease. In this case sixty per cent of the hogs 
 inoculated by the Billings method have died from the disease com- 
 municated by inoculation, and this disease has since spread to the hogs 
 inoculated by the bureau and also to those which were not inoculated. 
 After his unqualified recommendation of this method and his statement 
 that any farmer could safely use it, what more is needed to show that he 
 cannot be relied on, and that his teachings are deceptive and dangerous. 
 
 The investigation for which he pretended to be so desirous having 
 been made, though not under his direction or control, and having 
 turned out as disastrously to his pretensions as the investigation by 
 the commission of scientists made some years ago, he now turns to 
 the people of Nebraska and frantically calls upon them through the 
 State Journal to sustain him by writing to their congressmen to "stir 
 them up/' and "let them know they are your representatives and not 
 the subjects of Jerry Rusk or his department." 
 
 The three letters which you refer to appear to be the returns from 
 the pathetic appeal and these probably would not have been written if 
 the witness had not been misinformed as to the origin of the contro- 
 versy and as to who was responsible for keeping it up. 
 
 It will be seen from the above that your correspondents are mis- 
 taken in assuming that it is Dr. Billings who has been attacked, and 
 that they are also mistaken in supposing that to silence Dr. Salmon 
 would have the effect of stopping these discreditable productions from 
 the Nebraska Experimeut Station. The controversy started with and 
 has been maintained by Dr. Billings, and he is responsible for his un- 
 scientific, undignified, and discourteous tone. If the state of Nebraska 
 wishes to continue this kind of a man in such a conspicuous position, 
 paying him $3,600 per year and allowing him to expend two-thirds 
 of her Experiment Station funds. I suppose she has the power to do 
 so, but her people cannot expect, and have no right to shift on outside 
 parties, the discredit and disgrace which he brings on her fair name. 
 I am, very respectfully yours, 
 
 J. M. Rusk, Secretary. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 13 
 
 ANSWER TO THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF 
 AGRICULTURE TO SENATOR PADDOCK. 
 
 Mr. Rusk says : 
 
 It may not be known to your correspondents that when Dr. Bil- 
 lings first became connected with the Nebraska Experiment Station,, 
 in 1886, a request was made on my predecessor that his salary be paid 
 from the appropriations for the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that he 
 could have more funds to use for other purposes. It was not deemed 
 proper to comply with that request, and since it was declined, Dr. 
 Billings has kept up a constant succession of attack on the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, not in the form of courteous, scientific criticism, but 
 made up of dogmatic assertions, clothed in the most offensive language,, 
 and filling column after column of the Nebraska State Journal, but 
 not by any means confined to these. It is a fact, which can be estab- 
 lished by documentary evidence, that when this investigator first reached 
 Nebraska, and before he saw a case of sioine plague, he began his- 
 attacks on Dr. Salmon's investigations of this subject in an editorial 
 covering nearly a page of the Nebraska Farmer, which had been tem- 
 porarily placed in his charge. 
 
 So far as my attacking the work of the chief of the bureau, as pub- 
 lished in the Reports issued by the National Agricultural Depart- 
 partment in the papers mentioned, the accusation is true, and I have 
 every reason as a man, an investigator, and a citizen of the United 
 States, to glory in its truth. 
 
 The first question raised, and the one of the utmost importance in 
 the history of the battle I have waged against dishonesty in the public 
 service, so far as the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is con- 
 cerned, is, who first commenced the attack, the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry or Dr. Billings f 
 
 The secretary of the Department of Agriculture undoubtedly thinks 
 it was Dr. Billings, and as perhaps many other people in the country,, 
 especially many editors of agricultural papers, think the same thing,, 
 it is now my purpose to place the entire history of my coming to Ne- 
 braska plainly before them, and as this will include rather a compre- 
 
14 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 hensive history of ray connection with original research, the reader 
 must have patience. It will be shown that the secretary of agricult- 
 ure has been made the victim of an unprecedented number of false 
 and malicious misstatements, which have led him to be a most culpa- 
 ble deceiver of the agricultural public. 
 
 In the year 1875 I first took up the study of veterinary medicine, 
 going to Berlin, Germany, for the purpose. When I went to Ger- 
 many I neither knew what I was fitted for nor had I any direct pur- 
 pose in mind, except to study. I will cheerfully admit that I had 
 been a sort of a " vagrant," wandering over the surface of the earth 
 "by sea and land," more with the desire of getting away from ray- 
 self than anything else, being, as I had been termed, "a rolling 
 stone," with the innate consciousness that I possessed abilities of some 
 sort, but not knowing what they were or what they were good for. I 
 was then thirty years old. Much to the disgust of my father's side 
 of my family, which had occupied a most honorable position in the 
 mercantile world of Boston, I was by nature totally unfitted to " fol- 
 low in the footsteps of my fathers," even though the most satisfactory 
 worldly success was almost guaranteed me, simply because I had 
 neither taste nor head for business. This fact, and my unsettled rov- 
 ing disposition, was the cause of most profound uneasiness and un- 
 happiness to a father whose superior never man had — a father who 
 has been to me father, mother, and brother, all in one, and to an 
 uncle who, having no children of his own, has been only a second 
 father to me. There is a lesson in my life which should be pro- 
 foundly studied by all parents who desire to do justice by their chil- 
 dren. My two living relatives were merchants; their ancestors had 
 been merchants for generations, and they could not comprehend for 
 years, and have only lately learned the lesson, why I could not also 
 be a merchant. Some children, in fact many, are not by any means 
 the intellectual like of their parents in anything. Such children are 
 to be pitied. They generally suffer under mistaken judgment and 
 false condemnation. Parents often think they own their children to 
 do with as they please, utterly regardless of the individual abilities of 
 the children. I do not think my own good parents ever gave a mo- 
 ment's earnest thought to the matter. My father and uncle had been 
 successful in business, and it was a natural assumption that "what 
 was good enough for them should be equally so to me." The "boot 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 15 
 
 •did not fit." It pinched painfully everywhere. From youth up I 
 had been strikingly noted for several things : 
 
 First — An innate taste for those natural phenomena which come 
 under the head of zoological and all systems of thought relating to. 
 
 Second — A passionate love for animals, especially horses, and the 
 more "manly" sports. 
 
 Third — An intense sympathy with misery and the (so called) " under 
 • dog "' in the great social battle. 
 
 These attributes, like wine, have strengthened with age, so that now 
 J. may be called, as I have been termed, "a crank " on all such ques- 
 tions. 
 
 As to the first of these characteristics it was the only thing in which 
 I excelled in school, and my teachers will bear witness that in those 
 'branches I reigned supreme without any labor on my part. As to 
 the second and third, my record is sufficiently strong to need no fur- 
 ther comment. 
 
 It is self-evident that a boy and man with all his abilities in those 
 three directions was not in any way fitted for a mercantile life, there- 
 fore I first took hold of veterinary medicine simply because it was the 
 one thing which I knew I could do, though it was much to the horror 
 <of my good relatives who would, at that time, far more gladly have 
 supported me in do-nothingism than have the mercantile reputation 
 of the family so disgraced as to have a " horse-doctor " a member of it, 
 and the last male representative at that. In going to Germany, how- 
 ever, the "environment " was most radically changed. The scientific 
 •enthusiasm, which like a fierce fire was sweeping all before it, caught 
 me in its devouring flames and carried me, a willing and happy vic- 
 tim, on with my German colleagues. The example and friendship of 
 a-Gerlach, a Virchow, a Leisering, and the men on the crest of the 
 wave of scientific research in medicine of to-day, many of whom were 
 my colleagues, started the fires of ambition and shaped my future 
 course. I determined, then and there, to devote my life to the establish- 
 ment of original research in my native country and combating the mis- 
 eries of human life. With that single purpose I studied then and 
 have since worked. Egotistical though it may seem, my nature is 
 such that I look on every public servant, or any public man, who in 
 any way interferes with (or endeavors to) my endeavors, as a public 
 'enemy — his personality is as nothing to me whatever. On completion 
 
16 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 of my studies as a school student, it was my secret hope that I should 
 be able to devote my energies to the study of the infectious diseases- 
 of child-life. In that I have been disappointed, as everybody knows. 
 In December, 1885, I was asked by the board of health of Newark, 
 N. J., through intimate acquaintance with its then chairman, Dr. EL 
 C. H. Herald, to take the " Newark boys," supposed to have been 
 bitten by a " mad dog," over to Pasteur for treatment ; this was a 
 most sensational event which caused ray name for the time to be most 
 prominent in the columns of the daily press. This " adventure," to 
 term it properly, attracted attention to me in Nebraska, though there- 
 was still another factor at work in the state, which was this : 
 
 During my early student life in Europe my friend, Professor Ger- 
 lach, then director of the Royal Veterinary College at Berlin, one day 
 called my attention to an American boy whom he had lately admitted 
 to the college and asked me to interest myself in him and do all I 
 could to aid him, as he was quite young. This boy later on became a 
 very potent factor not only in my coming to Nebraska, but in making- 
 my first term here most uncomfortable, leading to my retirement in 
 1889. Let me say for him, that during this Berlin epoch, and for some- 
 years afterwards, that this young man was not only one of the handsom- 
 est, most gentlemanly, and kindly of men, but apparently one of the 
 truest I had ever known. Politics ruined his splendid qualities, as- 
 they have many another, and probably wrecked a life that naturally 
 had many of the noblest of qualities. Myself and wife became so 
 attached to this young man that he was as a younger brother in our 
 family, and on our return to America became doubly dear, as he was 
 then the only person in this country who had known and been loved 
 by an unusually gifted child, our only son, who lies buried at the 
 feet of our devoted friend, Gerlach, in German earth. The young man 
 left Germany before he completed his studies and came home, gradu- 
 ating from the American Veterinary College, then spending six 
 months with us in Boston, and finally settling down as a veterinary 
 surgeon in Newark, N. J., where he also became meat and market in- 
 spector. In June, 1885, I returned from Europe, where I had been 
 for a year studying Asiatic cholera and making myself competent in 
 the advances which had been introduced, chiefly by Eobert Koch, in 
 the technique of investigating infectious diseases. At this time I was- 
 called to the position of pathologist to the New York Policlinic School 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 17 
 
 of Medicine, which position I held until I went with the "Newark 
 boys" to Pasteur in December of that year. While my rooms were 
 being fitted for my laboratory in New York I spent most of the time 
 with my friends in Newark, N. J., and one day the young man spoken 
 of, who had become Dr. Julius Gerth, said "he would like to go west 
 and see the country," and thought he could fix it. Much to my sur- 
 prise, some weeks later, he came to me with a letter from the then 
 commissioner of agriculture, Hon. Norman J. Colman, in which it 
 said something like this: "That your (Dr. G.'s) name had been sug- 
 gested to me as a suitable person to send west to investigate swine dis- 
 eases, and that calls for that purpose had been made on the department 
 from Nebraska, and would he (Dr. G.) write how he thought swine 
 plague should be investigated." 
 
 As said, this letter was handed to me. I knew perfectly well that 
 Dr. G. knew nothing of the scientific methods of investigation, as I 
 also knew that there was scarcely a veterinarian in the country who 
 did, and I then did a thing which I have ever since regretted and 
 which will never be repeated, but I thought I could equalize the 
 wrong-doing by working myself. I aided in deceiving the public, but 
 I did it as many another has done, to aid one I loved as a younger 
 brother. I said to Dr. G., " You go west and do your best in the 
 field, but first come over to the laboratory and I will show you how to 
 inoculate cultivating tubes and prepare material ; then you send me 
 both from Nebraska ; make the most careful field-notes you can and I 
 will do your scientific work and write your report for you." He 
 answered he did not want me to do that, but I insisted on it, telling 
 him " my own time will come later." I thought that by taking this 
 course the public would be well served, at least as well as I could do 
 it, and my dearest friend benefited. On condition that Dr. G. should 
 fulfill his agreement with me, I then answered Mr. Colman's letter, 
 giving my ideas as to how swine plague should be investigated, very 
 nearly as I have myself carried them out since. This letter was 
 copied by Dr. G., signed by him, and sent to Mr. Colman, who very 
 soon sent him an appointment to go to Nebraska. That is the simple 
 story of how Dr. Julius Gerth got to Nebraska. On arriving here 
 he was met with the customary open-handed cordiality. The pre- 
 vious legislature had provided for a live stock commission and state 
 veterinarian, and coming as he did so strongly endorsed by the Com- 
 2 
 
18 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 missioner of Agriculture, Governor Dawes, who had been vainly 
 seeking a competent veterinarian, soon offered the position to Dr. 
 Gerth, who at once accepted it and threw up his appointment from the 
 commissioner of agriculture. No investigations of swine diseases 
 were made and I never received any material. Up to this time Dr. 
 G. had scarcely made a move in his professional life without consult- 
 ing with me, and so when he came east to get his family almost his first 
 remark to me was, " I cannot get on without you and you will see that 
 I will get you out there," or words to that effect, and no sooner did he 
 return to Nebraska than he began to work most earnestly to bring it 
 about, and the then regents of the University and the members of 
 the State Board of Agriculture will bear witness that no man could 
 possibly speak higher of another than Dr. Gerth did of me at 
 that time. In fact, I have heard it repeatedly stated that he even 
 went so far as to say that "no man on earth was my equal" Whether 
 true or not I have done my utmost to fill the bill. So enthusiastic- 
 ally did Dr. G. work that the Board of Agriculture of the state, at its 
 annual meeting in January, 1886, passed a resolution that the regents 
 of the State University take some steps to inaugurate the investigation 
 of the infectious diseases of live stock, particularly swine plague. 
 Dr. G.'s strong and energetic endorsement, coupled with the publicity 
 given to me by the "Newark boys" case, caused the regents of the 
 University to look to me as probably the person they desired, and the 
 then dean of the Industrial College, Professor Charles E. Bessey, cor- 
 responded with me, and finally asked me to visit Nebraska and consult 
 the Board of Regents at their meeting in March, 1886. In this con- 
 nection the following letter is suggestive : 
 
 Office of State Veterinarian, 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., Feb. 4, 1886. 
 My Dear Doctor : Whom do you think some idiots connected 
 with the State University endeavored to get out here? Nobody but 
 that Stalkers of Iowa, James Law of Cornell, and a fellow named 
 Farrington from the east. You can bet I just had influence enough 
 to sit down on that programme and did. Your appointment will prob- 
 ably be made about the middle of March. The Board of Regents 
 meet on the seventeenth and would like to see you. I am just afraid 
 that some fool will beat you out on the home stretch, but if they do it 
 will not be my fault. Professor Bessey says that were there any funds 
 to pay your expenses he would have you come anyway. 
 
 Yours, J. Gerth, Jr. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 19 
 
 Let me say here that I never made a single endeavor to obtain this 
 call to Nebraska. The whole thing was the work of Dr. Gerth. I 
 decided to visit Nebraska at the time indicated and found, as is very 
 often the case, that about all there was to work on was a "resolution," 
 there being but $1,200 to buy laboratory equipments and fit up rooms 
 and for all purposes for one year. On consulting with the Board of 
 Regents, and detailing the cost of equipment and expenses, they de- 
 cided that it was beyond their power to do anything more than appro- 
 priate the $1,200, and supply one room bare of all equipment. I then 
 made the following proposition : I told them I wanted no position 
 which would not promise the final completion of my ambition, the es- 
 tablishment of a fully equipped laboratory supported by the state; that at 
 the end of a year they ivould be able to judge whether I was the man 
 they ivanted, and las to whether the place promised what I desired to at- 
 tain or not. That if they would place the $1,200 at my disposal and 
 the room and such opportunities at the State Farm as they could give, 
 I would put in the laboratory and pay the balance of the expenses for 
 one year. 
 
 This offer was accepted. Whether it was selfish or not the public 
 can judge. This was the first and only opportunity that had been 
 offered me, and has also been the only acceptable one, to carry out the 
 ambition of my life. I was not seeking position, but a chance to serve 
 humanity in the direction I had decided upon. 
 
 Mr. Rusk, the secretary of agriculture, says in his letters to Sen- 
 ator Paddock (it was afterwards distributed as a public document by 
 the Department of Agriculture) that "a request was made on his 
 predecessor that my [his] salary be paid from the appropriations of 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry, so that I [he] could have more funds 
 to work with." He also infers that it was on account of that request 
 being refused that I have persistently attacked the chief of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry. To the last I will say that any such infer- 
 ence or accusation is unequivocally false. 
 
 Was there anything wrong, in the face of the fact that we were short 
 of funds, and the commissioner of agriculture had sent a person here 
 to do such investigations, and was constantly sending out such men, 
 in making such a request of a national department especially organ- 
 ized to do just the kind of work which was about to be attempted in 
 Nebraska? Such a proposition was made and came about in this 
 
20 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 way: It was a "condition" that faced us — a "condition" of a de- 
 pleted treasury, and not a surplus as was the case then in Washington. 
 It was myself who made the suggestion. I told the Board of Regents 
 that I was perfectly willing to carry out the terms of my agreement, 
 but that as I had never earned a cent to speak of in my life, it 
 would materially aid me in obtaining private funds for our purpose 
 if I could earn a decent salary, and did suggest that as Dr. Gerth had 
 been sent out to Nebraska by the commissioner of agriculture, per- 
 haps he could be induced to send me in the same way, paying only 
 the salary, while I would still put in the laboratory and pay all the 
 other expenses, a report of the work done also to be made to the 
 commissioner. Was there anything wrong in that ? The idea struck 
 the minds of the regents favorably, and the president of the board at 
 that time, Hon. Charles H. Gere, and the chancellor were authorized 
 to take such steps in the matter as they saw fit, and I am informed, 
 that, with the governor, Mr. Dawes, and others, did write the Ne- 
 braska delegation in congress to make such a request of the commis- 
 sioner of agriculture. I can truly say, so far as I was concerned 
 that not even a thought of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 came into my mind. I then left Nebraska and went to New York, 
 packed my things and purchased additional materials which necessi- 
 tated an outlay of over $800. Much to my astonishment I heard 
 from Nebraska and also personally from the late Hon. James Laird, 
 that the answer they received from the Department of Agriculture 
 was that " they would send a better man" In proof of the correct- 
 ness of this statement the following evidence is introduced: 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., May 24, 1892. 
 Dr. Frank 8. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir: My recollection of the matter you speak of is this: 
 At the time you came here you volunteered to supply your own labo- 
 ratory and pay such expenses as could not be provided for the first 
 year out of the small funds the regents had set apart for the investi- 
 gation of animal diseases. Some of the state officials united with the 
 Board of Regents, including myself, to ask our delegation in Wash- 
 ington to see if some appropriation could not be made by the Agri- 
 ricultural Department to your salary for that year as an investigator 
 in this state in behalf of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Mr. 
 James Laird, then our congressman, wrote to the chancellor that the 
 department declined to make any appropriation and had stated that it 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 21 
 
 would " send a better man " to do the work that we had employed 
 you to do. 
 
 Very truly yours, C. H. Gere, 
 
 Late President of the Regents of the State University. 
 
 At Dr. Billings' request, I brought this matter to the attention of 
 Dr. Bessey this evening, reading him the above (except the signature). 
 He said: "That is about correct; in fact, I think it is entirely so. I 
 remember distinctly the last matter about the department saying it 
 would send a better man to do the work. That was the word that 
 came here at that time." James H. Canfield, Chancellor. 
 
 State University, May 27, 1892. 
 
 Header, be fair ! Was that an attack on me from the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry or not? Why should its chief step at once into the 
 arena and tell these people that he "would send a better man"? 
 Had he such a man to send at that time ? Was there one in the United 
 States? I may be egotistical, at least I am not afraid to face the ques- 
 tion, "is there a better man" for this work to be found, not only in 
 this country but the world to-day? Virchow is my only master. 
 
 Had I ever done one single thing, written one word to cause the 
 slightest suspicion on the part of the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry that what did result would come to pass? We have someevi 
 deuce on this point. Let it be distinctly understood that I am strongly in 
 favor of the "Bureau of Animal Industry," as a department of our 
 government. No man in the country would so fiercely and deter- 
 minedly fight any attempt to abolish it as I would. It is the nucleus 
 of that original research for which I have given my life. No man 
 in the country wrote so forcibly and strongly of it as I did before I 
 knew anything critically of its work. The fault is with its work, not 
 the bureau as a part of the government capable of immensely valuable 
 possibilities. It is a fact that "I never saw a case of swine disease 
 before I came to Nebraska." I was, and still am, far more interested 
 in the human animal, and it is only as the domestic animals are valua- 
 ble to man that I am interested in them. I now desire to show that 
 no overt act or word of mine had ever been uttered or printed that 
 justified the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in combating, or 
 trying to prevent, my coming to Nebraska in 1886? 
 
 For some years previous to my coming here I had beeti editor of 
 the Journal of Comparative Medicine, owned and published in New 
 
22 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 York at that time by my friend Wm. A. Conklin. The pages of this 
 journal are full of articles from me supporting what is known as 
 "State Medicine/' of which such institutions as the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry are a part. I had never paid any critical attention to the 
 work of the bureau, or even to infectious animal diseases, save as they 
 bore relation to those of man up to this time. No man in the country 
 more strongly believed in the accuracy of its reports than I then did. 
 Like my European confreres, the suspicion that a department of any 
 government could employ a man who would publish in its official re- 
 ports absolute falsehoods for a series of years never for a moment 
 entered my head. I did know, casually, that in earlier years Dr. 
 Detmers had announced a " bacillus " as the cause of swine plague, and 
 I knew that from 1880 to 1884, inclusive, the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry had pronounced a "micrococcus" to be the cause of 
 this disease, and I assumed this to be correct, never having compared 
 one report with another or critically read a single page. I was quite 
 an enthusiastic innocent in those days. I believed in the government 
 of the United States about as a Catholic does in the Pope. My idol 
 is shattered. It has crushed of its own innate corruption. I have 
 strong faith in the principle yet, but a most intense contempt for the 
 result thus far. 
 
 In the fall of 1885 the "First Annual Report of the Bureau of 
 Animal Indusfry" came into my hands, and as editor of the journal 
 named, and an enthusiastic advocate of State Medicine, I reviewed it 
 in the October number of that journal, or in Vol. VI, 1885, p. 285, 
 and here is a part of what I said, which especially bears on the point 
 in question here : 
 
 We have before us the first annual report of this newly created bu- 
 reau with reference to the contagious diseases of the domestic animals 
 in the United States for the year 1884. It is a work which should 
 be in the hands of every stock raiser in the country and especially 
 every veterinarian. We recommend those of our readers who have 
 not yet received this book to at once write the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment at Washington for a copy. Without it they cannot know what 
 has been done, nor what needs to be done, nor of the many difficulties 
 which still lie in the way of doing good work. Every unbiased mind 
 must become convinced of several things in reading this report: 
 
 First — That we, as a profession, have a most creditable representa- 
 tive in Dr. D. E. Salmon, chief of the bureau. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 23 
 
 Second — That it is the best and most complete report yet issued by 
 our government on this important subject. 
 
 Third — That a much more extensive veterinary police organiza- 
 tion over the whole country is necessary than we have at present, and 
 we must endeavor to make not only the United States government, 
 but the respective state governments realize the necessity of giving 
 employment to as many qualified men as possible if they would really 
 do their duty by the citizens of this country. 
 
 The report in every way confirms the views we have been advocat- 
 ing for the past ten years, so much so in fact that many of our own 
 words seem to have borne the spirit of true prophecy. 
 
 And in another place I say: 
 
 At last we have a veterinarian in Washington who is not afraid to 
 publish the exact condition of things in his report. 
 
 I wonder if Secretary Rusk ever heard of the above ? How I wish 
 those words were true and were not the mistaken result of an enthusi- 
 asm born of faith in human nature that once was, but has gone never 
 to return. What a lesson to a reviewer of such a subject — never to 
 take one report and not consider it with its predecessors ! To the honor 
 of scientific research this reproach is only applicable to the reports of 
 the Department of Agriculture, and, so far as I know, only those per- 
 taining to the investigation of infectious animal diseases. Things were 
 not running then so smoothly with the bureau as now. The press of 
 the country was frequently opening a fusillade on it and some bad 
 mistakes had been made, hence the above words of mine found most 
 favorable and kindly reception from the chief of the Bureau of Ani- 
 mal Industry. 
 
 Let me say right here that what I am going to quote is from mem- 
 ory, but that I have the originals packed away where it is very in- 
 convenient to get at them at present. Little thought I when I 
 packed them in New York how important they might become in es- 
 tablishing my character in future years. My memory can be trusted, 
 however, and what I shall quote will be very near word for word. 
 Soon after the publication of the review quoted, the latter part of 
 October, 1885, I received a letter from the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, which is in this wise: 
 
 Washington, D. C, Oct. — , 1885. 
 My Dear Doctor Billings: I have to thank you for your re- 
 view of our last report in the Journal of Comparative Medicine. It 
 
24 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 is very rarely that one finds one veterinarian speaking so kindly of 
 the work of another. I have long had your exceptional qualifications 
 in mind and am very anxious to find opportunity to make use of your 
 valuable services in this department. Yours, etc., 
 
 D. E. Salmon. 
 
 It will be useless for the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 to deny that letter, for it would only put him in the same uncomfort- 
 able and disreputable position his many other contradictions have. 
 Perhaps he would like to publish my answer. It was certainly 
 equally cordial. I offered him about the same terms I did Nebraska, 
 or rather the same proposition Nebraska made to the commissioner of 
 agriculture in 1886. I did not apply for a position, as he has falsely 
 said many times, but I did say I was anxious to serve humanity, and 
 if it were necessary to go to hell itself or study yellow fever, that it 
 mattered little to me, so long as I could carry out my purpose. 
 
 It is a wonder that that letter of mine hsls not been published. At 
 one time it would have helped on the fight against me in Nebraska 
 most effectually. Between October, 1885, and March, 1886, I had 
 no further communications with the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, and certainly had no suspicion of any cause for ill-feeling 
 on his part, for in December I went to Europe, and from then until I 
 came to Nebraska, in March, I had no occasion to give a single 
 thought to the work of the bureau or its chief. In fact I had not a 
 suspicion that he did not have the same kindly feelings for me as ex- 
 pressed in his letter of October, 1885. 
 
 What, then, caused the change? What caused this man to say, or 
 cause Mr. Colman to say, that "a better man" would be sent to Ne- 
 braska? What caused him, a public official, a man entrusted with 
 the welfare of the live stock interests of the country, to thus attempt 
 to deceive the people of Nebraska? He knew then, as he knows 
 now, that that "better man" does not exist in the medical profession 
 of this country as a pathological investigator. What was the matter ? 
 then? Fear! The cowardice of a guilty conscience! The chief of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry knew himself, far better than I did, in March, 
 1886. He knew then, as he does now, that every word printed in the 
 Reports of the Department of Agriculture as to a micrococcus being the 
 cause of swine plague, that every experiment reported as made with 
 that micrococcus proving it to be the cause of swine plague, was false. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 25 
 
 He knew more ! The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is a 
 very smart man. No man has better reason for knowing that than 
 I have. He knows a fool when he sees one, as well as he knows how 
 he can fool an honest yet weak man, like Jerry Rusk, by playing on 
 his vanity and his regard for the dignity of his office. He also 
 knows an honest man when he sees one and takes great care to keep 
 as distant from him as possible. The chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry knew me. He knew that I was competent, and that I would 
 find out his perfidy and expose it. That, and that alone, is the rea- 
 son he would have sent a " better man " to Nebraska in 1886. This 
 " better man " would have been a weak tool of his own, such as is 
 every poor creature who works in the employ of the bureau to-day. 
 Politicians have places for tools, not men. But the chief of the bu- 
 reau made a serious mistake. His judgment of men goes no further 
 than the useful or not, to him, in their character. Any appreciation 
 of the nobler qualities of manhood is a terra incognita to him. He 
 did not know Dr. Billings. When he undertook this battle he did 
 not weigh the armament of his opponent. Life being given, the very 
 incarnation of the Devil cannot fight a trinity composed of actual 
 ability, incorruptible honesty, and fanatical courage in serving hu- 
 manity, and these three, backed by money, will ever be too much for 
 anything but a cowardly assassin. His Satanic majesty would have 
 more wisdom than to undertake the job. The chief of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry cannot possibly comprehend that such a thing as 
 honor in man exists. Had he not excited my suspicions by this ut- 
 terly unwarranted attempt to prevent my work, to interfere with 
 my most sacred ambition, I was (at that time, but have learned 
 wisdom since) such a simpleton, so thoroughly good natured, that I 
 should have written him openly and kindly that I had found 
 these errors in his reports, and of my own findings, and asked him 
 could we not get over them so as not to expose them ? These are no 
 idle words, written here for effect. Too many of the most responsi- 
 ble breeders and citizens of Nebraska have heard me frequently ex- 
 press them for me not to be able to confirm the statement. Too 
 many people know that, with all my faults, a want of generosity is 
 not one of them. 
 
 Having .demonstrated that the secretary of agriculture has been 
 wrongly informed as to the instigator of this discussion, if the pub- 
 
26 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 lication of other side are worthy of that distinction, I wish now to 
 show that the cause of my first attack on the chief of the bureau had 
 no connection whatever with myself, and was not instigated by the 
 refusal of the department to aid us in our work here. In fact, not- 
 withstanding their proposal to send " a better man/' I was so blindly 
 unsuspicious of any virulence in their meaning that I had scarcely con- 
 sidered it further. But for an act of the chief of the bureau him- 
 self, it would probably have been a year or so longer before I should 
 have examined his reports in detail and come to a knowledge of their 
 treacherously perfidious character. Mr. Rusk says: 
 
 It is a fact which can be establised by documentary evidence, that 
 when this investigation first reached Nebraska, and before I ever saw 
 a case of swine plague, he began his attacks on Dr. Salmon's investi- 
 gations of this subject in an editorial in the Nebraska Farmer. 
 
 That's clever! Mr. Rusk never wrote that. It has the hoof-prints 
 of the chief of the bureau. It is intended to gull the public by tell- 
 ing them that because I had not yet seen a case of swine plague I 
 did not know what I was writing about in criticising the chief of 
 the bureau. It was not necessary that I should know an iota of the 
 disease to have exposed the idiotic contradictions existing between the 
 reports of 1884 and 1885. It required no more knowledge than to 
 read that to-day Mr. Rusk affirms the chief of the bureau to be a 
 black man and to-morrow, with equal positiveuess, asserts him to be a 
 white man. A similarly positive contradiction exists between the re- 
 ports of 1884 and 1885. 
 
 I wonder if the secretary of agriculture ever took pains to compare 
 the reports of his department from 1880 to 1885 with that of the latter 
 year. If he had, he certainly could not have been politically hypno- 
 tized as he has been by the chief of the bureau. It can be said that 
 the position of the chief of the bureau/as an investigator, is summa- 
 rized in the report of the department of 1884, for he now admits, or 
 has been forced by these criticisms, that since that time no work of 
 investigation has been attempted by him. He says: 
 
 I may add here, that while the investigations have been directed by 
 me, and have been carried out according to my plans, all the reports 
 from 1885 to 1889, inclusive, so far as they relate to experiments, bac- 
 teriological observations, and post-mortem notes, have been written by 
 Dr. Smith ; and, consequently, all the criticisms of their contents aimed 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 27 
 
 at me, personally, fall flat, because I am neither their author, nor have 
 I made any change in the record of observations. — (Journal of Com- 
 parative Medicine, Vol. XI, 1890, p. 44.) 
 
 As all the work done by the chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry on swine diseases is now admitted by the department to have 
 been null and void, it is evident that he has no claim whatever to any 
 credit for original work as an investigator of infectious swine diseases. 
 That one competent investigator has come to the same conclusion is 
 evident from the following quotation from a critical review of the de- 
 partment work, Dr. P. Frosch, assistant in the laboratory of Robert 
 Koch in Berlin, who says: 
 
 The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
 passed since the second plague was first announced not one single case 
 of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
 ported which can be said to be free from objections. 
 
 The mistaken conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
 vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on 
 swine plague and hog cholera, have his name and as such have been 
 quoted in the literature. 
 
 From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not 
 be seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
 is evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera 
 germ or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condition 
 of things in that regard. — (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Koch's.) 
 
 Perhaps this is the first time the secretary of agriculture ever had 
 the above conclusions presented to his notice, though attention has been 
 often enough called to them, and he seems to have been a diligent 
 reader of the Nebraska State Journal, and other Nebraska papers, if 
 one can judge from his allusion to the same in his letter to Senator 
 Paddock. 
 
 In the report of the Department of Agriculture for 1884 the chief 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry told the farmers of the United 
 States that 
 
 In former reports I have given details of experiments which, if cor- 
 rectly stated, demonstrate beyond question that the microbe of swine 
 plague is a micrococcus. These experiments were made and the ac- 
 counts of them published in advance of those of M. Pasteur's, and 
 the evidence furnished was all that could reasonably be required to 
 decide a scientific question of this kind. (P. 222.) 
 
28 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Of M. Pasteur's work the chief of the bureau said, in the report 
 of the department for 1883 : 
 
 M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in a 
 very complete manner. He shows that the disease is produced by a 
 micrococcus ; that it is non-recurrent ; that the virus may be attenuated 
 and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vaccine by 
 spring. 
 
 Now, reader, and you Mr. Rusk, if you were a plain, every day 
 farmer and not the secretary of agriculture, what interpretation do 
 you put on those statements? They are positive, are they not? It 
 is that report of 1884 which I reviewed in the Journal of Compara- 
 tive Medicine in October, 1885, in a manner so agreeable to the 
 chief of the bureau. Certainly there was no reason for a person 
 simply reading those reports, and knowing nothing of the disease 
 personally, to doubt the correctness of the statements of what should 
 be the highest and most reliable authority in the land? What possi- 
 ble reason could the chief of the bureau have had for doubting the 
 correctness of his own statements? What did he fear at that time? 
 There was not then the remotest possibility of my ever going to Ne- 
 braska, in fact I hardly knew that such a place existed then. He 
 says: 
 
 His experiments demonstrated beyond question that the microbe 
 ot swine plague is a micrococcus, and the evidence furnished [by him] 
 was all that could be reasonably required to decide a scientific ques- 
 tion of this kind. 
 
 What grounds had we, then, for doubting positive assertions of that 
 kind emanating from a department of government which, from our 
 earliest childhood, we had been taught to look upon with veneration 
 and to respect as the "greatest government on the face of the earth' 7 ? 
 
 I believed them to be true in the fall of 1885 and continued to 
 think the same until some time after my arrival in Nebraska in the 
 spring of 1886. Had I been suspiciously angry, which I was not, for 
 I was only mildly astonished at the proposal to " send a better man " 
 in my place to'Nebraska, I had not a single known ground for attack 
 had I desired so to do. 
 
 The secretary of agriculture, Mr. Rusk, says, and rightly, that my 
 first attack appeared in "the Nebraska Farmer"; but it was not 
 when I "first reached Nebraska," which was practically April 1, 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 29 
 
 1886. It was in the issue of June 1, 1886. The history of this "at- 
 tack" is somewhat peculiar. Contrary to the secretary's assertion, as 
 he would have seen had he read the article in question, it was not 
 made on my own account, but on behalf of another. I have alluded 
 with some detail, for this very purpose, to the intimacy then exist- 
 ing between the state veterinarian of Nebraska, Dr. Gerth, and my 
 family and the profound attachment we then had for him. Soon after 
 my permanent coming to Nebraska various people warned me that 
 Dr. Gerth was not the true friend to me that I was to him, but I per- 
 sistently ignored all such insinuations. I have now abundant evi- 
 dence that they were tr.ue. On my return in April I found that Dr. 
 Gerth had resigned for reasons which need not be mentioned here, 
 and that there was quite an intense feeling against him in certain 
 quarters. He came to me then and told me of it, and said that if I 
 would go to Mr. Gere that I could make it all right, and that Mr. 
 Gere could fix it all right with Governor Dawes. I did as requested. 
 It was "fixed all right" and Dr. Gerth retained, and thereby I kept a 
 snake in the bosom of my family which was continually sending its 
 poisonous venom into the minds of the people. What caused Dr. 
 Gerth to so radically change I do not know positively, yet have been 
 told it was "inflooence" from Washington. There is no question of 
 the intimate alliance of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 the state veterinarian, and the then chancellor of the University soon 
 afterwards, for an "offensive and defensive warfare" to "drive Bil- 
 lings out of Nebraska." We have so much evidence of that that it is 
 a matter of history here and need not further be considered. I now 
 think that it was a "deep-laid plan" to get me to write the article in 
 defense of Dr. Gerth in the Nebraska Farmer of June 1, 1886, for it 
 was well known that I was somewhat of a fighter for the right, hav- 
 ing given Harvard College quite a taste of my mettle in exposing their 
 fraudulent veterinary department some years previously. I now 
 think they expected the public would turn or could be turned against 
 me should I open my batteries, and that it would cause my dismissal. 
 They were not so very far wrong in their hypothesis. The public 
 did get stampeded for a while, except the solid breeders of the state, 
 but, as is well known, it righted itself again last year, 1891, and 
 called me back with a unanimity seldom given to a man in his life- 
 time. Some time previous to my coming to Nebraska Dr. A. Liau- 
 
30 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 tard, principal of the American Veterinary College, New York, ob- 
 tained some "virus contra rouget" from Mr. Pasteur and sent some 
 to Dr. Gerth and some to Washington, because all the infectious swine 
 diseases were then assumed to be one and the same thing, and Pasteur 
 had given evidence that this virus would prevent rouget by inocula- 
 tion. Now it is doing Dr. Gerth no injustice to say that he was not 
 competent to make a test investigation of that kind; but he essayed 
 it and published something about it, though I cannot now find a copy 
 of his publication. 
 
 In May, 1886, Dr. Gerth came to me with a copy of the Breeders' 
 Gazette of May 20, 1886, in which was an article by the chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry which attacked Dr. Gerth pretty severely, 
 and showed up the failing of his reported experiments with this Pas- 
 teur virus, as rouget was then known not to be the swine plague, hav- 
 ing been so demonstrated the previous year by Loeffler and. Schiitz in 
 Berlin. Dr. Gerth was in high dudgeon and, as I thought natural, 
 at onGe came to me to defend him. As said, I now think the entire 
 thing was put on as a cloak to draw me out. I know I told Dr. Gerth 
 that I could not defend him, but that perhaps I could find some weak- 
 ness in the chief's armor and punch a few holes in it for him. 
 
 Two essential facts have now been demonstrated which show the 
 false information by which Secretary Rusk has been misled in form- 
 ing his conclusions in regard to my attacks on the chief of the Bureau : 
 
 First — That the first attack was made by that chief on me when he 
 asserted that he would send a better man to Nebraska. 
 
 Second — That this attack of June 1, 1886, in the Nebraska Farmer, 
 was made in the defense of a supposed friend to whom I was then deeply 
 attached. 
 
 As said above, when Dr. Gerth came to me with the article in the 
 Breeders' Gazette of May 20, 1886, from the chief of the bureau, 
 I did not know of any weakness in the reports of the chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry. I had not begun my own investigations. 
 But it is a good rule when you can't defend your position to seek a 
 weak spot in your enemy and at once attack that point. 
 
 Let me quote a little from the article in the Nebraska Farmer of 
 June 1, 1886: 
 
 In the issue of the Breeders' Gazette of May 20 is an article by Dr. 
 Salmon, entitled " Why Pasteur's Vaccine Fails to Prevent Hog 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 31 
 
 Cholera " (Let rae here again quote that passage from the report of 
 1883). "M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investiga- 
 tions in a very complete manner. He shows that the disease is pro- 
 duced by a micrococcus; that it is non-recurrent; that the virus may 
 be. attenuated and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a 
 vaccine by spring." Comment on this intellectual somersault on the 
 part of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is certainly un- 
 necessary. The reader can easily see that he made a misstep somehow 
 and fell flat on his back), in which the learned and really accomplished 
 dilettant, who is entrusted with the responsibilities proper to the gov- 
 ernment veterinarian of so great a country as ours, enters into a polemic, 
 and a just one too in many respects, against certain work that was done 
 here in Nebraska. 
 
 The question we are going to discuss is not the correctness of Dr. 
 Salmon's remarks, but rather, as he is so free in questioning the capa- 
 city of others for the work undertaken, to endeavor to show that the 
 said Salmon's work leaves a wide margin of doubt open to the mind 
 of all intelligent observers as to the amount of faith that can be had 
 in his own experiments and publications. 
 
 In the Gazette article Salmon says: "Both of these gentlemen 
 (meaning Dr. Gerth and Professor Bessey) are radically wrong in 
 their conclusion that the French disease, called by Pasteur rouget, is 
 identical with the American disease called hog cholera. I explained 
 this quite fully at Chicago last November. Dr. Gerth evidently had 
 my view in mind when he stated so positively that the germ in 
 Pasteur's vaccine was identical with that found in hogs affected with 
 hog cholera." In another place he says: "He (Professor Bessey) 
 placed the material from dead hogs under the microscope, and when he 
 says that the germs revealed were micrococci, I have confidence that 
 his statement was correct. 
 
 Of this statement, that is, that the micrococci found in both the 
 vaccine and the material from diseased hogs was identical, and hence 
 the cause of hog cholera, Salmon says: "The ridiculousness of this 
 assertion, when we come to consider the investigations that were made, 
 would be amusing, if it were not for the very serious consequences 
 which folloiv from deceiving the public ivith such rash and unreliable 
 statements." 
 
 I said to that in the same place : 
 
 We must certainly plead guilty to the fact that the investigations 
 of Dr. Gerth were ridiculous failures from conception to finish; but if 
 the assertion was ridiculous in itself, or if there is anything amusing 
 about it, then all we have to do is to go back to the Annual Report of 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1884, and there we may read of a 
 whole series of more ridiculous investigations, and "experiments, ivhich, 
 
32 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 ■if correctly stated, demonstrate beyond question that the microbe of swine 
 plague is a micrococcus." That " these experiments were made and ac- 
 curate accounts of them published in advance of those of M. Pasteur's, 
 and the evidence furnished was all that could reasonably be required to 
 decide a scientific question of this land." 
 
 Up to that time, May, 1886, the only report of the Department of 
 Agriculture at hand was that of 1884, from which the above remarks 
 were taken, as the reports of the Department of Agriculture are al- 
 wavs issued in the year later than they are dated. For instance, the 
 report of 1891 is just out as I am writing, June 9, 1892, and that for 
 1885 came out about the same time in. 1886. When Dr. Gerth and 
 Prof. Bossey concluded that the micrococcus seen in Pasteur's vaccine 
 and the material from hog-cholera diseased hogs (the government 
 swine plague did not appear until the issuance of the report of 1886) 
 were identical, they stood in exact conformity with the latest informa- 
 tion then at their command from the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, and when Dr. Gerth came to me with the paper of Dr. 
 Salmon in the Breeders' Gazette of May 20, 1886, 1 was of the same 
 opinion, as I knew nothing of the address made the previous Novem- 
 ber in Chicago, and only had in mind the report reviewed by me in 
 October, 1885, that of 1884, which, as can be seen, gave evidence 
 that from any other investigator would be conclusive that a micro- 
 coccus was the cause of swine plague. 
 
 It was my desire to defend my friend which led me to examine the 
 report of 1885, then just out, which he brought to me, and I cannot 
 well explain my surprise at seeing that the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry had completely changed his position. 
 
 The reader must now be sufficiently well aware of the *fact that so 
 far as his official publications are of any value at all, the chief of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry considered that he had proven a micrococcus 
 to be the specific cause of swine plague, and this conclusion lasted 
 until the public issuance of his report of 1885, about June 1, 1886. 
 In this last report he entirely changes his opinion, but not in the 
 honorable manner which should characterize every scientific investi- 
 gator, more particularly one employed by a department of the govern- 
 ment. He does not boldly say that all his previous work was mis- 
 taken or erroneous, but makes the charge in most insincere manner. 
 He says: 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 33 
 
 Anticipating somewhat the conclusion which was arrived at later 
 concerning the real cause of this puzzling disease, we must say, at this 
 point, that we no longer consider a micrococcus as the cause of all out- 
 breaks of the disease known as swine plague. (P. 186.) 
 
 What more evidence is necessary to demonstrate the duplicity of the 
 chief of this bureau? Even at this time the chief of the bureau was 
 not absolutely sure of his ground, for in the same report he says: 
 
 The bacterium which we have lately discovered, and which we be- 
 lieve to be the cause of swine plague. (P. 219.) 
 
 What was this new microbe? It was and is a bacillus. 
 
 The greater number present a center paler than the periphery. The 
 darker portion is not localized at the tivo extremities, as in the bacteria 
 of septiccemia in rabbits, but is of uniform width around the entire cir- 
 cumference of the oval. 
 
 The above description is so false that any one well acquainted with 
 the germ of swine plague could not possibly recognize that organism 
 in the description. Instead of "the darker portion not being local- 
 ized at the two extremities, as in the bacteria of septicemia in rab- 
 bits," the two extremities not only do color most strongly, but the 
 whole germ can be easily colored diffusely ; and it does bear a very 
 strong resemblance to the " bacteria of septicaemia in rabbits," a fact 
 well seen in Fig. 2, Plate X, of the special report on hog cholera 
 issued by the department in 1889. On the same plate, Fig. 1, is 
 given an illustration of the thing described as not coloring like the 
 bacteria of rabbit septicaemia. I am willing to leave it to any un- 
 biased person, especially a bacteriologist, if he would for a moment 
 suspect that the two illustrations were intended for one and the same 
 germ ? 
 
 I have previously termed this false description and illustration a 
 forgery, because the merest tyro cannot help coloring the germ prop- 
 erly. Even ordinary farmers have learned to do it in five minutes' 
 instruction in our laboratory and have amused themselves a whole 
 afternoon coloring these germs and examining them. 
 
 We now know that this organism was not discovered by the chief 
 
 of the bureau, but by his assistant, Dr. Smith, so that it is evident 
 
 that the chief has not done a single iota of original scientific work on 
 
 swine diseases since his employment by the government, though he 
 
 3 
 
34 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 has posed before the world and willingly accepted the credit for such 
 until his perfidy was so shown up that he was forced to acknowledge 
 the fact. At the same time that this nondescript description was 
 given out the presence of a micrococcus is still adhered to, for what 
 reason none can tell, as no such micrococcus occurs as an etiological 
 moment in swine plague. It is said : 
 
 This micrococcus is easily distinguished by its peculiar growth on 
 gelatine, which it rapidly liquefies. * * * Whether this micro- 
 coccus is a septic organism, or one which is the cause of a definite 
 disease in pigs, cannot be answered at present. (P. 186.) 
 
 It should be known that ever since 1880 the essentials, at least of 
 the Koch method, in bacteriological investigations have been open to 
 everybody, and as in 1884 the chief of the bureau so positively as- 
 serted a micrococcus to be the specific cause of swine plague, he should 
 have cultivated it and have had notes and cultures in the laboratory, 
 and could easily have said whether this micrococcus of 1885 was or 
 was not that of the four previous years. It cannot be claimed that 
 this micrococcus was identical with the dipplo-coccoid bacillus which 
 they falsely assert to be the cause of a new swine plague, for that 
 germ never liquefies gelatine. 
 
 The date of the first demonstration of the germ of swine plague 
 by the government investigators is impossible to be fixed, so unreliable 
 is their testimony. They say " the two animals which infected the 
 vaccinated pigs, as described in the preceding pages, deserve our par- 
 ticular attention, since they were the starting of an outbreak at the 
 Station, which has finally enabled us to demonstrate as the cause of the 
 disease a specific microbe. These two animals were brought to the 
 Station November 4, 1885." (P. 194.) Pig 105 died on the 5th of 
 November. Liquor cultures " contained a motile bacterium identified 
 later as the bacterium of swine plague." (P. 195.) " November 6, a 
 number of mice were inoculated" from this pig No. 105. "Three 
 mice received a small ulcer from the large intestine." (Ibid.) "Of 
 three inoculated with the ulcer, one died on the tenth day; the other 
 (No. 2) on the fifth ; and the third (No. 4) on the seventh day after 
 inoculation." (P. 196.) Note the peculiar manner in which this 
 record is reported, the last to die being the first mentioned. Let it be 
 understood that I am trying to fix the date of the actual demonstration 
 that this new microbe killed a hog by inoculation with pure cultures. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 35 
 
 Now the mouse that died from inoculation with a piece of intestine 
 ulcer from pig 105 must be "mouse No. I." "Mouse No. 2 died of 
 malignant oedema." "The kidney of mouse No. 4 contained large 
 numbers of oval bacteria found in cover-glass preparations in the sp>leen 
 of pigs later on, and identified as the cause of swine plague. This was 
 the first time these bacteria were seen since the cover-glass preparations 
 made from the organs of pig No. 105, whence these mice had been 
 inoculated, proved entirely negative." (P. 197.) 
 
 Let us fix the date up to this time: Mice inoculated November 6, 
 No. 4 died the seventh day afterwards — November 13. No demonstra- 
 tions of the germ yet; because u the cultures, both solid and liquor, obtained 
 from the heart's blood of these mice, proved, as might have been expected, 
 to be a mixture of several kinds of bacteria. The gelatine invariably 
 became liquid." Such results show unusually unscientific ability, as 
 every investigator knows. The other pig, No. 106, died on the night 
 of 6th or 7th of November, 1885. " Cultures in liquid media and 
 gelatine from spleen and heart's blood remained sterile, except one col- 
 ony, in a gelatine culture from spleen, cover glasses, negative." (P. 
 197.) "Of four inoculations with pure cultures of the bacterium of 
 swine plague, to be described further on, the first did not prove quite 
 satisfactory from the fact that the check animal died before either of the 
 inoculated ones." (P. 198.) That fact utterly nullifies the value of 
 the experiment. 
 
 However, we waut to get at our date for comparison with that No- 
 vember address in Chicago, 1885. 
 
 " Two animals, 109-113, were inoculated November 20, each with 
 4 ccs. of a liquid culture from the blood of pig 94," which died No- 
 vember 18. Pig died November 18, cultures inoculated November 20, 
 pretty rapid growth and quick work for any man to have the audac- 
 ity to assert "of the four inoculations made ivith pure cultures" of any 
 germ! The autopsy of this pig 94 is recorded on pages 193-4, but 
 no mention is made of any cultures having been made from its blood. 
 Otherwise we have been told that this germ was first seen in pig 105. 
 
 No. 113, one inoculated with "pure cultures" from pig 9Jf, died De- 
 cember 31, 1885. No cultures were made, as subsequent inoculation 
 experiments had already furnished satisfactory results." Query — How 
 could "subsequent experiments have already furnished satisfactory re- 
 sults"? Do words mean anything at all? Are these men imbeciles, 
 
36 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 or what are they, to insult the common sense of our people by pub- 
 lishing such stuff in a government report? No. 109 died January 7, 
 1886, when it was killed. No cultures. 
 
 The healthy check pig penned with them died December 6, after 
 four or five days' illness. (P. 198.) 
 
 Now read : 
 
 From the foregoing description we observe that the check animal 
 died from a very acute attack, and it seems reasonable to suppose that 
 it caught the disease from the two inoculated animals, and being more 
 susceptible, quickly succumbed to the virus. (P. 199.) 
 
 My patience is exhausted ! Here we have traced this work of 1885 
 up to January 7, 1886, with absolutely no proof of any kind that this 
 microbe of 1885 caused a case of swine plague. How then could the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry have said anything contra- 
 dictory to his report of 1884, which absolutely pronounced a micrococ- 
 cus to be the cause of swine plague, at Chicago, in November, 1885? 
 How then could he have shown that Dr. Gerth and Professor Bessey 
 were wrong in their micrococcus theory that rouget and swine plague 
 were identical diseases, when they had his own word that they were 
 identical in the only published report at hand? How in the name of 
 common honorable decency and scientific honesty can the chief of the 
 bureau claim that the germ of swine plague was discovered in Novem- 
 ber, 1885, or at any time in 1885 ? The fact is, these people have not 
 yet given any scientifically exact experimental proof that the germ 
 they discovered is the cause of swine plague, as noticed by Frosch. We 
 did that work for them. 
 
 This exposure in this direction has gone far enough. Such polit- 
 ical rottenness and unscientific deportment in a department of govern- 
 ment is enough to sicken any ambitious and pure-minded man in the 
 future of republican institutions. Only evolution keeps hope alive. 
 
 This is the stuff the secretary of agriculture, Hon. J. M. Kusk, 
 deals out to our farmers as the truths of scientific investigation, the 
 reliability of which he vouches for by his signature. 
 
 Let us think ! What was Benedict Arnold guilty of? The sec- 
 retary of agriculture is a thousand times more so. What has become 
 of the glorious example of public honesty in high officials, set by the 
 fathers of this republic? 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 37 
 
 The next thing Secretary Rusk objects to in the passage we are con- 
 sidering from his letter to Senator Paddock is, that my "attacks on the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry " have not been couched in the language of 
 "courteous scientific criticism." How could they be? There was 
 absolutely nothing scientific to criticise. This question may be one of 
 social science, of honesty in the reported work of a department of gov- 
 ernment, but it certainly is nothing else, and hence other methods and 
 other languages must be used than that in vogue between honest and 
 gentlemanly scientists. Further, my own work is more of a social, 
 scientific, and political nature than that of a mere investigator. It is 
 to establish original research in connection with state medicine in this 
 country. I have endeavored to do honest work as an investigator, 
 merely to show the people its value, that they might see the necessity 
 of supporting such work. Mr. Rusk and his advisers have endeav- 
 ored to nullify my last attempts. The bill for a national laboratory 
 for the study of human and animal diseases in congress has been 
 twice shelved by their malicious interference. As to my methods, they 
 are my own. The people may engage me to investigate for their ben- 
 efit, it is true, but I do the work in my own way in the endeavor to 
 stimulate the people to be true to themselves. Individually, they 
 have not yet arrived at the stage of evolution that the majority of 
 tUem kuow enough to be this. Had they, the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry and secretary of agriculture would not dare treat them as a 
 pack of fools, and publish the mass of incongruities they have, under 
 the name of 'investigations.' Were it not to do a duty which I deem 
 obligatory to humanity, I would not be an investigator in a public 
 position. One is too open to the cowardly attacks of unprincipled 
 and purchasable editors, and craven politicians. It would suit me bet- 
 ter to live in the turmoil of a great city and take an active part in the 
 great social-political battle for justice, where I could be more free than 
 I am even now, to scathe these political parasites and demagogic bullies 
 now in public positions as mere tools of the bosses of the political 
 machines. There is but one place that a man can be a manly and in- 
 dependent man in this country, and that is as an editor of a large met- 
 ropolitan journal, honestly devoted to the cause of justice and welfare 
 of humanity. Every other public office in the country is a slave's po- 
 sition. The political machine forges the shackles which squeeze every 
 particle of true manhood out of the occupants. Unfortunately, the 
 
38 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 majority of such men have so little real manhood that they do not 
 feel the galling fetters. The majority of the office holders in this 
 country, instead of being noble men, honoring the public service, are 
 a set of servile trucksters, political dead beats, who, for family or other 
 reasons, have to be taken care of, because of their inability to take 
 care of themselves. The public service of the country is a charity 
 rather than an honor. This is the trouble in the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry. Put in manly men and honest men as investigators, and 
 there will be no more trouble. It is a fight for a living with such 
 people, and not for honest investigation, which has been the spear 
 goading them on to these malicious and unwarranted attacks on the 
 work done in Nebraska. If my methods do not suit the people of 
 Nebraska, I am the easiest man in the world to get rid of. They 
 know my work has been honest and that it is reliable. They have 
 pronounced their justifying verdict even against so mighty an egotism 
 as that of the Hon. J. M. Rusk, secretary of agriculture of the United 
 States of America. 
 
 Secretary Rusk further says that " these attacks were so frequent 
 and so ungentlemanly in their language, and occupied so much space 
 in the Bulletins of the Nebraska Experimental Station, of which he 
 was the author, that it was considered a disgrace not only to Nebraska, 
 but to the Experiment Stations as a whole, and resulted in a resolution 
 of emphatic disapproval passed by the Association of American Agri- 
 cultural Colleges and Experiment Stations.'' 
 
 The people of Nebraska have answered the first part of this accu- 
 sation by recalling me and again re-engaging me even since the great 
 secretary of agriculture pronounced his verdict. Who is this man 
 who thus boldly insults the integrity of judgment of the most intelli- 
 gent breeders of a great commonwealth? Where did he come from ? 
 What education or natural qualifications has he ever displayed show- 
 ing his fitness to express an opinion of work of this character? What 
 fitness has a man such as this for such a responsible position who can- 
 not distinguish between truth and falsehood; who will take the verdict 
 of a hireling against the intelligent judgment of large numbers of 
 men directly on the ground? Who is Secretary of Agriculture J. M. 
 Rusk, or the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry ? Politically 
 speaking the latter is evidently the most capable man. It is a sad 
 example of the total unsuitableness of our 'political machinery which pids 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 39 
 
 an almost nameless incompetent into the secretaryship of a great depart- 
 ment of government where necessity requires that such occupant shall 
 have that degree of natural abilities and suitable technical education to 
 allow him personally to judge of the correctness of the work of his sub- 
 ordinates, and not a man so unqualified as to be a mere victim of their 
 selfish and unprincipled intrigues. 
 
 The interests of the agriculturists of the country should be served 
 by the most competent and generally scientific educated men in the 
 country, with especial enthusiastic sympathies with agriculture, and 
 not by degrading such an office by the appointment of a political 
 heeler, because he can pull votes and mould rings. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Rusk certainly does not know his place. He does 
 not seem to realize that he is but a "famulus giganticus" a sort of 
 "major domo" entrusted by the people with watching over their 
 general agricultural interests. The president of the United States, 
 while honored with the most exalted and responsible position in the 
 gift of over sixty million people, is the servant of every man of them, 
 and hence, for the time being, the smallest man in the country. To 
 be a faithful servant he must sink his individuality in that of the 
 people. He is open to the criticism of every citizen. The same is 
 true of the secretary of agriculture and all other public officials. 
 They are worthy of respect if they are faithful to their duties in such 
 a manly way as to command it; not otherwise. Mr. Rusk seems to think 
 that because T also occupy a public position that I must sacrifice my 
 right of citizenship, as most public servants do. He is mistaken in 
 his man ; that is all. Mr. Rusk has a right to criticise me if he 
 sees just ground, as has every farmer in the country; but because I 
 hold office I do not sacrifice my right, as a man, to criticise any other 
 public servant, from the president down, if justice to the country de- 
 mands it. Mr. Rusk seems only to be acquainted with things in 
 office. It is time that he made himself known with the elements 
 which make a man. 
 
 As to the opinion of the members of the Association of the Ameri- 
 can Agricultural Colleges I care nothing. Such persons are eminently 
 respectable. I do not belong to that class. An " eminently respect- 
 able " is an individual who is absolutely negative for anything good 
 or bad. Such are the majority of the men who expressed the opinion 
 that I was a " disgrace " to the stations as a whole. Better be that 
 
40 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 than nothing. It may work some good eventually. " Out of evil 
 good may come/' you know, but no one ever heard of something 
 emanating from nothing. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 41 
 
 SECRETARY RUSK ON THE " REPORT OF THE BOARD 
 OF INQUIRY CONCERNING SWINE DISEASES IN 
 THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 Mr. Rusk continues : 
 
 But the attacks were kept up and he [I] finally demanded a com- 
 mission of scientific men to decide whether or not he [I] had showed 
 the investigations of the bureau to be unreliable; whether the reports 
 of the bureau were true or false ; and whether, to use his own words, 
 he himself' was or was not a fraud. Such a commission was ap- 
 pointed by; my predecessor, and was constituted in accordance with 
 Dr. Billings' wishes; it was pronounced by him to be satisfactory; 
 and yet, after careful and long investigation it endorsed the investiga- 
 tion of the Bureau of Animal Industry in every essential particular, 
 and in every essential particular decided that Dr. Billings was wrong. 
 Not satisfied to allow the matter to drop here he .issued a pamphlet 
 entitled " Evidence Showing that the Report of the Board of Inquiry 
 Concerning Sivine Diseases Was Fixed" in which he attacks the 
 honesty and veracity of the honorable scientific gentlemen composing 
 the commission. 
 
 Nothing could better illustrate the total unfitness of Mr. Rusk for 
 his position, and the fact that the present secretary of agriculture is 
 a pliant tool in the hands of the more clever and wily chief of the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry than his having the audacity to thus 
 quote and defend the report of that notoriously scandalous Swine 
 Plague Commission. I defy Mr. Rusk to find an intelligent swine 
 breeder in the United States who has taken any pains to observe the 
 actions of that commission, or an intelligent and unbiased editor of a 
 live stock or agricultural paper, who will not tell him that he also be- 
 lieves that that report was " fixed." 
 
 If such was and is not their opinion, how is it that I was called 
 back to Nebraska? How is it that Mr. Rusk has not a single re- 
 spectable live stock or agricultural paper in the west on his side of 
 the question ? Does Mr. Rusk think that one of the most notorious 
 
42 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 mugwumps and free-thinkers in the world, a prominent scientific social- 
 ist, and an opponent of nearly everything held sacred by the people 
 excepting absolute honesty and cold-blooded justice, has any political 
 pull? My strongest friends and supporters are men of his own party. 
 I am too democratic for the democrats and too radical for the in- 
 dependents. Why did Nebraska . call me back? Why has she re- 
 engaged me? Was it not because her people knew that that report was 
 " fixed," and that they had every confidence in the ability of my 
 work ? They certainly did not call me back either out of pity or with 
 charitable benevolence. They know I am far beyond the necessity of 
 either. There is one thing about the publication of the reports — there 
 were two of them — of that commission which has been and is a " dis- 
 grace" to Mr. Rusk, infinitely greater than my attacks upon his pet bu- 
 reau, which such papers as the Breeders' Gazette, the Farmers' Review, 
 the Homestead, Western Resources, the Turf, Field, and -Farm, and 
 many others requested him to explain at the time, and yet nejther he nor 
 the chief of the bureau however deigned to satisfy that demand. The 
 people have a right to command common honesty in the methods of 
 their servants and that no underhand pettifogging methods be taken 
 to deceive them or create a false impression in their minds. That 
 Mr. Rusk consented to such a method is well known. He has been 
 accused of it, as will be soon shown by extracts from some of the 
 leading papers named, but has never risen to explain or deny the 
 accusation. An honorable and creditable position for a secretary of a 
 department in a government such as this to be in ! 
 
 Two reports were issued by the commission, one by Dr. Bolton, 
 May, 1889, the other by Messrs. Shakespeare and Burrill, dated Aug- 
 ust 1, 1889. By no. political legerdemain can these reports be made 
 to support one another. That of Dr. Bolton is actually largely, but 
 ungenerously, in favor of Dr. Billings' position, as far as Dr. Bolton 
 reports the results of his actual observations, which did not correspond 
 with the reports of the bureau nor with that of the two other persons 
 on the commission. The other report supports the bureau and con- 
 demns me, as far as it dare to, and is. totally false in spirit and gener- 
 ally so in fact. As noted, this "majority" report was placed in the 
 hands of Secretary Rusk August 1, 1889, but it was sent oid as the 
 report of the commission, on slips, to the press of the country by the De- 
 partment of Agriculture, and that of Dr. Bolton ivithheld until pub- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 43 
 
 lished together later. The first impression given to the public was 
 that of the report of Burrill and Shakespeare, and, to use the expres- 
 sion of an editorial friend, " Dr. Billings, you are downed." Soon 
 after, a pamphlet with both reports came out from the department, 
 and that same editor had to take "back water," much to his disgust, 
 and Dr. Billings' stock rose, for it was evident that the reports had 
 been "fixed." (See quotations from the Breeders' Gazette, soon to 
 follow.) 
 
 Was it honorable to send out a misleading and half report when 
 the other half had been in the hands of the secretary of agriculture 
 for some three months previously? Was Mr. Rusk childish enough 
 to think that honesty could be downed by auy such contemptible sub- 
 terfuge? The people of this country are not built that way. 
 
 Does Mr. Rusk read? Has he one person around him on whom he 
 can depend to tell him the truth? For what purpose has he his 
 special agricultural editor? The quotations from the agricultural 
 press of this country and other sources have now been before the 
 world over two years. They do not support the position of Mr. 
 Rusk in his letter to Senator Paddock. They do support Dr. Bil- 
 lings. A competent secretary of agriculture should and would know 
 all these things and not be at the mercy of a subordinate whose meth- 
 ods are anything but commendable. What was this commission to 
 decide ? 
 
 First — As to whether the accusation which I had made, that the 
 announcement that a micrococcus was the cause of swine plague, in 
 the reports of the department from 1880 to 1885 (not including '85) 
 was false and groundless, was justified or not? 
 
 That was a very important point, but neither Commissioner Col- 
 man nor the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry dare face that 
 inquiry, so the question was entirely ignored in the instruction given 
 the commission, and by them in their report; the bureau receiving 
 wholesale endorsement in that respect by all these individuals. The 
 instructions read : 
 
 I desire that the investigations of the board will determine the fol- 
 lowing points : 
 
 (1.) If the diseases of swine investigated by the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry were properly described in the reports of 1885, 1886, and 
 1887, etc. 
 
44 
 
 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 It may be said that in the report for 1885 it had already been an- 
 nounced that "a micrococcus was no longer considered to be the cause 
 of all outbreaks of swine plague," but that was not answering my ac- 
 cusation. Again, it may be said that the reports previous to 1885 
 were not those of the bureau, but the same chief authorized them, 
 and the report of 1884 was the first "Annual Report of the Bureau," 
 and in it did say "that the evidence furnished (in favor of the micro- 
 coccus) was all that was necessary to decide a scientific question of 
 this kind." 
 
 Second — The next question was, was the description of the "New 
 Microbe of Swine Plague," as given in the report of 1885, true or 
 false ? 
 
 That question was never answered. I have shown that it was not 
 only false, but that the germ of swine plague was not demonstrated by 
 a particle of scientific evidence as late as January 7, 1886, and that 
 such demonstration has never yet been given by the bureau, though it 
 undoubtedly had the germ in its possession at that time, but was not 
 sure of it. 
 
 Third — The next question was as to the existence of a second wide- 
 spread swine plague. 
 
 Bolton never saw the germ of it in his investigations while on the 
 board, nor in his work for months in North Carolina, but I believe 
 he was the original discoverer of this most convenient organism. 
 
 Up to to-day we have no reliable evidence from the bureau that this 
 organism even causes a specific local infectious disease in the hogs in 
 this country. That it may cause complications in swine plague dis- 
 eased hogs is true, not only of that germ, but others. 
 
 As I mean this answer to Mr. Rusk to be the ending of my dis- 
 cussion with his department of the swine plague question, and am 
 publishing the data in detail in order to make an historical record of 
 the facts, the reader will be interested in reading in this connection the 
 pamphlet: 
 
 EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS "FIXED." 
 
 It is evident from Mr. Rusk's letter that he should have read this 
 pamphlet, or why should he mention it ? Did he hear of it, only "? 
 It will be at once shown that had he read it, and were he the honest 
 public servant he has been assumed to be, that he would have considered 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 45 
 
 "evidence" which demonstrates that that report was "fixed." Mr. 
 Rusk does not deny that it was not a " fixed " report in his letter to Sen- 
 ator Paddock. He evades an answer and tries to slip out of conscious 
 guilt by asserting that it was an abusive answer on my part, as if one 
 could abuse a contemptible deceiver of the people too much, when such 
 a person is given and accepts a great public trust ! Under any compe- 
 tent and honest government the breaker of such a trust would have had 
 some months' close confinement for abusing the confidence placed in him. 
 While Mr. Rusk read that pamphlet he seems to be so " innocent and 
 bland " as not to have seen that the first person to call attention to the 
 fact that that "report was fixed" was not the writer, but the editor of 
 the Nebraska State Journal, and at the same time president of the 
 Board of Regents of the State University, a gentleman in much bet- 
 ter position to judge of the facts than Mr. Rusk seems to be. 
 The evidence furnished is as follows: 
 
 Under the heading, " The Report Was Fixed," the editor of The 
 Nebraska State Journal, and who is also president of the Board of 
 Regents of the State University, published the following in a late 
 issue : 
 
 "The suggestion made by The Journal after the report of the swine 
 disease commission was published last summer, that some undue in- 
 fluence was exercised on the members thereof to induce them to sup- 
 press all that they had really found out by their protracted investiga- 
 tion, is pretty well borne out by a letter addressed by a member of the 
 commission to Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, Ohio, on the day before the 
 report was published. The letter was as follows : 
 
 " 'Agricultural Experiment Station, 
 " 'University op Illinois, 
 
 " 'Champaign, III., Aug. 13, 1889. 
 
 "'My Dear Dr. Detmers: I suppose you have seen by the 
 papers that the report of the "Board of Inquiry Concerning Diseases 
 of Swine" has been presented to the Washington authorities, and I 
 suppose too that you are disappointed at least in my signing the clause 
 in respect to your early work. Yet I know fully that you would not 
 feel hard if you knew what I did do and what I tried to do and failed. 
 I could not help knowing that the germ you worked with 1878-80 
 was the same as that now held by you to be the cause of the disease 
 you call swine plague. I knew this without examination this last 
 winter. I have not said you are not entitled to priority in this, neither 
 has the board. After a little, wheti the time seems to be proper, I want 
 to say as an individual what I know and what should have been said 
 in this report. 
 
46 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 "'While I could not help doing what was done, I was far from 
 satisfied. 
 
 " 'As to there being two diseases with different germs we were all 
 agreed, but not satisfied as to the commonness of occurrence of the one 
 called swine plague by the Washington folks. We found one out- 
 break away from the east where it had only been found near Wash- 
 ington and Baltimore. It is not probable that it is a prevalent and 
 serious malady, though it seems bad enough when once introduced to 
 a herd. The most that troubled me about it was whether or not it was 
 a peculiar variety of the common germ. But it has so many points of 
 difference and holds them so tenaciously in all process of culture that 
 it seemed to me impossible to consider them as one thing in any sense. 
 This one new outbreak was in Kentucky. I wanted to go back and 
 further study the disease there, but neither had opportunity or per- 
 mission. Hoping to see you soon, I am faithfully yours, 
 
 " «T. J. BlJRRILL.' 
 
 "The language of the letter is positive proof that the commission 
 was making a certain sort of report under compulsion, and as the com- 
 mission was acting under the authority of congress and was paid by 
 an appropriation made by congress, The Journal calls for a congres- 
 sional investigation of that report which has cost the country such a 
 smart sum. 
 
 " Let the committees on agriculture in the senate and the house 
 at once look into the matter and see what screw was loose and see 
 who had sufficient hold on the members of the commission to force a 
 crooked report in favor of Mr. Salmon's alleged 'germs.' Also how 
 it came that the report of the commission was to the effect that there 
 were two 'widespread' infectious swine diseases, with two different 
 germs, when as a matter of fact the commissioner owns up that there 
 was no proof submitted that the so-called 'swine plague' prevailed to 
 any extent anywhere and was not found anywhere except 'near Wash- 
 ington and Baltimore.' Let congress clear up this crookedness at 
 once, for no more important matter can engage the attention of that 
 body just now than that of the diseases of our domestic animals." 
 
 As the editor of The Journal notices, this letter was written by 
 Professor T. J. Burrill on August 13, 1889. Attention has been fre- 
 quently called to the fact that advance sheets of a part of this report 
 only, the so-called " majority report," were sent to certain of the ag- 
 ricultural papers of the country a week or so in advance of the dis- 
 tribution of the complete document ; the public being first informed 
 of it in the issue of the Breeders' Gazette of August 14, 1889, which 
 paper, as well as others, was so misled by this advance flyer, that it 
 had to recede from the tenor of its editorial in its issue of August 14, 
 and in that of August 21 asked some very pertinent questions which 
 have not yet received their answers. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 47 
 
 An interesting question is, why should Professor Burrill feel it 
 necessary to write such a vacillatiugand self-condemnatory letter to Dr. 
 Detmers, even before any part of the report of the commission, of 
 which he was a member, had been given to the public? Is it not 
 positive evidence that Professor Burrill felt the weakness of his posi- 
 tion in that report? Is it not certain that he felt himself guilty of 
 doing a great injustice to Dr. Detmers, as well as to the hog interests 
 of the country ? Does it not show that he really wanted to be an 
 honest man, that really he is one, but that lacking backbone he was 
 forced into doing things directly contrary to his own knowledge of 
 what was true and right? 
 
 Just at this point I desire to publish a letter which especially bears 
 upon this point. It is also directly related to the previous one by 
 Professor Burrill. I telegraphed Professor Burrill August 10, 1889, 
 to know what had become of the Nebraska hogs which the commis- 
 sion took east, and received the following reply : 
 
 " Champaign, III., Aug. 10, 1889. 
 
 "Dear Doctor: Have just answered your telegram to the best of 
 my ability. When I saw the pigs no trial had been made upon the 
 Nebraskans with Salmon's ' swine plague,' and I am quite sure noth- 
 ing was said about it to me by Dr. Shakespeare subsequently. 
 Abundant trial had been made both by feeding and by subcutaneous 
 inoculations tvith the Washington c hog cholera toithout serious effect. 
 None stood the test so well as those Nebraska pigs.' It is, however, 
 quite possible that Dr. Shakespeare has tried ( swine plague ' (Sal- 
 mon's) since our correspondence upon the subject. Have not seen 
 anything in print or report. Am not certain what publicity has 
 been given. The two diseases are acknowledged, the one, however, 
 said to be much more prevalent than the other. No attempt is made 
 in the report to compare European work, though we did have some 
 cultures from abroad. 
 
 "You can understand that it was difficult for separate workers to 
 make a report. Would like to have published full details, but found 
 only certain conclusions could be agreed upon, not always worded as one 
 would do it for himself. At any rate, nothing was considered except 
 what is the fact. 
 
 "Very truly yours, T. J. Burrill." 
 
 From these two letters it is very evident that there was no uni- 
 formity of opinion among the members of that "commission," as also 
 from the minority report of Dr. Bolton, who did not say much in 
 favor of a second " widespread epidemic of hogs in this country," as 
 both Burrill and Shakespeare did in their majority report, where they 
 falsely say: "It is the opinion of the commission, based upon their 
 own individual observations and examinations of the subject, that 
 there are at least two widespread epidemic diseases of hogs in this 
 
48 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 country." The point of importance to the hog raisers hinges upon 
 the words, " two widespread epidemic diseases among hogs in this 
 country/' one of which has been " called by the bureau authorities 
 4 swine plague.' " Attention has been frequently called to the fact 
 that the commission did not examine a single hog in Illinois, Indiana, 
 Iowa, Kansas, or Missouri, and I have asserted time and again that 
 they only examined properly one single hog from a natural outbreak 
 of hog disease in Nebraska, and I have lately been told that they did 
 not make a single examination in Ohio, but simply looked over some 
 of Dr. Detmers' slides and preparations. But to add insult to the 
 injury this commission has endeavored to do the hog owners of the 
 country, we now find, by Professor Burrill's admission in his letter to 
 Dr. Detmers, that this second " widespread epidemic disease among 
 hogs in this country has only been found near Washington and Balti- 
 more," and by the commission " in Kentucky"; but in how many 
 hogs " in Kentucky " we are not informed. We do not know whether 
 it was a herd outbreak or only one or two individuals; in fact, we 
 know nothing about it, and they do not think it of sufficient im- 
 portance to mention it in their report. In fact, not having mentioned 
 this disease in their report, and not having a particle of experimental 
 evidence from the commission in favor of it, we can say that neither 
 as individuals or as a board of inquiry have they given a particle of 
 evidence that they ever saw a case of that disease. Assertions with- 
 out evidence do not count in science. 
 
 On the other hand, we have other evidence that this second " wide- 
 spread epidemic disease" is not an epidemic at all, and nothing but a 
 very occasional complication or disease, which but seldom occurs any- 
 where in the country. In Bulletin No. 6, new series II, July, 1889, 
 on Hog Cholera," of the South Carolina Experiment Station, Dr. Bol- 
 ton says : 
 
 " The following investigations were begun in November last year, 
 and have been continued up to the present time (about seven months). 
 In the course of our work we have visited many widely separated 
 portions of the state and encountered the disease in all its stages." 
 
 We would call especial attention to the last assertion, and hence re- 
 peat it : " In the course of our work we visited many widely separated 
 portions of the state, and encountered the disease in all its stages." 
 This report then says : " In our investigations we have tried to dis- 
 cover the kind of germ or bacteria which caused the disease. We vis- 
 ited various portions of the state and took along all the best apparatus 
 and appliances for our work. Material collected in this way was 
 brought back to the laboratory and thoroughly examined. The germs 
 which we found were cultivated and grown on suitable materials and 
 were tested upon mice, rabbits, and hogs. We obtained them from 
 the liver, spleen, blood, and intestinal organs. In some cases we failed 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 49 
 
 to get any germs at all, and although we obtained, in other cases, sev- 
 eral different kinds, of germs, we have no reason to believe that more 
 than one of them is concerned in the disease." 
 
 It would then seem that examinations of such a character, which 
 extended over a period of about seven months, and to outbreaks in so 
 many parts of the country, added to those made by the author (Dr. 
 Bolton), as a member of the commission, should have been extensive 
 enough to find one single case of the second "widespread epidemic 
 disease," which being "swine plague" should from its name be a pest 
 of great danger to the farmers of this country, but Dr. Bolton's ex- 
 aminations lead, happily, to quite a different result, for in this S. C. 
 report he says, after describing the organisms he found, that " the 
 only organism deserving special attention is one which we regard as 
 identical with the bacillus of hog cholera of Salmon," and in his 
 report, as a member of the commission, he says : 
 
 "During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
 epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed swine plague, in the 
 bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board I 
 studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my at- 
 tention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am therefore 
 unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions in 
 the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great impor- 
 tance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The descriptions 
 otherwise I find correct and well stated. In my investigations as 
 commissioner I have been able to find but one organism, which, in my 
 opinion, caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I regard 
 as identical with the hog-cholera germ described in the reports of the 
 bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As will be 
 inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another organism, 
 correctly described in the reports as the 'swine-plague germ/ is found 
 under circumstances which render it highly probable, if not certain, 
 that it also causes disease. 
 
 "As to whether these two organisms are always present and operate 
 together to cause disease, or whether the two are merely varieties of 
 the same germ, must be decided by future investigation. The differ- 
 ences between them, as pointed out by the bureau, are sufficient to 
 compel us to treat them as different germs, however perplexing it may 
 seem that two micro-organisms are capable of producing such similar 
 or, it may be, identical lesions." 
 
 As to the other organism (Salmon's swine plague), we wish to call 
 attention to some very striking inconsistencies in Dr. Bolton's remarks: 
 First — He thinks it also " causes disease." Suppose it does. There 
 are several other germs which do cause lesions in swine plague (hog 
 cholera), and one which causes very marked lesions, but yet which have 
 no necessary connection with the plague, which they did not discover, 
 4 
 
50 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 though it was shown to them in Nebraska. There is a vast difference 
 between causing a local, non-extending disease and a pest or plague. 
 But Dr. Bolton is not sure even of this, for he says further on that he 
 does not know " whether the two are merely varieties of the same 
 germ" or not. 
 
 Again, in one place he says, "but I am not inclined to attach any 
 great importance to the differences (in the pathological lesions) as set 
 forth in the reports" of the Bureau of Animal Industry, while in an- 
 other he absolutely contradicts himself when he says "the differences 
 between them (hog cholera and Salmon's swine plague) as pointed out by 
 the bureau are sufficient to compel us to test them as different germs, 
 however perplexing it may seem that two germs are capable of pro- 
 ducing such similar or, it may be, identical lesions." 
 
 Now this may at first appear as unintelligible as Choctaw to some of 
 our readers, but a little close reading will show that two members of this 
 commission were having a very severe struggle with their consciences 
 while making their report. In a late publication on swine diseases by 
 Professor Welch, of Johns Hopkins, he asserts that not a single un- 
 doubted epizootic outbreak of this second swine plague has yet been 
 seen in this country. 
 
 And Salmon said, in his address before the National Swine Breed- 
 ers' Association, "then there is the germ in hog cholera, a disease 
 widely distributed, generally extremely fatal, and probably productive 
 of the greater part of the loss which falls upon the hog raisers." 
 
 After such an admission, is it not self-evident that the government 
 is misrepresenting when it talks about a "widespread epidemic disease" 
 which it calls "swine plague?" 
 
 To return to Professor Burrill's letter to Dr. Detmers, upon a point 
 which would have neither interest nor value to the farmers, did it not 
 show most conclusively that Professor Burrill was terribly conscious 
 that he had given his support to a false statement. What matters it 
 to the farmers who first discovered the germ of hog cholera ? Cer- 
 tainly nothing. But if a man can give false evidence in one direction, 
 it is to be assumed that his veracity cannot be trusted in any other. 
 
 Why should Professor Burrill have been so anxious to apologize to 
 Dr. Detmers for his actions, even before the report had been given to 
 the public? 
 
 It may not be known to but few of our readers that Professor Bur- 
 rill worked more or less with Dr. Detmers when the latter was study- 
 ing swine plague at Champaign, 111., and this is why Burrill wrote 
 Detmers : " I cannot help knowing that the germ you worked with 
 1878-80 was the same as that now held by you to be the cause of the 
 disease you call swine plague. I knew this without examination this 
 last winter. I have not said that you are not entitled to priority in 
 this, neither has the board." 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 51 
 
 Let us see what they did say: 
 
 " It is the opinion of the commission that the microbe that Dr. Det- 
 mers at present regards as the specific cause of 'hog cholera ' is prob- 
 ably the same microbe which is considered by the bureau authorities 
 as the specific cause of hog cholera ; but, according to the present 
 requirements of bacterial research and interpretation, it is impossible 
 to declare that the organism as described by him in his reports pub- 
 lished by the Department of Agriculture was the same thing." 
 
 Dr. Bolton says about the same thing. But these men knew that 
 they were giving rise to a false impression in order to support the 
 tottering fabric of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which they did as 
 follows : 
 
 "It is the opinion of the commission, based upon their own indi- 
 vidual observations and examinations of the subject, that there are at 
 least two widespread epidemic diseases of hogs in this country, which 
 are caused by different micro-organisms, but which have clinical 
 history and pathological lesions more or less similar, and very diffi- 
 cult to distinguish without the aid of a microscope and resort to 
 bacteriological methods; and that these two epidemic diseases have 
 been fairly well described in the recent annual reports of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry." 
 
 In all honesty a man's work must be judged by the light of his 
 time, and if, as Burrill admits, Dr. Detmers did have the same germ 
 in 1878-80, then the latter should have full credit for it, and all 
 honest investigators have cheerfully given such credit where it was 
 deserved, as in the case of Brauel and Pollender, who discovered the 
 germ of Anthrax in 1855 and 1857, respectively, and is the case to- 
 day as regards the noted Robert Koch and his germ of human cholera. 
 But Salmon seems to have been fully satisfied with the verdict of rite 
 commission in the case, for he says, in a late publication : 
 
 "To my mind it is not the discovery of the germ in the liquids of 
 affected animals which entitles a man to credit, but it is the isolation 
 of the pathogenic species, its accurate description and the production 
 of experimental evidence to show that it causes the disease." 
 
 The bureau has not yet given any such exact evidence in support of 
 its position in swine plague or any other disease that it has investi- 
 gated. 
 
 This is all very true ; but supposing the discovery and description 
 are such that any honest man can and must recognize their correctness, 
 what then, when modern methods of isolation and experimentation 
 had not been developed ? 
 
 Again we ask, had Brauel and Pollender done any of these things 
 with bacillus anthracis? Has Robert Koch completed these condi- 
 tions beyond question with his celebrated " komma " ? Has Dr. Sal- 
 mon given one single description of the germ of hog cholera which 
 
52 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 did not "differentiate" from some other given by the same author? 
 But we forgot. Dr. Salmon now admits that he has done absolutely 
 nothing, and though the "commission" almost strangled themselves 
 to give him credit, he now washes his hands of all credit and blame 
 and puts it on an unfortunate scarcely mentioned in any of the reports 
 up to that time, and absolutely not in connection with the discovery 
 of any germ. 
 
 Dr. Salmon does it in this manly and honorable manner in the 
 Journal of Comparative 'Medicine, January 1, 1890 : 
 
 " I may add here, that while the investigations have been directed 
 by me, and have been carried out according to my plans, all the re- 
 ports from 1885 to 1889, inclusive, so far as they relate to experi- 
 ments, bacteriological observations and post-mortem examinations, have 
 been written by Dr. Smith, and, consequently, all the criticisms of 
 their contents aimed at me, personally, fall flat, because I am neither 
 their author nor have I made any change in the record of observa- 
 tion." 
 
 Why, then, did this same Dr. Salmon say in the same journal 
 April, 1888: 
 
 "I have sent to the leading investigators of Europe cultures of the 
 germ of hog cholera, together with copies of my report," and again in 
 the same place: "Early in 1886 I published a series of articles, in 
 which I demonstrated that hog cholera was a distinct disease and a 
 very different disease from rouget or rothlauf," which fact he only 
 copied from the work of Schiitz and Loeffler in Germany, published 
 many months previously? Why then is the "I" of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry so suddenly attended with this wonderful degree of 
 modesty aud self-abnegation ? 
 
 It would be interesting to the public to know what manner of man 
 this Dr. Smith can be to thus be made a tool and foot-ball of by the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. 
 
 That is the whole of that document. One wonders if Secretary 
 Rusk really ever read a word of it? What can he say to Burrill's 
 letter to Dr. Detmers? Is there not sufficient evidence in that letter, 
 that something was ' fixed,' to condemn any man pretending to be a 
 scientist to everlasting condemnation? Must the country take this 
 as a fair and honest sample of the kind of men Mr. Rusk supports 
 in office ? Mr. Rusk in his letter tells us that this is the kind he 
 believes in. He tells us that I attacked " the honesty and veracity of 
 the honorable scientific gentlemen composing the commission." Mr. 
 Rusk's judgment of what is honorable and true must be somewhat 
 biased. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 53 
 
 " After a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to say as an 
 individual what I know and ivhat should have been said in this report.' 7 
 Professor Burrill said that of the May report to which he put his 
 name. He also said : " While I could not help what ivas done, I was 
 far from satisfied." 
 
 "After a little" is now almost three years, and still the world waits 
 for Burrill to tell "what I know" which would be especially apt at 
 this time. It will never be told. Burrill dare not tell the truth. He 
 could not stay in his position did he do so. Does any one doubt that 
 the members of that board were ' fixed.' Does any one think that 
 Burrill and Shakespeare ever made that report as printed ? It is not 
 a scientific report. It is a mass of assertions unsupported by an iota 
 of evidence in any single direction. It is a political lie from end to 
 end. The government cannot support it. Secretary Rusk endorses it. 
 
 Who is Secretary Rusk as an authority? Let us see what those 
 who have read the report, and are competent to express an opinion, 
 have said. 
 
EEVIEWS 
 
 Leading Live Stock Papers of the West 
 
 iminent Scientific Publications 
 
 REPORTS OF THE "BOARD OF INQUIRY. 
 
 (55) 
 
EVIDENCE THAT RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES AND 
 EDITORS OF AGRICULTURAL JOURNALS ENDORSE 
 DR. BILLINGS' OPINION. 
 
 To any one acquainted with the inside history of this controversy 
 between Dr. Billings and the Agricultural Department at Washington, 
 it is evident that the secretary of agriculture has been misled or is 
 entirely ignorant of the opinions that have been expressed as to the 
 report of that now notorious Board of Inquiry. That that "report" 
 was never accepted, either by a single medical authority who has taken 
 pains to read the whole literature or investigate the subject, or by a 
 single honorable live stock or agricultural journal, is a fact so notori- 
 ous that the silence in its favor is appalling. In order to enlighten 
 the secretary of agriculture and the public, the following evidence, 
 which is believed to be all there is or has been published, is herewith 
 given : 
 
 The Agricultural Department of the United States named a com- 
 mission, composed of Shakespeare, Burrill, and Bolton, to settle the 
 question between Salmon and Billings, in connection with the pestifer- 
 ous diseases of swine in the country, and to make proper investigation, 
 and report on the same. The commission could not complete the task 
 in the time given them, which fact they mention in their report. 
 Nevertheless the government published the report, and accepted its 
 conclusions. The individual experiences of the commission in the 
 diseases in question are small, especially insufficient, and of extremely 
 problematical value are they in relation to the " swine plague " (Sal- 
 mon's) or infectious pneumonia. Notwithstanding the assertion of the 
 commissioners that they based their conclusions on personal observa- 
 tions, and notwithstanding certain positive statements in their "con- 
 clusions," the report gives the impression of uncertainty for want of 
 certainty and a sufficient scientific foundation. The conclusions 
 appear, therefore, to be statements which have only the worth of in- 
 sufficiently founded suppositions, as their correctness cannot be sub- 
 stantiated except with difficulty. * * * As to the priority of the 
 discovery of the germ, and the quality of the scientific work, the 
 commission took the side of Salmon as against Billings, but also took 
 
 (57) 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 care to mention that the government could go on with the work with- 
 out any outside help. Billings' preventive inocculation finds acknowl- 
 edgment between the lines. — (Jahresbericht uber die Fortschritte in 
 der Lehre-Pathogenen Mikro-organismen, Baumgarten, 1889 — Annual 
 Report on the Progress in the Study of Pathogenic Germs, 1889, p. 
 178.) 
 
 In remarks on some of Billings' publications while in Chicago, the 
 succeeding Jahresbericht, 1890, says: 
 
 These and other things form the introduction of a pamphlet (by 
 Billings) against the assertion of the swine plague commission that his 
 methods were not correct. He justifies the methods that he used, the 
 spleen of swine, to gain cultures from, and demonstrates that it was 
 carefully done, so that it appears as if no possible objections could 
 be raised against it. Billings blames, apparently with justice, the 
 commission for treating the subject in a very superficial manner, so far 
 as his laboratory and his work was concerned. (P. 185.) 
 
 In a very careful and critical review not only of the American 
 swine plague literature, but also a detailed comparative study of the 
 germs of the true American swine plague (not Salmon's) with those 
 of swine plague (European) and other diseases of Europe, Dr. P. Frosch, 
 assistant to Robert Koch in the Laboratory of Hygiene, Berlin, Ger- 
 many, published his conclusions as follows : 
 
 1. The bacterium of hog cholera (Salmon) and swine plague (Bil- 
 lings) are identical. 
 
 2. The same is the cause of the American swine plague, while the 
 proof of the etiological (causal) connection to this pest, of Salmon's 
 germ of swine plague, that is for the existence of a second (" wide- 
 spread epizootic disease " ) plague of equal extent is not sufficient to 
 warrant such a conclusion. — (Archiv fur Hygiene, Vol. 9, p. 279.) 
 
 On page 247 of same journal, and in the same article, Frosch says: 
 
 All these circumstances (previously considered in detail), that is the 
 appearance of cholera and swine plague (Salmon) in the same animal 
 and the same outbreak, and the same time, the presence of still other 
 germs in the organ of the deceased animals, and the fact that in such 
 cases reference is made to chronically diseased hogs, as well as the re- 
 sults of the inoculation experiments, justify the assumption that the 
 swine plague bacterium of Salmon is an accidental presence in chronic 
 cases of hog cholera, for which any idio-pathogenic relation to another 
 pest not sufficient evidence has yet been produced. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 59 
 
 As the members of the Swine Plague Commission saw fit to con- 
 demn the methods by which they supposed I worked all the time, and 
 did say I worked with at the time, as they brought the best practical- 
 results, it may be well to state what an entire outsider has to say on 
 the methods of investigation as published by the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry in its own reports. On this point Frosch says: 
 
 The most important results must be those obtained in swine by 
 the inoculation of undoubtedly pure cultures of the hog-cholera (S.) 
 bacterium, because in that way only can the specificity of the organ- 
 ism be proven. But it is directly in this relation that one meets with 
 essential insufficiencies (in the government work). Notwithstanding 
 the numerous experiments made by Salmon with pieces of organs 
 and heart's-blood, etc., of diseased swine, still those made with pure 
 cultures of the germ are made prominent by their scarcity and gen- 
 erally negative character. The small number of these positive results 
 would not call forth any objections as to their value were it not that 
 they do not fulfill those conditions which are essential in deciding 
 questions of this kind. Of the experiments detailed in reports of 
 1885 and 1886, there is not one which can be said to be free from 
 objections. The cause of the same lies, first, \u the fact that the 
 order of the experiments was not correctly arranged, the control ani- 
 mals dying first in two cases and at the same time in a third ; while 
 in the feeding experiments of the same year control animals are not 
 mentioned. A second very essential objection to the method pursued 
 by Salmon is the manner he went to work to obtain the pure cultures, 
 * * * the consequences of such an unscientific method are to be dis- 
 tinctly seen in the report itself, when mixed with the inoculated germs, 
 other "large" or "fine" bacilli are mentioned as being present. The 
 best proof of the unscientific character of his method is given by Salmon 
 himself in the assertion that cholera and swine plague can occur in the 
 same animal, a connction which absolutely demands in each case the 
 use of the plate method. (Ibid, p. 243.) 
 
 To this detailed study and exact report of Dr. Frosch's the gov- 
 ernment investigators most seriously objected, as would be natural, and 
 one of them made reply thereto in the same Archiv (Zeitschrift fur 
 Hygiene, Vol. 10.) To the same, Frosch answered as follows : 
 
 The foregoing article by Dr. Theobald Smith, and especially his 
 comments on a contribution of my own, induces me to once again 
 place my position regarding the American swine plague clearly before 
 the world. To begin at once with the point that seems to have mostly 
 irritated Smith, I do not think that any one but he can find in my 
 former article any special partiality or unjust discrimination in favor 
 
60 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 of the investigations of F. S. Billings. Such an estimate of my con- 
 tribution to the question is only possible to a person who has cursorily 
 read the same, or who is profoundly ignorant of the character of the 
 hygienic institute at Berlin, and the work which is done therein. 
 
 As I declared in the beginning of my previous article, the reception 
 of the cultures from Billings at this institute, and the request of Prof. 
 Koch, led me to enter upon the study of the American swine plague. 
 The task which I had to undertake was not, as Smith appears to be- 
 lieve, to decide as to whom belonged the most or earliest credit for 
 work done, but to see how far, from a purely scientific point of view, 
 the solution of the real question of the etiology of this disease had 
 been advanced, which, at the time, seemed to be buried in darkness,, 
 in cousequence of contradictory publications. 
 
 That I should depend more upon my own investigations with the- 
 cultures at my disposal than upon the investigations of Billings should 
 not be questioned by Smith. That I should refer to the investigations 
 of Billings, after assuring myself of the identity of his germ and 
 Salmon's hog cholera germ, in order to decide as to the pathogenity 
 (disease-producing power) of the germs in swine, was forced by Smith 
 himself, for, much as I regret to have to repeat it, the methods and ex- 
 periments published in the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry: 
 \l885 to 1887-8) do not correspond to the scientific conditions necessary 
 to the establishment of a new infectious disease in a manner to be de- 
 sired. 
 
 It is by no means necessary for me to repeat what I said in my 
 previous publication, as Smith admits it, in regard to the report of 
 1885, and, on the other hand, the superficial investigations described 
 in the other reports display so little exclusion and exact employment 
 of Koch's methods to correspond with the importance of the assertion 
 of the appearance of a new exciter of infection (germ) closely related 
 to the swine plague. 
 
 I might here call attention to the fact that even in the work of 
 Smith, described in his article in this issue of the Zeitschrift, the 
 method for differentiating the two germs, the employment of the hang- 
 ing drop, is not sufficiently reliable. 
 
 Smith also seems to complain that I have considered the mentioned 
 reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry too closely after the stand 
 point of to-day. Even though we may have to-day new ideas of what 
 a pure culture should be, or substantially other methods of obtaining 
 the same than formerly, still it was perfectly justifiable to prove the 
 case as to how the earlier results of the bureau correspond with these 
 newer ideas. 
 
 As shown in my previous publication, it is evident from the report 
 of the bureau that at that time Koch's methods were well known there, 
 and I do not think that it is demanding too much of the bacteriolo- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 61 
 
 ■gists of the bureau to assume that they are acquainted with the meth- 
 ods as published in their reports. 
 
 As to the slur upon Billings' work in Smith's publication, I can 
 -safely leave it to the former investigator to consider them. I have 
 only to refer here to his inoculation experiments in swine, to which I 
 :am inclined to give full credit as reliable evidence, because Billings 
 emphasizes the control of the pure cultures used in the same by other 
 •cultivating tests. 
 
 The number of these experiments was sufficiently great to demon- 
 strate the infectiousness of the germs and their specific characteristics. 
 -"Smith neglects to observe that the experiments quoted by Billings 
 were specially selected out of a great number. I find it remarkable 
 that Smith should question these twelve published experiments of 
 Billings, the value of which is beyond doubt. 
 
 The inference (by Smith) that I allowed Billings' publication to in- 
 fluence me in the consideration of Salmon's swine plague by no means 
 •corresponds with the facts. For judging this question I have referred 
 to the publications of the bureau on the assumption that in these offi- 
 cial reports the most reliable material must be found. 
 
 In regard to the question as to whether the Salmon swine plague 
 germ is an independent cause of a specific disease, I cannot change my 
 previously expressed opinion. How far I am right can best be judged 
 by reading Smith's publication in this journal. 
 
 As will be remembered, Salmon, supporting himself on the German 
 :Schweine-seuche, distinctly and emphatically asserted the existence of 
 an independent plague and at the same time united with the hog chol- 
 •era, which had the same degree of extension over the country. 
 
 Judged by the investigations published in the reports of the bureau, 
 -we find but proportionately few cases, and these not free from objec- 
 tions, of the appearance of a disease-producing germ in chronic cases 
 of hog cholera. The conditions closely resemble those seen in certain 
 infectious diseases of man, where the secondary appearance of patho- 
 genic germs has long been observed, without any one asserting them 
 to be independent causal moments, or the cause of extensive epidemics. 
 
 The last two cases reported by Smith in favor of his swine plague 
 •do not give evidence which sufficiently excludes the concomital exist- 
 ance of hog cholera also. At the same time and the same place, sev- 
 eral swine are reported to have died from the cholera. 
 
 The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
 passed since the second plague was first announced, not one single case 
 ■of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
 ported which can be said to be free from objections. 
 
 The mistaken 'Conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
 vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on swine 
 jplague and hog cholera, have his name, and, as such have been quoted 
 ■in the literature. 
 
62 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not be 
 seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it is 
 evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera germ 
 or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condition of things 
 in that regard. 
 
 An American reviewer of the entire question, so far as it pertains- 
 to the publication of the Agricultural Department, and the report of 
 the Board of Inquiry, says : 
 
 We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the reports 
 of the Department of Agriculture, line by line, and word for word; we 
 have carefully examined the plates accompanying these reports to which 
 he refers, and we have also read the entire context from which he quotes,, 
 in order to avoid any possible bias, which may follow from reading dis- 
 connected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say that all of Dr* 
 Billings' charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are true and just, 
 and ice cannot understand hoiv the committee appointed to investigate 
 the special question involved could fail to make the same examination, 
 to arrive at the s ime result, and to publish that result in calm, judicious 
 language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billings, or of criticism of 
 Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded from this point 
 of view, the report of that committee is the most disappointing document 
 of the kind we have ever seen. This toe may say ivithout intimating, as 
 Dr. Billings does, that its authors were under the control of the "Bu- 
 reaucratic Whip." 
 
 The charges made by Dr. Billings, expressed in more conventional 
 language than he employs himself, are that Dr. Salmon's bacteriolog- 
 ical work is not expert, that he described a germ of swine plague when 
 he had no such a germ in his possession, that he has printed assertions 
 without scientific evidence to sustain them. He even states directly 
 that one micro-organism as described by Dr. Salmon was evolved from 
 the inner consciousness of that gentleman, and designates this proced- 
 ure by a term to be found in the criminal code, and not usually em- 
 ployed in scientific discussion, however applicable it might be regarded 
 in one sense to evidence, which Dr. Billings states to have been delib- 
 erately made up for the occasion. 
 
 Regarding the bacteriological question involved, we would be in- 
 clined to suspend judgment, were it not for two sets of facts First, 
 the evasions of the " Board of Inquiry;" second, the gross logical 
 errors and inherent contradictions of Salmon's writings. The latter are 
 glaring. It would not have hurt Dr. Salmon's reputation had he, on 
 being convinced of errors in his methods or conclusions, candidly ac- 
 knowledged them, and accepted the corrections furnished by others 
 and verified by himself. Men of a real rank in the scientific hierarchy 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 63 
 
 like Vircliow, Klein, Koch, and others, — and Dr. Billings here sets 
 his opponent an example worth imitating — (No. Ill, pp. 50-53) — have 
 not hesitated to acknowledge mistakes, such as the most honest and 
 able investigators are liable to in experimental science, as well as in 
 interpreting or quoting the results of others. But Dr. Salmon has 
 preferred to gloss over the matter, and in order to sustain a claim to 
 priority at the expense of another, and to conceal the fact that he 
 adopted the corrections of others, has involved himself in a labyrinth 
 of contradictions ; the inevitable consequence of misrepresentations, be 
 they intentional or unintentional. Which of the two classes Dr. Sal- 
 mon's belongs to, no one who reads Dr. Billings' pamphlet and verifies 
 its citations can for a moment doubt. — [Journal Comp. Med., Vol. X, 
 p. ^99.) 
 
 Again the same reviewer says: 
 
 Regarding the bacteriological side of the question, the commission 
 is equally unfortunate, and although the majority report claims that 
 on the substantial point a dissenting minority report by Professor 
 Bolton is in accord with their own, we do not think our readers will 
 agree with them. Professor Bolton says : 
 
 " During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
 epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed "swine plague" in 
 the bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board 
 I studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my at- 
 tention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am therefore 
 unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions in 
 the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great impor- 
 tance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The description 
 otherwise I find correct and well stated. In my investigations as 
 commissioner I have been able to find but one organism which in my 
 opinion caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I regard as 
 identical with the hog cholera germ described in the reports of the 
 bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As will be 
 inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another organism, 
 correctly described in the reports as the "swine plague germ," is found 
 under circumstances which render it highly probable, if not certain, 
 that it also causes disease. As to whether these two organisms are 
 always present and operate together to cause disease, or whether the 
 two are merely varieties of the same germ, must be decided by future 
 investigation." 
 
 The main report insists that there are at least two widespread, dis- 
 tinct diseases which are caused by distinct micro-organisms. If this 
 is what the committee calls agreeing, we would like to know what dis- 
 agreement is. Who will be in doubt for a moment as to who, or what, 
 induced Professor Bolton to write the last few lines of his report. 
 
64 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 They are merely loop-holes for the escape of the man through whose 
 hands the report went. Whether pity or courtesy were Professor Bol- 
 ton's motives, he owed a higher duty to the country than to Dr. Sal- 
 mon ; we regret that he was not less ambiguous in expressing his con- 
 victions, although as contrasted with the majority report we have 
 occasion to be grateful for even this much. 
 
 FOOLING THE SWINE BREEDERS. 
 
 There is a well-developed and continually growing belief among 
 the great body of American swine breeders that they have been badly 
 fooled recently — in short, they are commencing to look upon that 
 meagre report of the so-called special commission on diseases of swine 
 as a fiasco of the first water. 'Twas with not a little satisfaction that 
 they regarded the appointment of the said commission. Were high- 
 toned scientists to be relied upon the material of the board was surely 
 satisfactory, and an appropriation of $30,000 for their expenses seemed 
 ample to produce tangible results. 
 
 When the august body got into line of work December, 1888, swine 
 breeders the country over were perfectly willing to wait until April 1 
 for the momentous findings expected. When April fool's day came 
 they were, according to the custom of the day, fooled. The report 
 came not. Premonitory rumblings of the approaching verdict were 
 now and again heralded through the press. The mountain of scien- 
 tific knowledge — the Parnassus of bacteriological learning — travailed 
 in labor and brought forth — a mouse! The insignificance of the com- 
 mission's production, so far as its intrinsic value to a long-suffering 
 fraternity of breeders was concerned, was certainly in the proportion 
 indicated, and any iota of value it may have contained was destroyed 
 by the deceptive method of its publication. 
 
 A "boiling down" editorial bureau had been established at Wash- 
 ington and the commission's report was probably the initial work it 
 edited. The press of the country looked for assistance from the said 
 •editorial bureau, and prepared itself implicitly to receive and publish 
 as official and authentic the edited advance proofs the said bureau was 
 paid to disseminate. Thus when about the second week of August a 
 publication purporting to be the true and correct finding of the swine 
 commission arrived from Washington, it was immediately published 
 in full and commented on as the in extenso report. The Farmer's 
 Review was not fooled, but in a short editorial outlined the weaknesses 
 of the report, and since then has had no occasion to change its asser- 
 tions. They will, however, bear considerable elaboration. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture editor, or mayhap some one more 
 closely interested in the verdict of the commission, sent out the pre- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 65 
 
 liminary portion of the report with an explanatory introduction in 
 which ocecurred the following statement: 
 
 "We subjoin here the conclusions attached to the report of the com- 
 mission, and signed, owing to the absence of Prof. Bolton, by Dr. 
 Shakespeare and Prof. Burrill. Prof. Bolton, however, furnishes a 
 supplementary report practically confirming the report of his two col- 
 leagues." 
 
 The italics are our own, used to emphasize the assertions that Prof. 
 Bolton's report confirmed that of the other commissioners. We shall 
 see whether that was the case; but first let us ask why, believing 
 this, Prof. Bolton's report was not sent out at the same time with the 
 conclusions signed by Professors Shakespeare and Burrill? That it 
 was not, leaves the swine breeder to accept the unpleasant inference 
 that it was held back to give the conclusions the most favorable 
 character as concerning Dr. Salmon and his Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry. 
 
 This subterfuge has, however, proved unavailing. It has been re- 
 coiled in hurtful strength upon those who employed it. The ire of 
 the breeders and of the bulldozed press has been aroused since receiv- 
 ing the official report in full, of which Professor Bolton's contribution 
 is perhaps the most important portion. The result must and certainly 
 will be an unanimous demand for clean work in high places, for just 
 value for public money spent, and for actual, honest, practical research 
 in behalf of the inestimable important swine industry of this country. 
 
 As mentioned in a previous editorial in these columns, the commis- 
 sion's conclusions, as sent out by either the editorial bureau at Wash- 
 ington, Dr. Salmon, or the Bureau of Animal Industry, declare that 
 there are two prevalent diseases of swine in this country, i. e., "hog 
 cholera" and Dr. Salmon's "swine plague." The former disease has 
 in all conscience been bad enough. Our swine have had a sufficiently 
 damaging character given them as regards disease. The industry has 
 been hurt thereby. Germauy, for instance, has barred out our pork, 
 presumably on account of disease. The patriotic authorities at Wash- 
 ington surely forgot these things when they, with all their power of 
 official advertising, solemnly declare that another serious disease is 
 rife among: our hoars. The breeders will thank them for this, doubtless. 
 They will regard their $30,000 well spent in accomplishing such re- 
 sults. They will appreciate government aid in fostering their interests. 
 They will admire the self-conceited confidence of a commission which, 
 nothing daunted, proclaims to the wide world a new disease among 
 our hogs without offering one solitary fact to substantiate the baneful 
 assertion. Time will show what they really think. 
 
 And Prof. Bolton confirms this advertising of "swine plague," does 
 he? Let us see. A comparison of the "conclusions" of Profs. 
 Shakespeare and Burrill, with the independent minority report of 
 5 
 
66 
 
 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Prof. Bolton, re " swine plague," will enable the swine breeder to ar- 
 rive at a correct conception of the truth of the matter. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 It is the opinion of the commission, 
 based upon their own individual obser- 
 vations and examinations of the sub- 
 ject, that there are at least tiuo widespread 
 epidemic diseases of hogs in this country 
 which are caused by different micro- 
 organisms, but which have a clinical his- 
 tory and pathological lesions more or 
 less similar and very difficult to distin- 
 guish without the aid of the microscope, 
 and resort to bacteriological methods. 
 * * So far as the knowledge and the 
 observation of the commission go, one 
 of the epidemic diseases, viz., that 
 called by the authorities " swine plague," 
 appears to be far less prevalent than the 
 other, which has been named by them 
 "hog cholera." The commission are 
 further of the opinion that the disease 
 called by the authorities at Washington 
 "hog cholera " is caused by the specific 
 action of a certain microbe named by 
 them "the hog cholera germ," which 
 has certain characteristics of form, size, 
 movement, mode of growth in artificial 
 cultures, and action upon certain lower 
 animals, and taken together enable one 
 to distinguish it from the other microbes 
 which have been described from time to 
 time by various authorities as present 
 in swine disease; and that the descrip- 
 tions of this microbe and its peculiari- 
 ties, as set forth in recent annual re- 
 ports of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
 try, are fairly accurate. The commission 
 are of the opinion, although to a less 
 positive degree, that the epidemic disease 
 called by the bureau authorities "swine 
 plague" has as its specific cause a cer- 
 tain microbe possessing characteristics 
 which have been fairly well described 
 in recent annual reports of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry, which distinguish 
 it both biologically and pathologically 
 from the first mentioned " germ of hog 
 cholera." 
 
 If these two reports corroborate each other we fail to see it, and we 
 feel sure that breeders find themselves in the same position. 
 
 In addition to getting up this wholly unwarranted "swine plague" 
 scare the commission seeks to throw cold water on legitimate and praise- 
 worthy attempts to prevent "hog cholera" by inoculation with care- 
 
 PEOF. BOLTON'S REPORT. 
 
 During my work as commissioner I 
 have failed to meet with an epizootic which 
 lam satisfied was what is termed "swine 
 plague" in the bureau reports, though 
 previous to my appointment on the 
 board I studied one such outbreak. In 
 this case, however, I directed my atten- 
 tion to the bacteriological questions ex- 
 clusively, and I am therefore unable to 
 pronounce on the difference in the path- 
 ological lesions in the two diseases. But 
 I am not inclined to attach any great im- 
 portance to these differences as set forth 
 in the reports. The descriptions, other- 
 wise, I find correct and well stated. In 
 my investigations as commissioner / 
 have been able to find but one organism 
 which in my opinion caused the out- 
 breaks under examination, and that I 
 regard as identical with the hog cholera 
 germ described in the reports of the bu- 
 reau, but I find the descriptions therein 
 given correct. As will be inferred from 
 what has gone before, I feel sure that an- 
 other organism, correctly described in the 
 reports as the "swine plague germ," is 
 found under circumstances which ren- 
 der it highly probable, if not ceitain, 
 that it also causes disease. As to 
 whether these two organisms are always 
 present and operate together to cause 
 disease, or whether the two are merely 
 varieties of the same germ, must be de- 
 cided by future investigation. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 67 
 
 fully prepared virus of the disease. Totally unable to destroy pigs thus 
 inoculated, either by exposing them to an outbreak of cholera, or by 
 feeding them with germ cultures, it warns breeders against inoculation 
 as a preventive on the grounds that it may tend to spread the disease. 
 The points made against inoculation are those long recognized and 
 time and time again written about by Dr. Billings, who considers them 
 of little moment if proper precautions are taken in carying out inocu- 
 lation. 
 
 The fact that the inoculated pigs from Nebraska proved immune 
 against hog cholera, as demonstrated by the commission, is practically 
 the only valuable thing given to the public in return for the $30,000 
 expended. 
 
 The swine-breeding fraternity cares little or nothing about the pros 
 and cons of learned squabbles about germs. It is interested in find- 
 ing some method of preventing or alleviating the heavy annual loss 
 from swine disease. Naturally enough it has looked to the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry for help in this direction, but for the thousands upon 
 thousands of dollars spent presumably in their interests they have 
 reaped not a single original fact of real practical value in their every- 
 day business. Time, indeed, that the work of such a bureau was thor- 
 oughly inquired into! Or, better still, that the government should 
 recognize the fact that little but unintelligible bulletin publishing 
 has hitherto been accomplished, and that the time has arrived when 
 practical work is imperative. 
 
 Let the swine breeders of America unanimously demand such work. 
 Let them hang no longer upon the words of false prophets or consent to 
 be blindly led by the blind. Write off as lost the vast sums of money 
 already expended in the research of swine diseases, and commence 
 anew, and that now. The bureau has demonstrated its inability under 
 its present head to serve the swine-breeding industry. Commissions 
 are evidently a delusion and a snare. Other means and methods must 
 be employed, and it is for the swine breeders of the country to demand 
 the change in no uncertain voice. 
 
 Let the best men to be found the world over be employed forthwith, 
 if possible, not as special commissioners, but each in his individual 
 capacity, to investigate swine diseases in the different parts of this 
 country. Let each man work for his own honor at the expense of the 
 government, and offer them inducements for the discovery of disease 
 cures or preventives. In this way good results will speedily be 
 arrived at in place of voluminous and valueless bulletins offered to the 
 long-suffering public in place of tangible duties performed at the pub- 
 lic expense. 
 
 The Farmers' Review has come to the conclusion that swine breeders 
 must put a stop to this fooling they have been subjected to, and de- 
 mand and obtain the government aid, in regard to swiue diseases, which 
 
68 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 is their right. This matter is one which demands united, energetic,, 
 enthusiastic agitation. Let the breeders strike while the iron is hot. — 
 (Farmers' Review, Chicago.) 
 
 A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION. 
 
 " The Report of the United States Board of Inquiry Concerning 
 Epizootic Deseases Among Swine" — the conclusions of which were 
 submitted last week — has been received. 
 
 The letter of instruction to these gentlemen, signed by Commis- 
 sioner Colman, was unmistakably drawn to direct the investigations of 
 the scientists to the points at issue between the Department of Agricul- 
 ture on the one hand, in the persons of Dr. Salmon and his assistants, and 
 the Universities of Nebraska and Ohio on the other, as represented by 
 Dr. Billings and Dr. Detmers. The commission was specifically charged 
 to determine whether the work of the department was accurate and orig- 
 inal, both of which points were in controversy raised by Drs. Billings 
 and Detmers. That done, independent investigations were to be under- 
 taken. The disputes between the doctors named who have been 
 engaged in this line of investigation involved several points in bacterio- 
 logical research — with which the Gazette and other laymen have noth- 
 ing to do — and a vastly more important issue — whether there are one 
 or two distinct swine plagues. The department affirmed there are 
 t w0 — the one "hog cholera," with its specific germ, and the seat of 
 the disease in the intestines; the other, which is named "swine plague,"" 
 with a distinct germ, the resultant disease of which finds lodgment in 
 the lungs. The other investigators denied the existence of more than 
 one disease and one germ, claiming that the work of this pest germ 
 was at times manifest in the intestines, at others in the lungs, accord- 
 ing to certain conditions. ■ 
 
 Such was the chief subject of dispute. As stated in our last issue,, 
 on all points raised, the commission has determined in the depart- 
 ment's favor. And yet there is an iudefiniteness about its report that 
 is very unsatisfactory. It declares that there are two widespread epi- 
 demic diseases of hogs, and that their description by the bureau are 
 fairly accurate, " except it does not appear that ' hog cholera ' of these 
 reports can be said to have its special and exclusive seat in the digest- 
 ive tract of the animal as distinct from the lungs." In view of all 
 the circumstances this appears to be a very significant exception. 
 "Swine plague" — the "new" disease — is pronounced far less preva- 
 lent than "hog cholera." After confirming the department's conclu- 
 sions as to ''hog cholera" and its germ, the commission turns its 
 attention to the other diseases thus : 
 
 " The commission are also of the opinion, although in a less positive 
 degree, that the epidemic disease called by the bureau authorities 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 69 
 
 v swine plague ' has as its specific cause a certain microbe possessing 
 characteristics which have been fairly well described in recent annual 
 reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which distinguish it both 
 biologically and pathologically from the first mentioned 'germ of hog 
 cholera.' " 
 
 Is this the language in which science affirms its conclusions — " to a 
 less positive degree"? Again, Dr. Bolton, the third member of the 
 commission — who files a supplementary report — submits the following : 
 
 "During my work as commissioner I have failed to meet with an 
 epizootic which I am satisfied was what is termed 'swine plague' in 
 the bureau reports, though previous to my appointment on the board 
 I studied one such outbreak. In this case, however, I directed my 
 attention to the bacteriological questions exclusively, and I am there- 
 fore unable to pronounce on the difference in the pathological lesions 
 in the two diseases. But I am not inclined to attach any great im- 
 portance to these differences as set forth in the reports. The descrip- 
 tions otherwise, I find correct and well stated. In my investigations 
 as commissioner I have been able to find but one organism which, in 
 my opinion, caused the outbreaks under examination, and that I re- 
 gard as identical with the hog cholera germ described in the reports 
 of the bureau, and I find the description therein given correct. As 
 will be inferred from what has gone before, I feel sure that another 
 organism, correctly described in the reports as the 'swine plague 
 germ/ is found under circumstances which render it highly probable, 
 if not certain, that it also causes disease. As to whether these two 
 organisms are always present and operate together to cause disease, or 
 whether the two are merely varieties of the same germ, must be de- 
 cided by future investigation. The differences between them, as 
 pointed out by the bureau, are sufficient to compel us to treat them 
 as different germs, however perplexing it may seem that two micro- 
 organisms are capable of producing such similar or, it may be, iden- 
 tical lesions." 
 
 Be it observed that although Dr. Bolton has not in all his investi- 
 gation the country over as commissioner discovered one single case of 
 this second disease — "swine plague," he yet "feels sure" that another 
 germ is found under certain circumstances which render it "highly 
 probable, if not certain," that it causes disease! On what evidence is 
 he "sure" that it is "highly probable"? Is this again the language 
 with which scientists seek to saddle a second swine plague on the 
 country? The Gazette cannot be charged with hypercriticism of 
 scientists, but it confesses it is unable to appreciate the force of Dr. 
 Bolton's statement of the situation. 
 
 In fact the definiteness of the commission — "to a less positive de- 
 gree" — as to the existence of a second swine plague, should have led 
 it, the Gazette believes, to submit conclusive evidence to the country 
 
70 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 on this point. That a germ has been found which the Department 
 believes is the cause of its "swine plague/' does not admit of doubt; 
 the question arises, however, is this the germ of merely a local, non- 
 infectious, non-contagious disease, or is it a genuine pestf If the com- 
 mission has answered this query conclusively, the Gazette has failed 
 to observe it. "Hog cholera" is admittedly a plague; its germs, fresh 
 from the blood or cultivated in artificial media, infallibly produce the 
 disease when introduced into the systems of healthy swine. If 
 "swine plague" is a pest its germ should likewise produce that dis- 
 ease with its specific lesions — but as we read the commission's conclu- 
 sions, it can scarcely be said to have specific lesions. Now the com- 
 mission had in its charge since February last, nearly twenty hogs, 
 which in Nebraska had been inoculated against "hog cholera," and 
 they withstood every attempt made by the commission to kill them by 
 exposure to virulent natural outbreaks or by inoculation with excessive 
 doses of the germ of "hog cholera." They were "hog cholera" 
 proof, as the commission admits. But these hogs were not tested with 
 "swine plague" germs or exposure. And the question which the 
 Gazette respectfully asks the commission is, Why not? Here was the 
 opportunity of all to demonstrate beyond all cavil the existence of a 
 second pest, for if these hogs had succumbed to inoculations of "swine 
 plague" germs, Dr. Billings would have been conclusively proved a 
 charlatan, au ignoramus, and a fraud on his own chosen ground. He 
 defied the commission to kill his inoculated hogs with any contagious 
 or infectious swine disease; it could not kill them with "hog cholera"; 
 if a second pest — "swine plague" exists, why was not its existence 
 proved thus undeniably? If it kills swine as a pest these hogs should 
 have succumbed to it as they had not been giv§n immunity from its 
 germs, and the commission was in possession of the material with 
 which to infect and kill them if it could. Why was this not done? 
 
 The Gazette asks this question in all sincerity. It has the utmost 
 respect for the scientific attainments of the members of this commis- 
 sion, and it cares not one picayune whether this or that investigator go 
 down in the final determination of this much-discussed question; it is 
 interested solely in learning the truth, but when it is asserted that two 
 swine pests exist, the matter of the prevention of the disease by inocu- 
 lation becomes necessarily so complicated as to be almost, if not quite 
 impossible of attainment, and before that conclusion is definitely 
 reached, swine breeders have a right to demand unconditioned proof. 
 
 Why was it not oifered, when the opportunity presented ? — (Breeders' 
 
 Gazette, Aug. 81, >89.) 
 
 HOG CHOLERA. 
 
 The following investigations were began in November of last year, 
 and have been continued up to the present time. We were prompted 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 71 
 
 to undertake them, uot only on account of the scientific interest in- 
 volved, but also oil account of the news of many disastrous outbreaks 
 of the disease in various parts of the state. In the course of our work 
 we have visited many widely separated portions of the state, and en- 
 countered the disease in all its stages. In some herds the attack had 
 just commenced ; in others, we saw only cases of long standing, and, 
 as will be seen elsewhere, the disease presents very different features in 
 the two stages. We also found it in mild as well as in virulent form. 
 In fact, in some cases very few animals died, whereas in others there 
 were no recoveries. The majority of the outbreaks were of a very 
 severe type. So we have been able to observe the disease in all its 
 aspects. 
 
 We visited various portions of the state and took along all the best 
 apparatus and appliances for our work. Material collected in this 
 way was brought back to the laboratory and thoroughly examined. 
 The germs which we found were cultivated and grown on suitable 
 materials, and were tested upon mice, rabbits, and hogs. We obtained 
 them from the spleen, liver, blood, and intestinal ulcers. In some cases 
 we failed to get any germs at all, and although we obtained in other 
 cases several different kinds, we have no reason to believe that more 
 than one of them is concerned in the disease. 
 
 The only other organism deserving special attention is one which we 
 regard as identical with the bacillus of hog cholera of Salmon in the 
 report quoted above, which the reader is referred to for a complete de- 
 scription of the same. 
 
 We have not been able to produce the disease by subcutaneous inoc- 
 ulations of even quite large amounts (5 c. c.) of bouillon cultures ot 
 this bacillus, but we have succeeded by feeding 300-500 c. c. bouillon 
 cultures in milk made alkaline with carbonate of soda. — (Bulletin 
 No. 6, New Series II, July 1889, South Carolina Experiment Sta- 
 tion.) 
 
 At a meeting of the United States Veterinary Medical Association, 
 held at Washington, September, 1891, Dr. A. W. Clement made some 
 remarks which bear on that report of the " Board of Inquiry," be- 
 cause "It has been my (C.'s) opportunity for the last three or four 
 years of doing some work in that line myself, in association with 
 Prof. Welch, of Johns Hopkins University. I might say in parenthe- 
 sis, that my work in this line has nothing to do with my position as 
 government inspector. As to what connection the organism (Salmon's 
 swine plague germ) has with the lesions described in the reports of 
 the bureau, is a question on which we all might not agree. Never- 
 theless the swine plague organism does cause trouble. The trouble in 
 hogs is, as a rule, in our experience, one of mixed infection. We have 
 
72 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 not had an opportunity of seeing an outbreak of swine plague (Sal- 
 mon's) pure and simple. We have found that it is very hard to 
 say when swine plague (Salmon's) is present, that hog cholera (Sal- 
 mon's) is absent, from the fact that swine plague kills [What, rabbits 
 or hogs? B.] in a few hours, while hog cholera requires some days. 
 If, then, an animal be killed and presents lesions in the intestines, as 
 are generally supposed to be characteristic of hog cholera, the state- 
 ment must be very carefully considered before it is made, that hog 
 cholera is not present. We were thrown off our track during the 
 earlier part of our investigations. We found afterwards that hog 
 cholera did exist in these animals that we thought had sivine plague 
 (Salmon's) pure and simple. I would simply say in a general way that 
 from our investigations we have found Dr. Billings is right in certain 
 other matters." — {Journal of Comparative Medicine^VoX. XII, p. 549.) 
 
 EEVIEW OF THE SPECIAL REPORT ON THE CAUSES AND PREVEN- 
 TION OF SWINE PLAGUE, PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF 
 THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, 1891. 
 
 For a number of years Dr. Salmon, chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, and those associated with him in carrying out investigations 
 regarding epizootic diseases of the pig, have maintained that in addi- 
 tion to hog cholera (swine fever) there is prevalent in the United 
 States an infectious disease which they have been able to identify as 
 the German Schweine-seuche. 
 
 This report gives a detailed account of the investigations and ex- 
 periments that have led to the differentiation of the two diseases. It 
 is a credit to the bureau as showing the energy and thoroughness with 
 which its officers devote themselves to the elucidation of the obscure 
 diseases of farm stock ; but we cannot say that a perusal of it has con- 
 vinced us of the existence of Schweine-seuche on the American continent. 
 Indeed, the impression left is rather that many, if not all, of the alleged 
 outbreaks of that disease were instances of swine fever. There has 
 never been any doubt that hog cholera is identical with swine fever, 
 and toe must emphatically refuse to accept as correct Dr. Smith's ac- 
 count of the morbid anatomy of the disease, but to set forth the reasons 
 for this dissent would occupy more space than can be spared here. 
 
 The report is commendable alike for its lucidity and the temperate 
 language in which it is couched in dealing with controversive points, and 
 that is more than can be said of some of the literature on the same sub- 
 ject." [Thanks, awfully. .5.] — (Journal Comp. Path, and Thera- 
 peutics, J. McFadyeau, Editor. Edinburgh and Loudon. Vol. IV, 
 p. 354.) 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 73 
 
 Mr. Rusk must know of all these verdicts against his publications 
 and the conclusions of his investigators. He distinctly tells us that 
 he has followed closely all the publications in Nebraska papers. These 
 " reviews" have all been printed in the Lincoln, Neb., papers men- 
 tioned by Mr. Rusk. The old adage is again illustrated, "that there 
 are none so blind as those who won't see." Mr. Rusk will not see 
 the truth until the people of the country rise up and pull off the scales 
 which the dextrous Salmon has drawn over his eyes. 
 
 How then could Mr. Rusk have written of me as he did in his letter 
 to Mr. Paddock ? What effect did he suppose that letter would have 
 on the public? He knows now! It fell flat! No one believed a 
 word of it as a statement of true facts. How can Mr. Rusk expect 
 the people can respect a man who would be guilty of such a low device 
 as to publish such a mass of falsehoods and misstatements as a public 
 official? Surely our institutions are in danger if such men as Mr. 
 Rusk has shown himself to be can only be had to fill our highest 
 offices. 
 
 THE CHIEF OF THE BUEEAU BEGS FOR SUPPORT. 
 
 Quite a number of such letters as the following have been sent me 
 by friendly editors. They show a degradation in the public service, 
 so far as the Agricultural Department is concerned, that is despisable 
 beyond expression. Right never begs ! Right demands until it gets 
 recognition. Right stands upright. Right never bows the knee even 
 to the mighty power of the press : 
 
 U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 Washington, D. C, April 9, 1890. 
 Henry Wallace, Esq., Editor of the Homestead, Des Moines, Iowa. 
 
 Dear Sir: For some weeks I have been receiving a copy of the 
 Homestead marked "complimentary," for which I wish to return 
 thanks, presuming that it comes from you. I have not been a reader 
 of your paper before because it did not come to my desk, and, on 
 account of the many duties devolving upon me, I seldom get time to 
 consult the periodicals on file in our library. Mr. Hill, who has 
 charge of the editorial division of the department, has frequently 
 spoken to me about you, generally in connection with the attitude 
 which your paper has assumed toward the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 when discussing the subject of inoculation as a means of preventing 
 
74 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 
 
 hog cholera, and he has always referred to you in such complimentary 
 terms that I venture to address you this personal letter in the hopes 
 that any misunderstanding which you may have of our position may 
 be explained, and tbat we may, if possible, obtain your good will even; 
 though our opinions may continue to differ. 
 
 The Bureau of Animal Industry is endeavoring to work for the best 
 interest of the stock owners of the United States, and we are earnestly 
 striving to furnish information which shall be as nearly as possible 
 impartial and reliable. I take it for granted that the Homestead is 
 trying to treat its readers in the same manner. We therefore meet on 
 eommon ground ; we are working in the same field, and if we differ in 
 our opinions on certain questions, is that any reason why one should 
 publicly refer to the other in such disrespectful terms as to tend to 
 destroy his influence and usefulness in the work in which we are both 
 interested ? Is it possible that the farmers' cause can be promoted by 
 those who are in the field wasting their energies and in destroying one 
 another? I ask these questions frankly because I believe you are a 
 reasonable man, broad enough and liberal enough not to be offended 
 by them. Bear with me, if you please, while I make a few remarks 
 inspired by the short article on page 3 of the Homestead of April 4. 
 That I was not prejudiced against inoculation is shown by the fact 
 that I was the first in the country to test it, and that before Dr. 
 Billings began his investigations in Nebraska I had worked out the 
 method of cultivating the virus, the proper dose to use for inoculation 
 and the effect following this operation. And in the report of this 
 bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the details of the experiments are 
 given so fully that any one who can make a culture of germs can re- 
 peat the experiment for himself. Against my own hopes I was com- 
 pelled to decide that inoculation was not a satisfactory method of pre- 
 venting hog cholera. No one could be more anxious than I was to 
 offer some solution of the hog cholera problem to our farmers, and if 
 I yielded my opinion to the inexorable logic of the facts, should I be 
 censured for it? Admit, if you please, that I was wrong in my con- 
 clusion, would even that be sufficient to justify the language which 
 some of the agricultural journals delight to hurl at me and at this 
 bureau on account of the stand which I have taken? 
 
 The experiments which I have made have been planned to bring 
 jut the truth and the details have been published. That they show 
 inoculation cannot be depended upon to protect from hog cholera un- 
 der the conditions of these experiments, is plain. It is possible, how- 
 ever, as I have freely admitted, though hardly probable, that the con- 
 ditions of exposure on farms are not so severe. In that case a degree 
 of protection, which in our tests was insufficient, might ward off the 
 disease in most cases on farms. But, surely, this ought to be demon- 
 strated before farmers are advised to risk their animals and spend their 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 75 
 
 money in having this operation performed, and this is what has not been 
 done in any case by Dr. Billings. He has withheld the details of his 
 tests, he has concealed his failures, and he has made claims which the 
 facts do not justify. Take his experiment in Nebraska, where he had 
 1,000 hogs inoculated. Though he admitted at the time that about 
 400 of them afterwards died of hog cholera, he now says in his pam- 
 phlet that there was "a reported loss of only eleven out of the whole 
 number." Can you recommend inoculation from that experiment in, 
 which 40 per cent of the hogs died of hog cholera? If not, where is 
 the evidence which favors it ? 
 
 Take the experiment in the article in the Homestead, to which I 
 have already referred, where you say " This is the kind of proof re- 
 quired." Certainly you could not have scanned the details of that 
 experiment very closely, because there was none of the conditions ob- 
 served which would give reliable results. Consider simply the two 
 inoculated hogs. I have it on good authority that they were the sur- 
 vivors of a lot of hogs which had been affected with cholera. [That is 
 false ! They were inoculated hogs and never had the natural disease. B.] 
 Is it not presumable that in such a case, having resisted one outbreak, 
 they might be expected to resist another without inoculation? In other 
 words, when a herd of swine is affected the most susceptible animals 
 die and those which live have more than an average power of resist- 
 ance. 
 
 The proper way to make an experiment is to take a lot of twenty- 
 five or fifty hogs which have not been exposed to the disease, inoculate 
 half of them, then expose all in exactly the same manner to the con- 
 tagion ; keep all under the same conditions and note how much better 
 the inoculated lot withstands the disease than the others. By making 
 the kind of experiments which Dr. Billings reports one can prove 
 anything, especially if he conceals his failures. 
 
 I have written much more than I intended to, but I trust you will 
 not be bored by it. The subject is an important one and I feel sure 
 that neither the Homestead nor any other paper can afford to either 
 intentionally or unintentionally mislead its readers in regard to it. In 
 my report on inoculation, of which a copy is mailed you, I have en- 
 deavored to place before the people the unvarnished facts according to 
 the evidence now at hand, and before the conclusions therein expressed 
 can be changed there must be additional experiments made which are 
 properly conducted and which yield different results. I should be 
 pleased to see some of the experiment stations take the matter up, and 
 would assist them in so doing in any way in my power. 
 
 With the hope that this letter will not reach you on your "busy 
 day," I am, very respectfully, D. E. Salmon, 
 
76 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 THE EDITOR OF THE "HOMESTEAD" ANSWERS. 
 
 Des Moines, Ia., May 6, '90. 
 Prof. D. E. Salmon, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir; Your favor of April 9 came to the office while I was 
 absent on a five weeks' business trip, and I take the first moment of 
 leisure after my return to reply. 
 
 Allow me to thank you for the spirit and tone in which your letter 
 is written, and to express the conviction that there is no need for men 
 who differ honestly, on certain measures of public policy to treat each 
 other any other way than as gentlemen. 
 
 I may as well say to you frankly that the practical results of the 
 investigations of the Bureau of Animal Industry with reference to hog 
 ■cholera have not warranted any great hopes on the part of the swine 
 growers of America. Possibly it is no fault of the bureau. Never- 
 theless, it accounts for the attitude which many of the farmers of the 
 west sustain toward it and the favor with which they are inclined to 
 receive the views and promises of Dr. Billings. It must be conceded 
 that Dr. Billings has to a great extent the confidence of the leading 
 agriculturists of the west, and what is more remarkable, the confidence 
 of the leading stockmen of Nebraska. I attended their meeting in 
 Lincoln in February and was more than surprised when they elected 
 him, though not a resident of the state, president of the Nebraska 
 Stock Breeders' Association for the coming year. 
 
 As I understand it, whether Billings' theory and practice of inocu- 
 lation is correct or not, must be determined by the facts. When the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry took the position that there was no remedy 
 for hog cholera, and the government failed to take measures for stamp- 
 ing out the disease as they did the pleuro-pneumonia in cattle, it is 
 not surprising that the farmers should turn for relief to Dr. Billings, 
 who gave assurance that under certain conditions he. could prevent 
 the disease, and proposed to let the practical results of his works de- 
 termine the correctness of his theory. The bitter warfare that has 
 been made on Dr. Billings, and which is believed by his friends to 
 come largely from the Bureau of Animal Industry, only intensifies 
 the popular feeling on his behalf and it would seem to me that if 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry, through its agents or employes, 
 has been at the bottom of, or accessory to, this warfare, the best 
 thing for all concerned is that it should cease. If Billings is either 
 a fraud or an unbalanced enthusiast, time will very soon tell the story. 
 If he is not, but has discovered a method by which, under certain cir- 
 cumstances and conditions, hog cholera can be prevented, then he is 
 entitled to the credit. 
 
 Some of the statements you make differ from my understanding of 
 the facts. It is conceded, I believe, by Dr. Billings' friends that 400 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 77 
 
 hogs inoculated were actually diseased, died of cholera, but it is not 
 conceded that these 400 are part of the thousand to which you refer, 
 I might mention other discrepancies, but have not leisure at this time. 
 
 I confess to you that the report of the special commission did more 
 to prejudice me against the Bureau of Animal Industry than any 
 other one thing. You will pardon me if I say that it seemed to be a 
 whitewashing affair, sedulously, to all appearances as seen by an out- 
 sider, concealing facts and failing to make the investigations which it 
 was appointed to make. 
 
 I have not, since my return, had time to go into the controversy 
 between you and Dr. Billings fully. I stand ready to give the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry credit for all the good work it actually per- 
 forms and to insist, as I shall do in one of the coming issues of the 
 Homestead, on the enlargement of its powers with reference to deal- 
 ing with pluero-pneumonia in New York. I also stand ready to give 
 Dr. Billings credit for any results which he may accomplish, the ob- 
 ject in both cases being to secure as far as possible the financial well- 
 being of the constituents of the Homestead. 
 
 Yery truly, Henry Wallace, 
 
 Editor Homestead. 
 
 THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU AGAIN BEGS FOR HELP. 
 
 U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 Washington, D. C, January 28, 1890. 
 To the Editor of the Farmers' Review, Chicago, III. 
 
 Sir: In the October number of the Journal of Comparative Med- 
 icine was a review of recent swine disease literature, which in reality 
 was an attack upon the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and upon 
 those employed by it in the investigation of swine diseases. As I 
 have seen references to this review in a number of agricultural jour- 
 nals I conclude that it was widely circulated by its authors, and for 
 that reason I mail you to-day a copy of a statement which I have 
 made in the January number of the same journal. This is sent for 
 your information and you are invited to publish any extract from it 
 that may seem to you of sufficient interest. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture has been striving for years to elu- 
 cidate the question of swine diseases and has been, in the writer's 
 opinion, eminently successful. The resources of the government have 
 been brought to bear and have accomplished for the farmers what in- 
 dividual efforts never could have done. But this work has been crit- 
 icised to an extent which is rarely experienced by those laboring for 
 the public welfare in other fields of science. If these investigations 
 have been intelligently and properly made, as we claim they have 
 
?8 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 been, is it not a duty which the agricultural press owes to its constit- 
 uents to sustain the department in its endeavors to have them con- 
 tinued rather than to discredit the work already done and thus give 
 to congress the impression that the money has been wasted"? 
 
 "With accurate information I am confident the editors of the agri- 
 cultural press will do justice to the careful and comprehenive researches 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and if the farmers of the country 
 are given a plain statement of the facts, without distortion or misrep- 
 resentation, I am willing to rely on their unbiased judgment for the 
 support which the department needs in its work. A portion of these 
 facts will be found in the enclosed paper and others will be furnished 
 from time to time as they are ready for publication. 
 
 Very respectfully, D. E. Salmon. 
 
 Does Secretary Rusk admit the necessity of such humility on the 
 part of this department as this? Cannot it stand alone on its merits? 
 
 The next thing Mr. Rusk says immediately follows the words : " He 
 published a pamphlet entitled ' Evidence Showing That the Report of 
 the Board of Inquiry Was Fixed/ " etc.; then comes "this disgraceful 
 conduct, this use of the Experiment Station funds to carry on these bit- 
 ter attacks against the bureau" etc. 
 
 Does Mr. Rusk mean to infer that that pamphlet on the Board of 
 Inquiry was paid for out of the Experiment Station funds, or that I 
 ever used such funds to publish a single attack on his department, ex- 
 cept such as appear in the three bulletins published by the Station? 
 
 If he does, the strongest language a man can use is no more than 
 his just due. Surely, the man has forgotten himself. "When did 
 he first send out the reports of that commission? By their date it 
 must have been subsequent to August 1, 1889, and the first I knew of 
 either of them was about August 12. I left Nebraska June 20, 1889, 
 and was in Chicago in August, 1889. To be sure that pamphlet was 
 printed by the State Journal Company, of Lincoln, but my money 
 paid for it. Come, Mr. Rusk, come out here to Lincoln and go among 
 the citizens and tell them that I have used the public money to publish 
 attacks on you, and see how they will treat you. The following letter 
 may be valuable to Mr. Rusk : 
 
 University of Nebraska, 
 Office of the Steward and Secretary, 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., Feb. 15, 1892. 
 Dr. Frank S. Billings, City. 
 
 Dear Doctor Billings: Replying to your recent communica- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 79 
 
 lion, I desire to say concerning the Agricultural Experiment Station 
 funds that there has been no expenditure to ray knowledge of the 
 Agricultural Experiment Station funds since the organization of the 
 said station, for printing, publishing, or distributing other than the 
 regular bulletins of the station, which are required to be issued by 
 law, and the necessary miscellaneous printing. 
 
 Yours truly, J. S. Dales, Treasurer. 
 
 Now, Mr. Rusk, how would you like to consume a little of your own 
 imedicine? You may find it bitter. We are considering a certain 
 letter which you wrote Mr. Paddock in which it rather seems as if 
 you were personally attacking me. Did congress ever authorize you 
 to use the public funds to have that letter printed and scattered broad- 
 cast over the laud. Answer that, please? 
 
 Did congress ever authorize you to send men over the country, and 
 to publish pamphlets attacking the private business of a private citi- 
 zen of the United States as you did me and my business while I was 
 in Chicago from 1889 to 1891? 
 
 A congressional investigation might be in order, and would not be 
 a bad thing either, as it would, if honest, expose the most rotten scan- 
 dal, with Jere Rusk at the head of it, that has existed in the govern- 
 ment since its inauguration. 
 
 Even a government secretary should carefully guard himself against 
 ■that fell disease, Macrocranialis giganticus. 
 
 Next Mr. Rusk says: 
 
 Soon after his reappointment to Nebraska I received a letter from 
 him asking that $5,000 of the funds of the bureau should be turned 
 •over to the use of the Experiment Station to be expended by him in 
 his investigations, the condition being that the persons employed 
 should be selected by him and that the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 should have no connection with the work, and no control or super- 
 vision over the expenditure of the money. 
 
 That is not a true statement of the case by any means. What had 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry to do with the whole matter? Is 
 Mr. Rusk secretary of agriculture or is the chief of the Bureau of Ani- 
 mal Industry? Mr. Rusk should have a copy of that letter, I un- 
 fortunately have not, but it was about like this : First, I did not want 
 and did not ask for any money whatever to aid me in my investiga- 
 tions. I made a kindly suggestion to Mr. Rusk which, had he been 
 =a true official, he would have endeavored to accept. I told him that 
 
80 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 I was continually sent material from other states, or written to for 
 advice regarding diseases in live stock, and offered him the free use of 
 this laboratory for an investigator, who should not work for Nebraska, 
 but for those other states, and stated that unitedly we thus could do- 
 much good. Of course I would select the man to come into my own 
 laboratory, but with the approval of Mr. Rusk I supposed. My 
 whole idea was to be of benefit to the farmers in other states. The 
 man would have been under the control of the secretary of agricult- 
 ure and not the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which I 
 innocently supposed the correct thing. The reports would have be- 
 longed to the department, and the man would have handled the 
 money entirely subject to the secretary. I simply suggested $5,000 as 
 enough to pay the salary and traveling expenses ; all other expenses 
 would have been* provided for by this laboratory. That I would not 
 recognize the bureau is true. Was the above either a criminal pro- 
 cedure or an insult to the secretary of agriculture? Some benefit to 
 the farmers of the west might have resulted, but that would be contrary 
 to the purposes of the bureau. 
 
 It is not known that during my stay in Chicago, and by every 
 means in my power, both by letter and otherwise, I have asked Mr. 
 Rusk to favor me with an interview, but in vain. Mr. Rusk would 
 not be permitted to come into such dangerous society. The chief of 
 the bureau dare not permit it. 
 
 But what is the National Agricultural Department for? Has the 
 secretary of that department any right to discriminate between pri- 
 vate citizens on personal grounds ? Duriug my time in Chicago I 
 wrote Mr. Rusk the following letter, which any one can see was in 
 the general interest of the swine breeders of the country. I wrote it 
 so as to avoid making any mistake. I never received an answer to it ? 
 thoughl knew that it was received. I did receive the culture I wanted 
 through the kind assistance of a gentleman who simply had to write 
 and receive and forward it to me unopened : 
 
 Chicago, 6, 2, 90. 
 Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Dear Sir: After three years most exacting searching I have 
 fouud what I take to be the germ of the so-called swine plague in 
 connection with hog cholera and under just such circumstances as I 
 should expect to find it, if any. It is very necessary that I should 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 81 
 
 know without question that it is that organism, and after consultation 
 with Mr. J. H. Saunders of the Breeders' Gazette, I take the only di- 
 rect way open to me as a citizen of this country and a worker ad- 
 mittedly competent to judge. I ask you for a culture of the germ of 
 disease called " swine plague/' and no other, from the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, and that it be sent me carefully packed, by express, 
 at my expense, and accompanied by a letter from yourself, by 
 mail, asserting it to be the germ I ask for. As the germ has now 
 been before the public three years and cultivations of the same have 
 been sent to Boston, Philadelphia, and other places, there is no reason 
 why it should not be placed in the hands of those desiring it to ar- 
 rive at the truth regarding these matters. Trusting you will comply 
 with my request, I am yours, Frank S. Billings. 
 
 Again, in order to do some very essential comparative work in con- 
 nection with contagious pleuro-pneumonia and the corn-stalk disease 
 in cattle, work that has never been done by the bureau, and of the 
 utmost importance to the cattlemen of the west. I wrote the follow- 
 ing letter to Mr. Rusk and again received no reply : 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., 4, 30, 1892. 
 Hon. J. M. Husk, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
 
 d. a 
 
 Dear Sir : My present work demands that I use some alcoholic 
 specimens of genuine contagious pleuro-pneumonia material, and I 
 know nowhere else to apply for it. Will you kindly instruct those 
 having it to send me by express in small vials: 
 
 1. Freshest possible diseased lung. 
 
 2. Tissue adjacent to moderately diseased lung. 
 
 3. Moderately diseased tissue. 
 
 4. Chronic diseased tissue. 
 
 5. Tissue in process of destruction. 
 
 Respectfully yours, Frank S. Billings. 
 
 These requests on the secretary of agriculture were not made for my 
 own benefit or for my own personal use in any sense of the word. 
 Both letters were for material to aid me in investigations of the most 
 intimate kind to the welfare of the stock breeders of the west, and, as 
 I understand it, that is one of the purposes for which the Agricultural 
 Department at Washington was created. Suppose Mr. Rusk, or even 
 the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, should write me for cult- 
 ures of any germs that we might have in this laboratory, does any one 
 suppose for a moment, that such a request would be refused merely 
 6 
 
82 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 because my relations with either were not as cordial as they should 
 be? Does any one suppose that did I treat them as they have me, 
 that a letter of remonstrance would not be soon sent to the chancellor 
 of the University, and in all probability to the public press ? I should 
 not think of refusing such a request, because, this, like that of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry, is a public laboratory, and all in it, as well 
 as what goes on in it, is the property of the people. They are carry- 
 ing things in a far too "high handed " manner in the Department of 
 Agriculture for officers who are mere delegates of the people under a 
 republican form of government. Is it not time that the farmers of 
 the west make themselves heard and teach these people that their po- 
 sition is to serve the people and not to follow their own selfish im- 
 pulses ? Is it not about time that the people once again declare the 
 "" declaration of independence " over again, but this time against the po- 
 litical kings in their own country who have robbed them of the rights 
 their fathers won for them on many a bloody field f Is it not time that 
 the "constitution" be once more ratified and that the people again 
 declare that this is a government " of the people, by the people, for the 
 people," and not one of a nation of disfranchised slaves by a band of 
 political tyrants and traitors for their own benefit f 
 
TWO OPEN LETTERS 
 
 PUBLISHED IN 
 
 WESTERN RESOURCES 
 
 WHICH FAILED TO PLEASE THE 
 
 SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 (83) 
 
THE HON. MR. RUSK DOES NOT LIKE OPEN LETTERS. 
 
 Having utterly failed in obtaining any consideration of polite let- 
 ters written direct to the secretary of agriculture, and being desirous 
 to force the issue, if possible, so as to end this interminable contro- 
 versy, which I have only entered on and continued as a public duty, 
 I next had recourse to several open letters published in the columns 
 of Western Resources of August 20 and October 10, 1891, which were 
 as follows. As, with this publication, it is my intention to perma- 
 nently close the discussion with the Agricultural Department, the pub- 
 lic must pardon me if I sum up all the evidence at my command in 
 full: 
 
 Patho-Biological Laboratory, State University, 
 
 Lincoln, Nebraska, August 10, 1891, 
 Hon. J. M. Rush, Secretary Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
 D. C. 
 Dear Sir: On June 26 last I mailed you a registered letter, and 
 on July 4 received a card signed for you by "Thos. J. Ray," thus in- 
 dicating that you had received said letter. In that letter, among other 
 matters, I requested you to send Dr. F. E. Parsons here to personally 
 investigate the question of inoculation against swine plague in connec- 
 tion with my assistant, as two unitiated persons, and offered you the 
 free use of everything we had. I stated to you that Dr. Parsons had 
 made a very favorable impression among the stock breeders of the state, 
 and that we considered him an honest man. That letter has not been 
 answered, and occupying the position I do — possessing the trust of the 
 people of the state, as probably no other man in like position does in 
 the world wherever he may be — I beg to say that you may not realize 
 that your conduct in this matter is not in accord with the spirit of the 
 promises made in your name by Dr. Parsons, at Beatrice, February 
 last, who said: "You wanted to be in touch with all breeders and 
 agriculturists," or words to that effect. Now, again, in the name of 
 the breeders and farmers of Nebraska, and as their selected and elected 
 representative, I ask you to send Dr. Parsons here on the same terms 
 as before. If you want to know how long it will take I will tell you 
 that in three months he shall himself have inoculated hogs success- 
 fully, and I hope have seen many hundred done, and that we will all 
 
 (85) 
 
86 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 do our utmost to give him every opportunity to test the matter. Our 
 Mr. Paddock and other very influential men (who are as much friends 
 of mine as friends of your department) are all anxious for me to use 
 every inducement to bring this about; and I will respect their desire 
 quietly and gentlemanly if I can, bitterly and determinedly if I must, 
 for, I tell you, that not even in yourself, not even in themselves indi- 
 vidually and collectively, have the breeders and farmers so true and 
 determined a friend as I have been, and am, and mean to be. I told 
 you long ago you were being misled, and I now tell you you are 
 dangerously so. They tell me that you are an honest and clear-headed 
 man; if you are, then as Mr. Rusk, farmer, and not Hon. J. M* 
 Husk, I ask you to turn to the last report of the Department of Ag- 
 riculture, and read what the Hon. Mr. Rusk says to Mr. Rusk, 
 farmer, and then see what the latter thinks of it: 
 
 SWINE DISEASES. 
 
 "An experiment to test the value of subcutaneous injections of hog 
 cholora bacilli as a means of preventing hog eholera. 
 
 "In the report of 1889, page 87, it was stated that an experiment 
 was in progress which we hoped would be a final test as to the practi- 
 cal value of subcutaneous injections of cultures of hog cholera bacilli,, 
 in making swine insusceptible to the virus of hog cholera. The first 
 tests in this direction were made at the Experiment Station early in 
 1886, soon after the hog cholera bacillus had been discovered." 
 
 How, sir, you as secretary could tell yourself as farmer that " the 
 first test in this direction (of inoculation) were made early in 1886, 
 soon after the hog cholera bacillus had been discovered," beats me? 
 Of course neither as secretary or farmer do you know that statement 
 to be strictly and reliably correct. You dare not and cannot take 
 oath, as secretary, to Mr. Rusk, farmer, that the evidence furnished 
 is all that can reasonably be required to decide a scientific question of 
 this kind (although you did take oath as secretary, to be true to Jere 
 Rusk, farmer, and all his co-laborers), because the same persons now 
 in your employ once told you, as farmer, something very different; 
 and, if in your regular capacity as farmer, you will turn to a report 
 of your department for 1883, p. 57, you will see that, as secretary, you 
 are on the point of both horns of that dung-hill steer, "dilemma," 
 and if you try to get off one horn you will fall into the ditch, and if 
 off the other you put one of your predecessors into the ditch. But 
 you do not see that the only way out is to get off both horns, and 
 pitch that irresponsible crowd who are deceiving you into the ditch of 
 oblivion. Now, let us turn to the report of 1883, and read : 
 
 "Our investigations show that swine plague is a non-recurrent 
 fever, and that the germs might be cultivated ; they have even proved 
 that these germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities and pro- 
 duce a mild affection. Surely we have here sufficient evidence to show 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 87 
 
 that a reliable vaccine might easily be prepared if we carried our in- 
 vestigations but a little way further." " M. Pasteur has confirmed 
 our investigations and shown that the disease is produced by a micro- 
 coccus, and promises a vaccine -by spring." 
 
 Now, sir, as you, Secretary Rusk, tell Farmer Rusk that the hog 
 cholera bacillus was not discovered until 1886, " what must Farmer- 
 Rusk think of those other investigations" which promised him so 
 much in 1883, and of all those costly reports, 1880 to 1886, which 
 you now tell him to be unquestionably false, seeing, as you say, " that 
 the first tests in this direction," of preventive inoculation, were not, 
 made "until early in 1886"? We want these questions answered. 
 
 Again, sir : The following interesting letter recently emanated from 
 your department, and is in fact, as well as in spirit, most emphatically 
 contradicted by other emanations from the same source: 
 " U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
 "Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 "Washington, D. C, June 11, 1891. 
 " Mr. James Baynes, Editor and Publisher American Swineherd, 113 
 Adams Street, Chicago, III. 
 
 "Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of the 29th ult., which 
 has been held a few days for consideration. In it you ask a number 
 of questions in regard to inoculation as a preventive of swine plague 
 and the probability of disseminating that disease by the practicing of 
 inoculation. The subject is a complicated one and I could not give you 
 my views without writing you an extended letter. I mail you, there- 
 fore, a copy of a bulletin published by this bureau about a year ago 
 on this subject: 
 
 " In a general way I would say in this connection that much of 
 the difference of opinion arises from the fact that there are two dis- 
 eases, one of which we have called swine plague and the other hog 
 cholera, but which are not discriminated between by the public at 
 large, and which are consequently referred to as hog cholera or swine 
 plague without any idea as to which disease is under consideration. 
 A hog that is inoculated for swine plague is not in the least protected 
 from hog cholera, or vice versa. The inoculation that has been prac- 
 ticed in the west has been with the virus of hog cholera, and, as used 
 by the parties who have introduced this practice, it produces little if 
 any immunity from the disease. 
 
 "As to a second question, I would say that I don't believe that in- 
 oculation could be safely trusted to the use of the average farmer, or 
 for that matter the average veterinarian, as a practical preventive of 
 hog cholera ; in fact, I do not consider it a practical preventive under 
 any circumstances. 
 
 "Replying to your third question, I would say that I have no 
 means of knowing whether the wide prevalence of swine disease was 
 
88 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 or was not due to the dissemination of the disease by the many at- 
 tempts at prevention by inoculation. I have no doubt but that the 
 disease may be spread in this way, and if, as is intimated in your 
 question, there were many attempts made at prevention by inocula- 
 tion, this may account for the unusual dissemination of the disease in 
 the sections where inoculation was resorted to. 
 
 " Referring you for the reasons of my opinion to the bulletin above 
 mentioned. Very respectfully, 
 
 "D. E. Salmon, Chief of Bureau." 
 
 Take the last paragraph first. It is here inferred that I spread 
 cholera over the country because of my method, which is condemned 
 as so terribly dangerous. My dear sir, do you know that you, Hon. 
 Mr. Rusk, secretary, recommend that method to Mr. Rusk, farmer, 
 and every other farmer in the United States in your late report (which 
 only antedated that letter by a short time) as the cheapest and 
 simplest method that can be devised? Perhaps you do not believe 
 you did? Then read, please, pp. 110, 111: 
 
 "The method of subcutaneous injections of culture liquids contain- 
 ing hog cholera bacilli, while on the one hand fraught with the possi- 
 ble danger of scattering disease germs where they do not originally 
 exist, is nevertheless the simplest and cheapest method that can be de- 
 vised for the vaccination of animals; these qualities of simplicity and 
 cheapness are of vital importance in a question which has only a com- 
 mercial aspect." That is straight, is it not ? 
 
 As to that two-plague question, it is equal to the others, and all 
 false. You should know that no impression has been made in Europe 
 with that stuff, and the universal verdict is against you. I now know 
 more than I did on the subject, and will soon be able to knock all the 
 plague there is in it to pieces. To-day there is no conclusive proof of 
 even two diseases, as no person on earth conversant with the entire 
 history of the investigations done in your department will believe a 
 statement of facts emanating from there unless known to be such by 
 his own experiences. It is told in this letter to The American Swine- 
 herd that farmers dare not inoculate because of their inability to tell 
 one disease from the other, but you forget that when you went, by 
 proxy, before the National Swine Breeders' Association you said : 
 "There is the genuine hog cholera, a disease widely distributed, and 
 probably productive of the greater part of the losses which fall upon 
 the hog raiser." (See the report of the association, p. 13, 1889.) Now, 
 if the method employed by me is the cheapest and simplest, notwith- 
 standing the remarkable financiering of your department, and capable 
 of preventing "the greater part of the loss which falls on the 
 hog raisers," will you kindly tell us why it is you are so loth to send 
 any one here to see how it is done, and work it out for himself? It 
 is no argument to assert that " we cannot do it, and do not believe 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 89 
 
 any one can," or that "because you cannot, anyone who succeeds is a 
 fraud/' which is about what you have said of me to the entire world, 
 but fortunately it has been a boomerang that it is still reacting. Be- 
 cause I am not equal to Edison's work, or that of many other men, is 
 that a reason why I should brand them as failures or frauds? Let 
 me tell you something that you do not seem to be able to see. Your 
 ■employes dare not succeed, for, as admitted in this very report, 1890, 
 to succeed they must use those terrible "fluid cultures" which, though 
 u fraught with possible danger" (only possible you see, not probable) 
 *' of spreading the disease, still is the simplest and cheapest method." 
 I tell you these men cannot and dare not succeed, for that would brand 
 them as thoroughly incompetent and irresponsible investigators before 
 the whole country, and bury them so deep that even your stentorian 
 voice could not raise them from the grave of oblivion. It would con- 
 firm all my statements. One word more. As said before, I mean 
 business. Hence, in the name of the breeders and farmers of the 
 state of Nebraska and of every stock raising state, I again ask you 
 will you or not send Dr. Parsons out here to work as suggested, in- 
 dependent of me, for a period of three months? The farmers desire 
 the truth, whether others do or not. Are you also afraid of the truth, 
 Mr. Rusk? You may not like the tone of this letter, but I assure 
 you it is written in the kindliest spirit (and in your own interest), but 
 more particularly in the interest of the farmers and breeders of the 
 country.) Yours most truly, 
 
 Frank S. Billings, Director. 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., October 4, '91. 
 My Dear Sir : Some six weeks since I addressed you a private 
 letter, and later, in the columns of Western Resources, an open one, 
 asking you to send Dr. F. E. Parsons here, not to investigate our 
 work, but to observe everything we did in the process of inoculating 
 against swine plague. Still later I urged you again to send Dr. Par- 
 sons, hoping he might come in time and learn enough to be able to take 
 charge of the inoculation during my absence, as I take my vacation 
 in October and November. The only reply I received was that you 
 would consider the matter on the return of Dr. Salmon from Europe. 
 This is a question between you and the farmers with which Salmon 
 has nothing to do. Yesterday a dispatch appeared in the Lincoln 
 State Journal, coming from the acting chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry — a good man, a competent one in that position, and an 
 honest one also — Dr. C B. Michenor, whom I suppose spoke authorita- 
 tively. He says you are looking about for a scientist that would be 
 impartial both ways, and cannot find one, but thought one might be 
 found by next summer. Here is what he says as reported : 
 
90 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 "Dr. Michenor, who was in charge of the bureau to-day, said that 
 the department had not had any success in its, experiments in inoculat- 
 ing swine, but he said: 'It is possible that Dr. Billings has discovered 
 a method which will prove effective. It is not true,' he said, 'that the 
 department takes no interest in this matter. On the contrary, we 
 have been trying to find the right man to send out to Lincoln for the 
 purpose of inquiring into the matter. The difficulty is in finding the 
 proper man for the work. It would scarcely do to send a man who 
 might be prejudiced in advance for or against Dr. Billings. We have 
 no inspector here who combines the necessary knowledge of swine 
 diseases with the requisite familiarity without use of the microscope. 
 Consequently it is necessary to get some one from outside the depart- 
 ment. Thus far we have not been able to secure the services of the 
 right man. It is not likely that we shall be able to do so this year r 
 but next summer one will undoubtedly be sent to Lincoln to represent 
 the department, and to make a thorough investigation into the process- 
 by which Dr. Billings is said to prevent the diseases." 
 
 Now, though I fear nothing nor anybody, a scientist is just what 
 we do not want and will not accept. I would not let a single one 
 now known to me in this country into my laboratory and observe my 
 methods, for I do not personally know one engaged (or dabbling — the 
 latter mostly) in this kind of work whom I look upon as an honest 
 and unprejudiced man. That there are such I do not doubt, but I 
 fail to have the honor of their acquaintance. You may not know it, 
 but this state and the swine breeders of the west had all they wanted 
 of that kind in the "Swine Plague Commission" that visited here in 
 the winter of 1888-9. I have written it elsewhere, but you may not 
 know it, that these men could not be induced to make an investigation 
 while here, and only when I sent my own servant to drive one of 
 them into the country could they be made to examine one sick hog on 
 their own account. All they seemed to want to do was to have me 
 work and see how they liked it, in which you may be sure they were 
 not fully gratified. They went to Columbus, Ohio, and did not ex- 
 amine even one hog there. Then they went home, and two of them,, 
 at least, wrote what they were told to, for they did not even report on 
 the examination of the one hog they did make an autopsy on here and 
 take cultures from. This was probably because they failed to find the 
 hypothetical "swine plague" germ of your bureau in it. Had they 
 found it the world would have been told of it in no very uncertain 
 language. They did happen to see me make some half-dozen autopsies 
 on hogs which I had purposely killed by inoculation as a control against 
 a bunch of inoculated ones, which they knew all about. I killed 
 fifteen of the healthy test hogs, but the same dose of the same virus 
 failed to make even one of the preventive inoculated ones sick an iota. 
 This is a matter of history out here to which men of undoubted 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 91 
 
 honesty can and do testify. But more, these tests were going on as 
 that commission came out here, and I insisted that they personally 
 take cultures from the hogs, which they did, and I made and dictated 
 the autopsies which one of them wrote out, the others watching me. 
 I insisted only that they should give me one duplicate culture from 
 each organ of each hog, which they made, to send to Prof. Welch, of 
 Johns Hopkins, who wrote me that they were nearly every one strictly 
 pure cultures of real swine plague (hog cholera) germ. You can de- 
 pend that he sought for the hypothetical swine plague germ, as did 
 your commission. Why then did not they report these autopsies and 
 the results of their examinations of their own cultures? Because 
 they did not find that second germ ! That is all ! They were sent 
 out here to investigate and report on what they saw, and were called, 
 and were really supposed to be, scientists, and my experience with 
 German investigators had taught me to look upon all scientists as 
 honest men. Were these men honest when they did not report on 
 what they did find, and did report on what they did not find, viz., a 
 lack of exact technique in my methods? It is because these men are 
 known to be dishonest and not to have reported on what they did find, 
 and because it is known here that they would not go out and investi- 
 gate as honest men should, that the stock breeders of this state want 
 no more of that kind sent here. I speak with the authority of the 
 best breeders of the state, of the State Board of Agriculture, and the 
 Regents of the University when I make that assertion. 
 
 When I asked you to send Dr. Parsons I was supported by the 
 same authorities who unitedly have control of me and my work here* 
 But more, I never do a thing without a purpose. Personally I like 
 Dr. Parsons, and that is probably one reason that he has not been 
 sent. Again, our breeders who met him all liked him. You must 
 both like him and believe him an honest man or you would not trust 
 him. When I asked you to send Parsons the people here said : 
 " Rusk won't do it. Salmon won't let him." It certainly looks that 
 way to us now. Cannot you trust a man known to you for so many 
 years and selected by you for your especial work? I want to see 
 more workers in the country, and, liking the doctor, I expected that in 
 the time he would be obliged to stay here he would learn enough to 
 be able to go on aud become an investigator, for when I like a man 
 I am willing to teach him all I know and to work unceasingly to aid 
 him. That was my chief reason for asking for him. We do not care 
 an iota about an investigation. We can paddle our own canoe and 
 hoe our own corn. In the interests of our brother farmers in other 
 states we simply offered you the opportunity to see our work, which 
 oifer you seem loth to accept. You may be very sure that a person 
 whom I do not want cannot come here so long as I have charge of this 
 laboratory, and least of all a "scientist," for the reasons above given, 
 
92 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 I am trying to write with studied respect, so do not be offended at 
 my plain speaking. It is not necessary that a "scientist" should 
 study this question. You have some of that species in your employ 
 who claim to have done so for ten years and, notwithstanding certain 
 unfounded promises in 1883, have still failed to do one single thing 
 to benefit the swine growers of the west, unless " benefit " can be seen 
 in the utterly unfounded announcement of a second " widespread 
 epidemic disease among the hogs of this country." One word on that. 
 It is claimed that my methods are unscientific, or else I should have 
 found that germ, and hence my inoculation is dangerous. My dear 
 sir, I have furnished the virus to inoculate many thousand hogs — the 
 farmers having done the work — and I challenge you to find one man 
 who will assert to-day that inoculation ever made a hog or pig se- 
 riously ill ? I even dare refer you to the notorious case at Surprise, 
 Butler county, Nebraska. Try those same men to-day, and see if they 
 will say what they erroneously said in 1889? I have never seen one 
 •of them in person, nor written them. Now, if my methods are so 
 bad, and that second germ so dangerous, why has not a farmer who 
 has used it killed one pig by inoculation ? I have found your germ. 
 I found it in three outbreaks out of 150 or so in Illinois during my 
 absence in Chicago, and have since found it here — always mixed with 
 hog cholera — and also where no disease was present and in hogs hav- 
 ing another disease which I am now studying. I have found it in the 
 blood of cholera sick hogs — but in far less numbers than the real germ 
 where were neither intestinal nor lung lesions of any moment what- 
 ever. I have found it when it would kill rabbits in less than twenty 
 hours and from pure cultures of that same germ have inoculated virus 
 with it, and the real germ and both have grown together and inocu- 
 lated nearly 2,000 hogs and little pigs from two weeks old upwards, 
 the farmers doing the work, and not one single pig has been made 
 seriously sick. The thing may be terribly dangerous in Washington, 
 but if so it is not the same thing I have found in Illinois and "Ne- 
 braska. But this coincides, unfortunately, with the general results 
 reported by your own people. These statements are all facts of exact 
 record, 2,700 pigs and hogs have been inoculated in Nebraska from 
 August 14th to date, with no injury and no loss thus far. I expect 
 some, for the greater the number done the greater the chances for 
 error, and the farmers sometimes neglect to use the virus as directed. 
 
 Now to the scientist once more. You are simply a practical every 
 day man, and those who know me well, know that lam built about 
 that way myself. As such, we both know, and all the world well knows, 
 that a man, especially a scientist, can be too much of a stickler for a 
 theoretic method of work, which for certain purposes is all right, but 
 for others may entirely destroy or nullify the very practical purpose 
 which should result, or better, is wished for, from a certain series of 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 93 
 
 investigations. Now I am not such a hard and fast scientific investi- 
 gator. I go for the practical point, and that is all I am engaged for,, 
 though I can do exact work when necessary. But here the exact 
 scientific method has necessarily been made supplementary, though 
 co-equal with the practical. You may be very sure it has not been 
 neglected. Now one reason why your men have failed in making any 
 advance in preventive inoculation is self-evident from their reports. 
 They are too puuctillious as to the theoretic exactness of their methods 
 a la Robert Koch. No disrespect is meant to Koch. To demon- 
 strate scientifically that a given germ is the actual cause of a given 
 disease all the finical exactness possible is necessary, but where prac- 
 tical results only are desired, as in preventive inoculation, that point 
 may be rendered impossible through the prolonged unnatural and 
 artificial treatment of the germ necessary to obtain pure cultures. In 
 spore-bearing germs this is not so, but in swine plague it is the case. 
 In my investigations here I could not afford to waste time seeking for 
 all the germs mixed up with the swine plague germ in certain kind 
 of outbreaks. The people would not have the patience to wait and 
 the work would have been stopped in disgust. Look at the way 
 the farmers of the west view your bureau. The thing to do was to 
 find out not only the kind of an outbreak (the point is, the nature 
 and lay of the land and how the hogs are kept), and then the organ 
 from which one could with the greatest certainty obtain the germ as 
 uncontaminated with other germs as possible. These points were 
 soon established. Having done this, the next thing to do was to dis- 
 cover the kind of an outbreak from which the germ would give the 
 most reliable degree of protection, and a third was, the time in the 
 outbreak at which to derive the germ. This will explain a mystery 
 which seems to trouble your people very much, and that is, why I do 
 not mention rabbits in my experiments. My dear sir, I am studying 
 swine plague in swine and not in rabbits, and swine or pigs are much 
 cheaper than rabbits in this " section of God's country." Again, I 
 found, to my cost though, that results in rabbits are not only value- 
 less but apt to be absolutely misleading so far as they have any prac- 
 tical value in the study of the swine plague. In fact I make it a rule 
 to use the same species of animals in which a disease naturally oc- 
 curs, for my experiments, as far as I possibly can. This may not be 
 scientific, but it is decidedly practical. It has won so far at any rate. 
 
 The point we are aiming at, and have most decidedly obtained, is a 
 method of obtaining and preparing the virus so simple, easy, and re- 
 liable that any of our farmers can do the whole thing themselves 
 after a few hours' instruction. This I say can be done and with a 
 reliability so certain that failure is almost entirely ruled out. 
 
 Does it require a scientist to investigate what a plain farmer can do? 
 
 Now suppose you send your scientist, one of the stickler, puncti- 
 lious kind, what on earth could we do with him? 
 
^4 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 First, he would say, " Why, how do you know your virus is surely 
 composed of the swine plague germs and no others, if you do not 
 make plates, cultivate on potatoes, in milk, and half a dozen other 
 tests, no one of which is absolutely so practically reliable as the plain, 
 every day fact that the culture came from a cholera sick hog? 
 
 Again, while your scientist is carrying his cultures through all 
 these methods and going through all this exact scientific detail, he is 
 removing his germ farther and farther from its natural conditions, and 
 you may be sure he is losing something that he will never find again 
 in that culture. 
 
 What is that? 
 
 The preventive qualities of the germ. 
 
 As sure as you occupy the position you do that power will be 
 lost, and at present can never be regained. We can retain the viru- 
 lence in cultures indefinitely, but cannot preserve the prevention. 
 The rule is, that in order to obtain reliable prevention the first culture 
 from the sick hog can be absolutely depended on, and that every suc- 
 ceeding generation is less and less reliable, and that even the third 
 and fourth should not be used if much of anything depends on it. 
 That is, transfers being made once a week. In four weeks the pre- 
 vention is practically lost. Naturally the right kind of an outbreak 
 must be selected and the hog condemned at the right period of the 
 disease. 
 
 These points have all been settled here, and this is what we have 
 been at work on, instead of wasting our time seeing how many tails 
 a germ had or how many " stripes it had on its belly," or how it 
 would grow on green cheese direct from the moon, or some other 
 bacteriological demi-nousense. Pretty work, it's true, scientific it 
 •even may be, but its practicability is very questionable. 
 
 It may be said "that the farmers, not being scientists, will not al- 
 ways get pure cultures in virus prepared by themselves." 
 
 That is true scientifically, but absolutely absurd practically. 
 
 Generally, an experience of five years in the west tells me that they 
 will get pure cultures. For instance, I can honestly say that out of 
 about 150 hogs, each one from an independent outbreak, I obtained 
 absolutely pure cultures in all but three, during the time I was in 
 Chicago. What is more to the purpose, rabbit controls were used in 
 ^verv case. The heart's blood of the hog was only used to obtain the 
 virus from. But suppose there is an occasional extra germ in the 
 blood, is there any harm or danger in that fact if the swine plague 
 ■germ predominates, as it surely will? 
 
 We all know that the danger of the other germs getting into the 
 blood of the hog is very small indeed, by inoculation, and even if a 
 «tray bureau germ gets in I, for one, do not fear the result. What of 
 4hat? 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 95 
 
 Let us stop all nonsense and get down to actual facts. Do you 
 know of a single successful virus that is being used to-day that can 
 be said to be pure culture of the germs of the disease which it pre- 
 vents? 
 
 Take vaccination, for instance. I believe the real germ has been 
 discovered though the facts have not been published in detail. For a 
 •century vaccination has been practiced, and with no precautions as to 
 germs ; for no mortal knew, and but a select few to-day know, which 
 ■or what is the germ of vaccina, yet on every point used are many va- 
 rieties of germs which do no harm in general. I have seen cultures 
 from points of a great variety of germs, not one of which when iso- 
 lated proved to be the germ of vaccina, produce the most characteristic 
 vesicles, as is the case in vaccination as used everywhere. Why? 
 ^Because the real germ was among them. The same results, but no 
 better, have been produced with the real germ when isolated and used 
 by itself. The vaccine vesicles of the calf are exposed to all manner 
 of pollutions, and every point used contains at least ten adventitious 
 germs to one that will be found in a culture of swine plague virus 
 properly selected and taken direct from the heart's blood. 
 
 No one doubts that Pasteur's inoculation against rouget worked and 
 will work, and those who are acquainted with the facts know that 
 Pasteur used it several years without ever knowing the actual germ, 
 and probably without ever having seen it. Still, it worked ! The real 
 germ was first discovered in Pasteur's virus, and found to be a delicate 
 rod by Schiitz in Germany. Pasteur had said it was a dipplo-coccus 
 (a figure 8), but was mistaken. Schiitz found six or seven other germs 
 in Pasteur's virus against rouget. 
 
 And still it worked ! 
 
 None of these preventive inoculation viruses have worked any bet- 
 ter, and few as uniformly well as that against swine plague in my 
 hands and in the hands of our western farmers. 
 
 That is all you want. We want no technical scientific nonsense, for 
 such unfortunately exists, if we have a plain, clear, square method 
 "which every farmer can apply himself. 
 
 That we claim to have, and that we are demonstrating as fast as 
 possible. Scientific painfulness is very liable to destroy its value. The 
 scientific exactness lies in the selection of the right hog at the 
 right time, which any farmer can do, and not in the technical 
 details of laboratory exactness for exact demonstrative purposes. The 
 time occupied in carrying such out will certainly nullify every pre- 
 ventive result. We do not want your scientist and will not have him, 
 as we have no time to bother with such, but if Dr. Parsons cannot 
 be sent, should some every day, common, ordinary, practical swine 
 breeder visit us, we shall give him a royal welcome, though we should 
 not bother him much with a microscope, but rather send him down to 
 
96 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 our friend Walker's, and a number of other men of the same stripe, 
 and let him see how a man of his own calling inoculates his own hogs. 
 
 Why not visit Nebraska yourself? 
 
 "Next summer! " Why delay that long? The farmers of the west 
 will certainly lose millions of dollars from swine plague ere that time 
 arrives. Procrastination is not thief of time alone, it's killing our 
 farmers. Then we have very little disease in the summer months, 
 and it is "between hay and grass," the spring pigs will be grown and 
 the fall ones not born, and the farmers so busy in harvest that little 
 or no inoculation will be done. You have been a farmer and should 
 " know how it is yourself" at that season of the year. Again, by that 
 time inoculation will be entirely out of my hands and in those of the 
 farmer, supported, perhaps, if necessary, by some competent young 
 woman, who will have entire charge of it in the laboratory. There are 
 no mysterious methods to be studied. It's all plain sailing on an open 
 sea. Do not you think it would be a good idea to order your workers 
 to find out inoculation before spring, or procure others who can? It 
 took me just four months to demonstrate its practicability from the 
 time I began to work here. It can be done. Why not put the testing 
 on where it belongs and not where it is about over? That is what the 
 farmers are looking upon you to do. Take a glance into Ohio. I see 
 they are succeeding there also. In fact, Mr. Rusk, remove the mote 
 from your Washington eye. You can't find any motes in the 
 western one. In sporting vernacular, the people here think it is about 
 time for the Bureau of Animal Industry to either "put up something of 
 value as a testimonial of so many years' existence,. or shut up" as to 
 what others are really doing. 
 
 Yours most truly, Frank S. Billings, 
 
 Director Patho- Biological Laboratory, State University of Nebraska. 
 
 Reader, is there anything so terribly impolite or wrong in those two 
 letters to Mr. Rusk, even though he be the " Honorable Secretary of 
 Agriculture of the United States of America"? Of course they 
 might be considered audacious impudence had they been written to 
 King William or Prince Bismarck, of Germany, but one thing is sure 
 then, there would have been an honest investigation and the sinner, 
 who ever he is, would have been in quod by this time. The dishonest 
 work which has been going on in the Agricultural Department at 
 Washington ever since 1880, by and through the influence of the chief 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry, could not continue for six months 
 in Germany. In fact, it would never have been begun, for German 
 investigators are not built that way. They are men of honor and 
 scientific reliability. They are not tricky aud irresponsible politi- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 97 
 
 cians. Why should I not have Avritten Mr. Rusk as I did? Am I 
 not a citizen of the United States? Am I not admitted by the entire 
 scientific world to be competent to express an opinion on the questions 
 in dispute? Have I not then even more right to express my opinion, 
 in public if I choose, than the editors of daily papers on questions 
 like this? This government is not, theoretically, an imperial autoc- 
 racy, though it begins to look as if the secretary of agriculture as- 
 sumed that it is so, so far as he and his department is concerned. I 
 did not know then, and do not now, that Mr. Rusk is secretary of 
 the Department of Agriculture " by the Grace of God" as William 
 III audaciously asserts of himself that he is King of Prusia and 
 Emperor of Germany? 
 
 It is but natural that Mr. Rusk should not have been pleased with 
 such plain spoken letters. They demonstrate the perfidy of a depart- 
 ment under his charge altogether too acutely to be agreeable. Of these 
 two letters he says in his letter to Senator Paddock : 
 
 Under date of October 9, '91, he published an open letter in which 
 he quoted from department reports, garbling his extracts, and mis- 
 representing the position of the writer in order to deceive his readers. 
 
 Every word of that accusation is emphatically false. Why not 
 show up the "garbled extracts." "As to a desire to mislead my 
 readers" such a thought never entered my head. I am not a scoundrel, 
 Mr. Rusk, nor is my head so wanting in the level qualities that I am 
 not very cautious in all my quotations. I have never intentionally 
 quoted for mere effect in my life, but to place the square truth before 
 the world. When I published my Swine Plague Report, 1888, I 
 took pains to read the entire manuscript over with a disinterested 
 person, who had all the department reports and other documents 
 quoted from at hand, and not one was objected to as incomplete or for 
 mere effect. Another and entirely disinterested person reviewed both 
 the work of the department and myself most critically and ex- 
 pressed the following on this point: 
 
 We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the re- 
 ports of the Department of Agrimlture, line by line and word for 
 word; we have carefully examined, the plates accompanying these re- 
 ports to which he refers, and we have also read the entire context from 
 which he quotes, in order to avoid any possible bias which may follow 
 from reading disconnected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say 
 
 7 
 
98 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 that all of Dr. Billings' charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are 
 true and just, and we cannot understand hoiv the committee appointed 
 to investigate the special question involved could fail to make the same 
 examination, to arrive at the same result, and to publish that result in 
 calm, judicious language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billings, or 
 of criticism of Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded 
 from this point of view, the report of that committee is the most disap- 
 pointing document of the kind we have ever seen. This we may say 
 without intimating, as Dr. Billings does, that its author's were under 
 the control of the ' Bureaucratic Whip.' " 
 
 Still another independent and personally known to me as a very 
 cautious critique has expressed himself most forcibly on the work of 
 the Department of Agriculture relating to the investigation of diseases 
 in live stock. 
 
 REPORT OF DR. AUSTIN PETERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 
 ON EDUCATION, AT THE TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING 
 OF THE UNITED STATES VETERINARY ASSOCIATION, WASHING- 
 TON, SEPTEMBER 15, 1891. 
 
 Ill concluding this report, I believe that the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry should receive a little of our attention. I thought of calling 
 your attention to it a year ago, but my paper then seemed so long 
 that I decided to defer what I had to say until a future occasion, and 
 am now glad that I did so, as it has given me an opportunity to beard 
 the lion in his den, so to speak, which 1 always prefer to do, if the op- 
 portunity permit. 
 
 We have connected with the United States Department of Agricult- 
 ure the Bureau of Animal Industry. Its chief is a veterinarian, 
 and a large number of his assistants are also veterinarians. It is the 
 only department in which the United States government officially 
 recognizes the veterinary profession in a manner that at all appeals to 
 our self-respect, and, as the great veterinary organization of this 
 country, we naturally take much interest in its work and usefulness. 
 We are better able, perhaps, than any one else to criticise its actions 
 and results, being, as we are, especially educated on the subjects with 
 which it has to deal. We have the same right as the rest of the peo- 
 ple to commend the action of our servants, or to find fault with the 
 way in which they conduct their work, besides which, by our special 
 training, we are in a position to feel that we have a peculiar right to 
 show our approval, or our disapproval, as the case may be, of the 
 labors of this bureau. 
 
 Of the practical work of the Bureau of Animal Industry I shall have 
 little to say. It has almost eradicated contagious pleuro-pneumonia 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 99 
 
 from this country, and in time will undoubtedly succeed in its complete 
 extinction. For this service alone it deserves the thanks of the peo- 
 ple, and has repaid many times over every cent that has ever been 
 appropriated by congress for its support, including all it has expended 
 in other directions. These results could have been obtained by any 
 good veterinarian possessed of tact and administrative ability. When 
 we come, however, to a consideration of its scientific investigations, 
 we cannot say a great deal for its efficiency. 
 
 If we review as briefly as possible the work done in the scientific 
 investigation of swine diseases by the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
 will be quite sufficient to demonstrate to us the value of its bacterio- 
 logical work and the credence to place upon any statements emanating 
 from its officials. 
 
 If an exhaustive report were written upon the researches in swine 
 diseases in the United States during the past few years, together with 
 all the controversy that they have brought forth, quite a large volume 
 could be easily filled. A year ago, when I thought of referring to this 
 matter in my report, I should have based what I had to say upon an 
 article by J. Armory Jeffries, M. D., which appeared in the Journal 
 of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Archives, for December, 
 1890, entitled "Etiology of Two Outbreaks of Diseases Among 
 Hogs," although my report was written before the article appeared in 
 print, I was fully cognizant of its contents, having assisted Dr. Jef- 
 fries in his work, and in fact done a portion of it myself. Material 
 which I have since been able to avail myself of only confirms me in 
 the views which I then held, without changing them in any important 
 particular. 
 
 The other articles of which I speak, and to which I would refer 
 all interested in the matter, as time will only permit my presenting 
 the conclusions I have drawn from them, are: 
 
 "A Contribution to Our Knowledge of the cause of Swine Plague, 
 and its Relation to Connected Bacteriological Operations," by Dr. P. 
 Frosch (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 9, page 235) ; editors, Dr. R. 
 Koch and Dr. Flugge. 
 
 u Upon Our Knowledge of the American Swine Plague," by Dr. 
 Theobald Smith, chief of the bacteriological laboratory of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. (Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 10, No. Ill, page 
 480.) 
 
 "Reply to the Preceding Work of Dr. Th. Smith, upon 'Our 
 Knowledge of American Swine Plague,'" by Dr. P. Frosch, assist- 
 ant in the Institute of Hygiene of the University of Berlin. (Zeit- 
 schrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 10, No. Ill, page 509.) 
 
 Also at a meeting of the Scottish Metropolitan Veterinary Medical 
 Society, held in Edinburgh, February 25, 1891, Mr. Thomas Bowhill, 
 M. R. C. V. S., read a paper upon " Swine Fever." Vide Veterinary 
 Journal, May, 1891. To sum up: 
 
100 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Jeffries concludes that Billings' "swine plague" and Smith's "hog- 
 cholera" germs are identical, and differ from those of the disease he 
 has investigated; and that cultures Smith sent him of his "swine 
 plague" germ are identical with the disease germs that he (Jeffries) 
 has been studying, which produce a septic pneumonia in swine that 
 they can communicate to calves, and very probably to lambs, sheep, 
 and other animals. 
 
 In short, the much vaunted "swine plague" is simply a septic dis- 
 ease which is not peculiar to swine by any means. It is caused by 
 one of a large group of bipolar organisms, and capable of producing 
 similar symptoms in such small experiment animals as are susceptible 
 to them. Jeffries concludes by saying: "But while only two germs 
 of this class are known to infest hogs in the United States, there may 
 be others in Europe, e. g., 'Wild seuche.'" 
 
 I think that Jeffries' work is particularly accurate and very valu- 
 able, and am surprised that it has not attracted a great deal of attention, 
 although it does not seem to have done so. 
 
 Dr. Frosch, in his first article, compares the work done by Bil- 
 lings with the work supposed to be Salmon's, and draws the following 
 conclusions: 
 
 "1. The bacterium of Salmon's hog cholera and Billings' swine 
 plague are identical. 
 
 "2. The same is the cause of the American swine plague, while the 
 proof of an etiological relation of the bacterium of Salmon's swine 
 plague to the first, especially to a second plague of like extent, has 
 not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. 
 
 " 3. That the bacterium is identical with Selander's Schweine pest 
 bacterium (Selander's Schweine pest being the swine disease of Sweden 
 and Denmark), but different from bacterium of the German Schweiue- 
 seuche, chicken cholera, rabbit septicsemia, and ferret plague. 
 
 "4. The ferret disease is caused by a separated kind of a bacterium 
 and caunot be grouped with the rest." 
 
 Dr. Smith's is a reply to Dr. Frosch's first article. 
 
 Dr. Frosch's second paper is a reply to Dr. Smith. 
 
 Mr. Bowhill's paper announces that he has found in cases of swine 
 fever, in England, a bacterium identical with Billings' swine plague 
 germs and that he has sent specimens to Billings, who confirms his 
 discovery. 
 
 Here we have two excellent investigators, one in the United States 
 and one in Germany, confirming the identity of Billings' swine plague 
 germ and Salmon's hog cholera germ, and each one acting independ- 
 ently of the other, while the third finds the same germ as the cause 
 of the English swine fever. 
 
 Dr. Billings boldly announces that he found his germ of swine 
 plague in July, 1886, amoug the first pigs that he examined in Ne- 
 braska, which had died of the disease. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 101 
 
 Salmon, in his report for 1884, discovered a micrococcus as the cause 
 ■of what he then called swine plague. In his report the next year he 
 says it is due to an oval, motile bacterium. Later, in some of his re- 
 plies to his critics, he attributes the discovery of this organism to his 
 assistant, Dr. Th. Smith. Dr. Frosch says: "This circumstance not 
 only readily explains the intrinsic contradiction of the reports for 
 1884 and 1885, but also seems to have influenced Salmon's further 
 investigations." 
 
 In a special report of the Bureau of Animal Industry upon hog 
 cholera, its history, nature, and treatment, issued in 1889, there is a 
 short history of the investigations of swine disease made in the United 
 States, but we do not find any mention of the name of Billings, al- 
 though he discovered at once the bacterium which the chief of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry had been searching for for years, and which 
 he probably would not have found for some time if he had not had 
 the help of an assistant whom he was not generous enough to credit 
 with the discovery and so let it pass as his own. 
 
 In the report of the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1886, page 20, 
 we find the following statement : 
 
 "In view of the results of investigations which have shown the ex- 
 istence of two distinct infectious diseases of swine, perhaps of equal 
 virulence and distribution, a change in the nomenclature becomes nec- 
 essary in order to avoid any confusion in the future. Since these two 
 diseases have been considered as one in the past and the name swine 
 plague and hog cholera have been applied indiscriminately, we prefer 
 to retain both names with a more restricted meaning, using the name 
 hog cholera for the disease described in the last report as swine plague, 
 which is produced by a motile bacterium, and applying the name 
 swine plague to the other disease, the chief seat of which is the lungs. 
 This change is the more desirable, since recent investigations have 
 shown that the latter disease exists in Germany, where it is called 
 swine plague (Schweine-seuche)." 
 
 The following questions propound themselves to us after reading 
 the above : 
 
 After speaking of the disease as a swine plague for several years, did 
 the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry call Billings' swine plague 
 <( hog cholera" for the sake of creating confusion ? (Thus, while appar- 
 ently ignoring him, at the same time paying him the greatest possible 
 compliment in the power of one man who seems to admire another.) 
 
 If the name " hog cholera" was not used in place of swine plague 
 for the purpose of creating confusion, why was a septic pneumonia of 
 the pig termed "swine plague" unless it was for the purpose of caus- 
 ing still further confusion. When, as we have seen, the disease is not 
 confined to swine, but a little careful study would have shown that the 
 pigs could easily communicate it to other species of animals, Dr. 
 
102 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Frosch pays the methods of bacteriological study pursued in the lab- 
 oratory of the Bureau of Animal Industry the deservedly high com- 
 pliment of doubting any "etiological relation of the bacterium of Sal- 
 mon's ' swine plague' to the pest, especially to a second plague of like 
 extent." 
 
 But Jeffries' work removes all doubt upon this matter and we know 
 that the Bureau of Animal Industry has found another disease of 
 swine, which is a septic pneumonia and is not alone confined to swine, 
 and which for some reason or other they choose to term "swine plague." 
 Furthermore, it is not impossible that one animal may be infected with 
 both maladies simultaneously. 
 
 The so-called swine plague of the Bureau of Animal Industry is 
 one of those septic diseases due to filth and is seen chiefly where putri- 
 fying city swill is fed, and farmers around Boston find that if the 
 swill is boiled and then fed before there is time for putrefactive pro- 
 cess to commence again that they are not troubled with it. In this 
 respect it resembles closely the German Schweine-seuche. If this be a 
 true swine plague, make the most of it. 
 
 Dr. Smith's article is, as I have said, in reply to Dr. Frosch's first 
 article. In it he attempts to uphold the work done under the auspi- 
 ces of the Bureau of Animal Industry and to throw discredit upon the 
 work done in Nebraska and also to answer the criticisms in Dr. 
 Frosch's first article. 
 
 Dr. Frosch's reply to Dr. Smith has its chief interest in his closing 
 sentences. After briefly answering Dr. Smith's remarks and saying 
 that there is no need of his defending Dr. Billings, as he is abundantly 
 able to defend himself, Frosch ends with : "From the present publica- 
 tion of Smith's, however, which could not be seen in reading the reports 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it is evident that Salmon was not 
 the discoverer of either the 'hog cholera' germ or that of the 'swine 
 plague,' so now we know the condition of things in that regard." 
 
 Whether Frosch's feelings of admiration for the honesty and gener- 
 osity of the pseudo-scientist, whose work he supposed he was review- 
 ing when he wrote his first article, were equal to his feelings of pity 
 and contempt of his assistant, who was obliged to give the credit for 
 his hard work to his chief, or lose his official head, and yet serve as a 
 pillar for his doughty chief to hide behind in case of an attack, I leave 
 to your imagination. 
 
 You will see that Jeffries, in his paper, gives Smith credit for the work 
 he has done. It has been no secret to me for the last year and a half 
 as to who was actually conducting these investigations in the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. Having taken the investigation of swine diseases 
 as a fair sample of this bureau's scientific labors, are we to be expected 
 to place any dependence upon the accuracy of the statements emanating 
 from its officers concerning such work, especially when they conflict 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 103 
 
 with the results obtained by men like Paquin and Billings, unless the 
 work of the former is confirmed by experiments conducted by inde- 
 pendent and unprejudiced recognized ability? 
 
 How can we, as a profession, feel anything but disgraced when we 
 think of the opinions which must be held in Koch's laboratory, the 
 greatest bacteriological laboratory in the world, concerning our Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry and its scientific work. 
 
 I do not wish any one to think that I have taken up the cudgels in 
 Dr. Billings' behalf. Scientific research is the search after truth, and 
 work that is recognized as good abroad cannot be ignored at home, no 
 matter what the personal feelings of one man may happen to be to- 
 wards another. No one deplores more than I the personalities that so 
 often pervade the writings of the investigator employed by the state of 
 Nebraska, that have done so much to detract from the dignity of his 
 work, which I believe to be really correct and valuable. On the other 
 hand a lack of honesty and straightforwardness is equally bad or 
 worse, and modern political methods are not to be tolerated in the con- 
 ducting of scientific researches. 
 
 The former style of writing shows what it is on the face of it. The 
 latter often hides a good deal beneath its surface. One is like the rat- 
 tlesnake, which gives warning when it is about to strike. The other 
 is more dangerous, like the deadly moccasin, which strikes its fangs 
 into its victim without giving any indications of its presence. 
 
 If the Bureau of Animal Industry is to be a political organization, 
 why not have its chief simply write the letter of transmissal of his an- 
 nual report to the secretary of agriculture, and have a few true scientists 
 in its employ to work unhampered, and make their own reports upon 
 the questions that they have been studying upon. This, at least, for 
 the sake of making a more creditable appearance to other civilized na- 
 tions, if we have no respect for ourselves. 
 
 More could easily be added of adverse criticism upon the manage- 
 ment of the Bureau of Animal Industry, but enough has been said for 
 the present, and it does not seem advisable to continue this report to 
 too great length. 
 
 In conclusion, I wish to heartily express my thanks to my confreres 
 upon this committee for the valuable assistance they have rendered me 
 in obtaining material for this report. 
 
 Austin Peters, M. R. C. V. S., Chairman. 
 
 I have recently taken pains to read carefully all my various publi- 
 cations, and I cannot find a misquotation in any one of them, and only 
 one misapplication, which was perfectly unintentional, and is on page 
 230 of my bulletin on swine plague, which I much regret. As to 
 the " man" I desired to have sent here by Mr. Rusk, I supposed the 
 
104 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 gentleman was deep in his confidence from long acquaintance, and I 
 have given my own reasons for desiring him in my second " open" let- 
 ter to Mr. Rusk. I am sure I am right in asserting that if preventive 
 inoculation is to be of any benefit to the farmers of the west it must be 
 so simple that they can do it themselves, otherwise, while as a scientific 
 fact it is possible, it would still be an impracticable procedure; but of 
 this later on. As to being afraid of any one's seeing my methods, 
 every one knows that so far as the laboratory is concerned they are 
 nothing more or less than the simple transference of the blood from 
 the heart of a diseased hog to bouillon and the use of the same within 
 four days. All other laboratory methods have been found injurious 
 to the preventive qualities of the virus ; and hence, one by one ex- 
 cluded as this fact has been demonstrated. Success depends on the 
 selection of the right kind of an outbreak and at the right time in the 
 outbreak, but mostly on an outbreak just beginning, and the pig most 
 recently attacked. In other words, a fresh outbreak and a freshly 
 attacked pig is the only source from which to obtain virus, because, 
 practical results have conclusively demonstrated that a pig that has been 
 ill over a week, and the shorter time the better, does not yield a reliably 
 preventive virus. This has all been expressed in the letters to Mr. 
 Rusk, so what was there to observe save the ordinary methods in use 
 in every laboratory, and the practical results of viruses taken from all 
 kinds of outbreaks, and different stages in outbreaks, which was the 
 method pursued last year, in order to settle the above point beyond 
 further controversy. There would then have been no need of resort- 
 ing to all sorts of disgracefully underhand methods, as has been done 
 by the Department of Agriculture, in order to discover what was going 
 on in this laboratory during the past year. This is a public institution, 
 and had I refused all desired information to the department, the chan- 
 cellor of the University has access to all records and books of the 
 work done here, as shown by the results of an investigation of the 
 same by a committee nominated at the chancellor's request at the late 
 meeting of the National Association of Swine Experts, which reported 
 as follows : 
 
 At the closing meeting, also, the following was submitted by the 
 special committee selected to investigate Dr. Billings' work in inocula- 
 tion for hog cholera : 
 
 Your committee, to which was referred the matter of the work now 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 105 
 
 being done at the patho-biological laboratory of the State University, 
 •desires to make the following report : 
 
 In company with the chancellor of the University we visited the 
 laboratory and made an examination of the same, its methods and its 
 work, lasting for several hours. Every facility was offered us in the 
 way of opening all books, records, files of letters, reports, and other 
 data in the office of the laboratory. Others were with us at the time 
 and there was the utmost freedom of inquiry and the fullest possible 
 replies to all that we asked. The office was treated as a public office 
 and the examination was conducted in the most thorough way possible. 
 
 As a conclusion we desire to say: 
 
 First — We are satisfied that the experiments now being carried on 
 in the laboratory are conducted with unusual skill and ability, and 
 with facilities for such work that can scarcely be found elsewhere in 
 this country. We are of the opinion that the state is warranted in 
 continuing these experiments, and indeed that it ought to give more 
 aid that they may be carried still further and more rapidly. We 
 believe that the results of the experiments thus far made and recorded 
 are of great and practical importance to the farmers of this state and 
 the entire nation. We believe that it is especially true of the experi- 
 ments made in connection with hog cholera by inoculation, and we 
 confidently anticipate that this system of prevention will be shown to 
 be safe and effective. We believe that it is worthy of careful trial in 
 all infected districts. We confidently assert that the records of the 
 laboratory opened to us have conclusively proved that it has been ef- 
 fective in many instances in Nebraska, and to such an extent that it 
 can no longer be called an experiment, nor can it be seriously ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 Second — We carefully compared the statements set forth in the 
 Farmers' Bulletin No. 8, issued by the Department of Agriculture, with 
 the originals of letters and reports in the laboratory, many from the 
 same parties said to be quoted in this bulletin, and we believe that the 
 government has not been well nor wisely informed in this matter. We 
 deem the letters in the bulletin to be so misleading as to make it un- 
 safe to accept many of its conclusions. We do not think it would be 
 wise for farmers to be led by the bulletin to avoid an experiment in 
 inoculation. We believe that parties have thorough forgetful ness in 
 the lapse of time or because of the uncertainty of hearsay testimony, 
 been led to report to the government in a way that is misleading. 
 
 In conclusion, your committee would urge on all members of this 
 association from states other than Nebraska the necessity and desira- 
 bility of securing action in their own states like that taken by Ne- 
 braska, in the way of establishing state laboratories in which the dis- 
 ease of animals can be investigated. And we congratulate Nebraska 
 on having a university that is willing to give its attention to such mat- 
 
106 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 ters as well as to mere teaching of those things that are generally 
 taught in colleges. Respectfully submitted, 
 
 H. C. Ori.AR, Indiana. 
 
 Alonzo Baker, Iowa. 
 
 L. Hamilton, Nebraska.. 
 
 Again, Mr. Rusk says : 
 
 You will find by investigating the matter that neither during his 
 first nor second engagements in Nebraska has Dr. Billings been at- 
 tacked by Dr. Salmon; on the contrary, Dr. Salmon has been the sub- 
 ject of continued attacks from Dr. Billings. 
 
 That that accusation is false and the secretary of agriculture misled 
 has already been made evident in the demonstration of the facts that 
 the agricultural department, under his predecessor, did try to prevent 
 my first engagement in Nebraska by informing the authorities here 
 that they would " send a better rqan " to do the work, and in the sec- 
 ond place by the letter of June 11, '91, of the chief of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry to the editor of the American Swineherd, which, 
 though an attack on inoculation, was still an attack on me and the 
 work I was expected to do on my return to Nebraska, July 1, 189L 
 While no one will question the right of the chief of the bureau to 
 v express his opinions on inoculation as a preventive of swine plague, no 
 fair-minded person will deny to me the right to stand by my own and 
 the interests which I have been engaged to advance. The "right" in 
 the matter, however, entirely depends on the facts and evidence in 
 any case. Whether they have been used honestly or intentionally 
 misconstrued to create public prejudice. That the latter is the case, so 
 far as the chief of the bureau is concerned, will soon be so completely 
 demonstrated that he who reads cannot help but endorse that state- 
 ment in the same manner as the committee appointed by the National 
 Association of Expert Swine Judges recently did. 
 
 The next remark of Mr. Rusk's is the most amusing of all. He 
 accuses me of "having been driven to the wall" and then posing as a 
 "long-suffering individual who has been quietly and disinterestedly 
 laboring in the cause of the farmer." 
 
 To these remarks I can simply refer to the action of Nebraska. I 
 am not one who makes "frantic appeals" to any one on my own ac- 
 count. 'Tis true that I have constantly done the best I could under 
 the circumstances to awaken in the American farmer that degree of 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. ' , 107 
 
 individual self-respect by which he should stand up for himself and 
 break the chains of complacent slavery which machine bosses, like the 
 secretary of agriculture, have forged around his pliant neck. I have 
 not done this either as Billings, or as an investigator, nor in the inter- 
 ests of inoculation, but as a man who indignantly sees the spirit of 
 the declaration of independence ignominiously trampled under foot 
 and the people made willing slaves in spite of their constitutional 
 rights because of their ignorance and self-complacent blindness. My 
 course and writings on other subjects than diseases and their causes 
 are sufficient evidence of the truth of my statements as to the real 
 reason I have combated the course of the Department of Agricult- 
 ure and other methods of the political ring-masters ; which course I 
 intend to pursue with even more vigor, whether agreeable to the kings 
 of the machine and their minions or not. 
 
 Mr. Rusk next alludes to the test made by his department at Ot- 
 tawa, Illinois, during the past winter in this way : 
 
 After clamoring so long for an opportunity to demonstrate the suc- 
 cess of his inoculation as a preventive of swine plague, it was certainly 
 very ridiculous to find him evading the opportunity which Dr. Salmon 
 offered him for making a comparative test at Ottawa. He wanted an 
 investigation, but not of scientists ; here was a chance to demonstrate 
 the value of his method to a committee of intelligent farmers, but 
 instead of accepting it with alacrity he did all he could to delay the 
 test. 
 
 I emphatically denounce every word of ike above as false and mali- 
 ciously misleading, but am equally pleased that Mr. Rusk has put him- 
 self on record as he has. No more villainous and unscrupulous piece 
 of political work has ever been performed by the department than 
 that at Ottawa, 111. Let us see what was done. 
 
 I did not delay the work. I simply refused all connection with it. 
 The farmers about Ottawa had met and were meeting with very severe 
 losses from swine plague in a most malignant form. They first, if my 
 information is correct, in the order of events, wrote to their own Ex- 
 periment Station at Champaign, 111., and received the very curt reply 
 that " nothing could be done for them," which naturally leads to the 
 inquiry " Why not?" "For what has that Experiment Station been 
 organized, if not for just such work ? " They next turned to the " great 
 father" of agriculture and asked him to aid them in their difficulty } 
 
108 -A PUBLIC. SCANDAL. 
 
 but he said he was financially bankrupt and could do nothing, as 
 shown by the following letter: 
 
 U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
 Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 
 Washington, D. C, October 5, 1891. 
 Mr. Geo. C. Cadwell, TJtica, La Salle County, III. 
 
 Sir : Your favor, addressed to the secretary of agriculture, has been 
 referred to me for answer. 
 
 I have to inform you that there are no funds available for the pur- 
 pose of which which you write. The secretary is very desirous of 
 securing an appropriation for the further investigation of diseases 
 among swine, in the near future. 
 
 I have directed that the last reports on hog cholera and swine 
 plague be sent you. 
 
 Very respectfully, Ch. B. Michener, 
 
 Acting Chief of Bureau. 
 
 That is a u flat-footed " refusal enough, is it not, to cause men in 
 ■distress to look otherwise for relief? Certainly they could not expect 
 anvthing from that quarter of any immediate value. Then these 
 farmers met, and having heard that attempts, at least, in the direction 
 which they desired were being energetically pursued here, they applied 
 to us for aid. 
 
 Did the Nebraska station shut them off abruptly as their own station 
 had done, or refuse for want of money, when it was also nearly " bank- 
 rupt," as the National Agricultural Department did? The whole 
 country knows that it did not. We told them to come to us here, as we 
 had no one to send them, and we would cheerfully instruct and do all 
 we could for them. We did so. They sent a man and we gave him 
 all we could spare of the necessary utensils to work with. No in- 
 structor on earth can guarantee success in his pupil. Mr. Cadwell is 
 said to have failed and to have killed the majority of the hogs he 
 inoculated, and it is asserted that the disease spread from the hogs 
 inoculated by Mr. Cadwell to the controls and those inoculated by the 
 government. Were this true, which I for one do not for a moment 
 believe, then the government's "superior" or "better" method failed 
 as ignomiuiously as Mr. Cadwell's was successful in demonstrating 
 to the government that hogs could be killed, in short order, by the 
 inoculation of a culture of the germ, a fact that they have conclu- 
 sively, and with due regard to exact methods, failed to demonstrate 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 109 
 
 to the satisfaction of the scientific world, as shown by Frosch, and 
 the fact that every authority has given this station credit for such 
 demonstration. Without claiming any more for it, this much can be 
 claimed, that by the department's admission, a scientist is not neces- 
 sary, nor the machinery of a laboratory, to obtain an active culture of 
 swine plague germs. That is one point gained at any rate! 
 
 Before we consider that side of the question further, let us go back 
 and continue this history in a chronological order. 
 
 After being instructed and supplied by us with the necessary im- 
 plements, Mr. Cadwell returned home, and what did he find? 
 
 That Mr. Rusk had suddenly found an abundance of money and 
 that there was an agent of the department in his locality who had 
 been so busy that the majority of the farmers who had contributed to 
 send him out here, were now turned against the whole thing, and some 
 of them were not very delicate in their hints that " they had been 
 swindled into it and the whole thing was a fraud," which certainly 
 was not a very encouraging reception for a man who had undertaken 
 the journey more in the interests of his community than himself. 
 
 Can any one explain why Mr. Rusk was so active in discovering 
 some hidden treasure in the dark recesses of his department, and why 
 he was so suddenly interested in the welfare of these farmers after 
 telling them that he could not possibly do a thing for them for want 
 of funds? 
 
 Honestly, now, reader, was not that sudden interest and energy as 
 strong evidence as any one can ash for that the department knows that 
 there is something of value in the Nebraska inoculation, and that for 
 some reason it feared the result, after refusing to do anything, and at 
 once determined to frustrate the endeavors of the farmers to help them- 
 selves at any cost, because Billings would get the credit of it ? 
 
 Can any other interpretation be placed on this hasty change of 
 mind by Mr. Rusk ? 
 
 The cowardice of a contemptible political trickster was what was 
 the matter in this instance. 
 
 Let us see what were the facts in the case: There was a political 
 factor present which must be captured, as against Billings, utterly re- 
 gardless of cost or principle. That it was done there is no doubt. 
 That kind of game will not win forever on the political checker- 
 board. Farmers will not forever continue as brainless dice to be 
 
110 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 played as they please by the kings of the political shaking box. It 
 so happened that the Farmers' Alliance of that district had been the 
 chief mover in seeking aid to overcome the difficulties under which 
 the farmers were laboring. For Billings to have even one lodge of 
 the Farmers' Alliance converted would have been too dangerous a 
 power; hence, the sudden decision of Mr. Rusk to send an agent of 
 his thereto "stem the tide." Not only one agent was sent, but the 
 real chief of the Agricultural Department, the boss wire-puller him- 
 self, the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and other slaves 
 were sent out also, so great was the danger. 
 
 Truly there was another disease more to be feared than swine plague 
 in the Nebraska inoculations. Just think of the result with the Al- 
 liance had we succeeded as we hoped to ! Refused by their good old 
 " Uncle Jerry " and saved by that fellow Billings in Nebraska ! That 
 must never be! Sure enough it was not! In telling their story to 
 the " innocent farmers " of the west, these people have never been 
 honest enough to mention what they knew well enough, that it was 
 absolutely impossible for me to have done anything in person at Ot- 
 tawa had I been most desirous to do so. It was probably this fact which 
 also stimulated their wonderfully self-interested activity. In Octo- 
 ber and November I am under engagement each year to lecture to the 
 students at the Chicago Veterinary College, and the whole course is 
 arranged to accommodate me at that time. I was also under an en- 
 gagement, which could not be broken, to supervise the "lump jaw" 
 trial on the part of the Whisky Trust v. The Illinois Live Stock Com- 
 mission, a vastly more important case to the live stock men of the 
 west than to prove a thing already proven. Hence the reason for se- 
 lecting this time by the government. Mr. Rusk says I " wanted an 
 investigation." He knows better! I simply wanted a man agree- 
 able to me sent here by him, to see what we did and how we did it, 
 and then to be at the disposal of Mr. Rusk to send out over the 
 country and instruct where I could not go, because his Bureau of 
 Wonders had done nothing after over ten years' trial. 
 
 Mr. Rusk did not dare to accept that offer, simply because the chief 
 of the Bureau of Animal Industry would not let him. 
 
 Well, the chief of the bureau issued some sort of a challenge for a 
 test, at Ottawa, 111., which I ignored, for reasons which have been 
 given, and one other, which was this: I as well as knew I would not 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. Ill 
 
 ■be allowed to succeed under any circumstances, and that the hogs inocu- 
 lated would be diseased in one way or another by malicious inter- 
 ference; hence, I would not have inoculated them if I could, and 
 circumstances were such that I could not possibly have done so if I 
 would. 
 
 There is not a citizen of Nebraska, who is interested in this work, 
 that does not support my judgment in refusing to have any personal 
 connection with that first public test which the government made of 
 its own method of preventive inoculation, of which it said in 1883: 
 
 Our investigations have shown that the plague is non-recurrent 
 fever, and that the germs might [Notice they are very cautious not to 
 say " have been "] be cultivated; they have even proved that these 
 germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild 
 affection. [How could that be when they only might be cultivated ? 
 Were there anything but deceptive promises made out of whole cloth 
 in these words — which we know to have been the case, the govern- 
 ment would have said "can be cultivated and can be made to thus 
 lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild affection."] Surely, 
 we have here sufficient evidence to show that a reliable vaccine might 
 [" might " again !] be easily prepared if we carried our investigations but 
 a little way farther. If we had such a vaccine, if it were furnished 
 in sufficient quantities and of a reliable strength, if it proved safe in 
 the hands of the farmer, would not our problem be solved? 
 
 The government was forced to publicly demonstrate, at Ottawa, 
 that its promises of 1883 were like those of politicians generally, 
 "all wind." It fell into its own hole and buried itself. It was de- 
 termined to make any connection of the Nebraska Station with its 
 test an equal failure, because it knew that if left alone there was the 
 greatest probability of our succeding. It knew that, personally, I 
 could do the trick, and did not intend that I should. I knew enough 
 not to try under such circumstances. I do not put my head into the 
 tiger's jaws when I know the nature of his teeth. The inoculation 
 at Ottawa was a fair test of the methods of the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment, not only as to their preventive value in swine plague, but as to 
 their honesty and manliness. 
 
 The proposition made was that the work should be done by an 
 agent of the department and by Mr. Cadwell, the whole to be placed 
 in charge of a committee of farmers selected by farmers. 
 
 The inoculation was done as agreed and Mr. Cadwell went home to 
 
112 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 his farm, and staid there, seeing the hogs but twice afterwards I, be- 
 lieve. That matters not, for, except as a farmer personally interested, 
 he had nothing more to do with them. 
 
 But what did Mr. Rusk's representative do? Did he simply do 
 his business and inoculate the hogs and turn them over to the com- 
 mittee of farmers and return to Washington? No! He staid there 
 controlling the whole thing, talking against the Nebraska method, 
 and stirring up the committee until its members lost what little self- 
 respecting intelligence they had, if they ever had any. Not only . 
 this; this committee did as little as the celebrated scientific commis- 
 sion of gentlemen did in 1889. They did nothing. They left the 
 whole thing in the hands of Mr. Rusk's agents, who kept the press 
 busied with reports issued from or through the department at Wash- 
 ington, as fast as anything occurred, or oftener, and to sum up signed 
 a report written for them by Mr. Rusk's agent, unless my informant 
 is like Mr. Rusk's, entirely untrustworthy. I have said that no 
 matter how strongly I might have desired to personally take part in 
 that experiment, that it would have been impossible, from contracted 
 engagements made long anterior to that time. Suppose I had not, 
 does any fair-minded person think I would have gone with my eyes 
 open into such a jungle of political rottenness as that was? I could 
 not have left my work here and gone there and staid night and day 
 for two months, nor could I have sent any one, as we had no funds 
 here; nor would I have trusted the hogs inoculated by me in such 
 hands, unless surrounded by a guard of German troops. I would 
 not trust Americans aud left them in the hands of Mr. Rusk's agents, 
 for the very action of the committee shows that they were not men 
 enough to be trusted. On the other hand, had I consented, it would 
 neither have been dignified or honorable for me to have had anything 
 further to do with the experiment. I should have returned to Ne- 
 braska at once. Mr. Rusk's actions in this matter are exactly on a 
 par with his permitting the one-half of that notorious commission's 
 report to be sent out to the press in order to create a public disbelief 
 in myself and work and retaining the other half. It would seem 
 that it should be beneath the dignity of any honorable man, much 
 more of a secretary of a department in our government, to boldly 
 trample under foot every principle of honor or manly courtesy. 
 
 It is always understood between gentlemen that, when a matter 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 113 
 
 is left to referees, both parties in the dispute shall religiously leave 
 them alone until they make their report. Mr. Rusk seems abso- 
 lutely without knowledge of the existence of such generally accepted 
 principles of manliness and honor. That he treats them with con- 
 tempt, and defies any esteem for such principles in the American 
 people, whose servant he is, is so self-evident in the course permitted 
 by him at Ottawa, 111., as to be indisputable. The most common 
 'sporting men' have more manly principle and honor than this boss 
 political ring-master seated in Washington. Truly, the stock in trade 
 of these bosses is, that the people are all fools. That that committee 
 of farmers should be condemned as such needs no questioning. They 
 were simply a committee of weaklings hoping to draw nourishment 
 for their half-starved intellects from the public teat, with neither intel- 
 ligence enough nor dignity enough to be honored with the name of 
 men. Fair samples of the poor sticks of to-day who are daily willing 
 to sell their birthright for a mess of political pottage. A country that 
 has to depend for its advance on such stuff as that had better sink 
 into oblivion. Thankfully there are still men enough born to over- 
 come the malevolent influence of such dead-heads. It is a wonder to 
 me that none of the live stock and agricultural editors of the country 
 have appreciated this terribly despotic assumption of power by Mr. 
 Rusk and the disdainfully high-handed manner in which he permitted 
 his agents to act and was led by the nose by his political boss, the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Really, the latter is the 
 only person in the whole matter worthy an iota of respect. We can 
 respect ability even though displayed in wrong directions. There is 
 no question but what the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 owns the secretary of agriculture, body and boots, and that he is 
 one of the cleverest wire-pullers and most dangerous enemies to the 
 rights of the people of the whole machine which grinds out the links 
 of slavery in Washington. As I have said, I must respect this per- 
 son's abilities, though I cannot praise them ; nor have I any fear of 
 them, personally. 
 
 I wish now to return to Mr. CadwelFs inoculation at Ottawa. It 
 has been said that he followed the instructions he received here. Mr. 
 Cadwell has repeatedly denied this and said that he was forced to go 
 directly contrary to them and could not obtain virus from the mild 
 outbreak that he was instructed to. He says : " I want it understood 
 
114 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 that the virus I used was not from a mild outbreak as you directed, 
 stnd I told the committee so." Mr. Cadwell also says that the hogs 
 used were from four to six months old, and that he gave them one- 
 half of a syringe, one-half cubic centimeter, which was according to 
 instructions. 
 
 I wish now to show that if Mr. Cadwell's inoculation did cause the 
 disease and deaths in the hogs inoculated by him, that in using the 
 amount of virus that he did he implicitly followed the advice given by 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry itself. Therefore, as intimated before, 
 a simple farmer has made a culture and taught the bureau something. 
 The chief of the bureau said (Journal Comp. Med., Vol. IX, 1888, 
 p. 148): 
 
 The most interesting of these experiments is our attempt to confer 
 immunity by inoculation. We soon found that there was no indica- 
 tion for attenuating the virus [We have never been told what kind of 
 a virus was used at Ottawa by them for this purpose] because the 
 strongest virus might be introduced hypodermically with impunity in 
 considerable doses. And as the stronger a virus is [That's absolutely 
 wrong] the higher the degree of immunity it produces, you can see 
 that there is every reason for using the fresh unattenuated cultures. 
 
 We are left somewhat in the dark as to what we are to consider as 
 " considerable doses." Later on we may read, however, in the article 
 quoted from, that " We made many experiments and found that hogs 
 might be safely inoculated with one-fourth to one-half cubic centimeter 
 for the first dose." 
 
 In " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," on Inoculation, lately issued " by 
 the authority of the secretary of agriculture," which will soon be 
 noticed in detail, it says : 
 
 In our experiments we found that a dose of one cubic centimeter, 
 i. e., from fifteen to twenty drops, of the strongest cultivated virus 
 would occasionally kill an animal. [How many is that in a thousand?] 
 From one-quarter to one-half this amount, i. c, from four to ten drops, 
 have been given without serious consequences in any case. (P. 8.) 
 
 It is evident, then, that Mr. Cadwell did not exceed the amount said 
 to be safe in "any case" by the Department of Agriculture. If he 
 did not, it is evident, also, that those investigators really do not know 
 or have not yet experienced what they really meant when they said 
 that " the strongest virus might be introduced with impunity in con- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 115 
 
 siderable doses"; for any one who has tried to kill hogs with the 
 " strongest virus," fresh and unattenuated, should know that even one 
 cubic centimeter is often a most unreliable quantity when used hypo- 
 dermically. 
 
 I cannot find one single case in all the reports where a single hog 
 has been killed by the subcutaneous inoculation of a culture of-fhe 
 swine plague germ that would be accepted by the scientific world as a 
 clear and absolutely proven experiment. Frosch has called attention 
 to the same fact as quoted previously. Bolton failed to produce satis- 
 factory fatal effects to demonstrate this germ by the subcutaneous in- 
 jection of five cubic centimeters of a bouillon culture. He says : "We 
 have not been able to produce the disease by subcutaneous inoculations 
 of even quite large amounts, five cubic centimeters of bouillon cultures 
 of this bacillus." What is a poor fellow to do who tries to follow the 
 advice of the department? 
 
 He who follows these bureaucratic "blind leaders of the blind" 
 will surely fall into the ditch of absurd contradiction, if not into a 
 slough of mental despondency, over their peculiar vagaries. 
 
 Above, they have told us that doses of "from one-quarter to one- 
 half cubic centimeter, four to ten drops, have been given without 
 serious consequences in any case." 
 
 We should be able to believe that statement, coming from the sup- 
 posed highest authority in the land, and published, as it is, " by the 
 authority of the secretary of agriculture " of the government of that 
 infallible example of ideal perfection in that line, the United States 
 of America. 
 
 It is plain, is it not, that doses of "from quarter to one-half cubic 
 centimeters, four to ten drops, have been given without serious conse- 
 quences in any case " ? 
 
 What are we to understand by these words : That where the named 
 dose has been given, even to the extreme limit of one-half cubic cen- 
 timeter, ten drops, no "serious consequences" have [njever occur- 
 red "in any case," that we can give such a dose of the "strongest 
 unattenuated virus with impunity" in any case? 
 
 If we can show that the government investigators ever claim to 
 have killed one single hog with that dose, then we have shaken their 
 responsibility entirely as to reliable and trustworthy witnesses or re- 
 porters of the facts, even as regards their own testimony, have we not? 
 
116 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Let us turn to page 12 of that " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," where 
 we can read that 
 
 Of eight hogs inoculated with one-half cubic centimeter each, one 
 died in six days ; the remainder survived. 
 
 Of sixteen hogs inoculated with a like dose {one-half cubic cen- 
 timeter) of the same culture, one died and the rest remained well. 
 
 That's a queer acting germ they have in Washington ! I have 
 never been able to find any such that would kill only one of sixteen 
 inoculated hogs and leave the others "well." 
 
 But that is not the point ! 
 
 There is no clipping or misquotation in the above. The entire 
 passages have been quoted. 
 
 What is the matter? Certainly no sane man, especially one in such 
 high authority as the honorable secretary of agriculture, Mr. Rusk, 
 would tell such a constituency as the agriculturists of America an 
 outright falsehood ? Something must be wrong with a brain which, 
 almost at the same instant could write that doses of 
 
 From quarter to one-half cubic centimeter have been given with- 
 out serious consequences in any case; 
 
 and then that 
 
 Of eight hogs inoculated with one-half cubic centimeter one died. 
 Of sixteen hogs inoculated with a like dose of the same culture,, 
 one died. 
 
 Further comment on the reliability of such "authority" would 
 seem to be unnecessary. What, then, killed Mr. CadwelFs hogs and 
 caused the spread of the disease to the others? 
 
 It is not generally the thing to give voice to a suspicion only, but 
 it is my firm conviction that, as the "committee of farmers" were 
 entirely false to their obligations, and as the hogs were in reality 
 left exclusively at the will of Mr. Rusk's representative, the latter 
 was more true to his " private instructions," and that quite extra 
 "considerable doses of the strongest virus" were introduced into the 
 abdominal cavities of the hogs with impunity at convenient times 
 when the "shades of night" had fallen and all honest people were 
 " fast " asleep. 
 
 In justice to the truth, and for instruction to the public, I must say 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 117 
 
 that inoculated hogs cannot be penned up too closely (it is the same 
 with naturally diseased hogs, as any farmer knows), or the inoculation 
 may work seriously when in hogs allowed to run free; no visible ef- 
 fects may be seen, though the same virus be used. This may have 
 happened to Mr. Cadwell's hogs at Ottawa, but such learned experi- 
 menters as Mr. Rusk's should have learned this by their many years' 
 experience. By whom, or how, was the disease carried to the other 
 hogs? That is the great mystery. It shows unpardonable neglect in 
 conducting the experiment. Such things have never occurred with us 
 in a single instance. Or, to make the government take its own medi- 
 cine, used in trying to make out that inoculation killed the Hess and 
 other hogs at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, the hogs of Mr. Cad well may 
 have had greater susceptibility and have become infected from those 
 inoculated by the government. The thing is as broad as it is long, 
 for they claim, in their attempts to mitigate virus, that " the reduction 
 of virulence was not very great even after prolonged exposure to a 
 high temperature for more than 200 days." (Report 1890, p. 111.) 
 
 The circumstantial evidence, the dishonorable assumptions of the 
 duties of the committee, the remaining on the ground of the govern- 
 ment representative when he should have left immediately, the publi- 
 cation of reports when it was the committee's duty, and beyond that, 
 the disgraceful character of " Farmers' Bulletin No. 8," all warrant 
 the assumption that a public official who is low enough in the scale of 
 manly honor to do such things, or a secretary of government who 
 would countenance them, one or both, is depraved enough to be guilty 
 of any dastardly act to accomplish a desired purpose, especially where 
 success to an opponent means political death to them. 
 
 These are strong words. It must not be forgotten, however, that 
 they are true and founded on facts. It has been a matter of pride 
 with Americans, that no serious scandal has ever sullied the fair name 
 of our national government. It has been respectable if not brilliant. 
 Were any of these persons private citizens, their words or acts would 
 be of no more importance to me than a summer breeze. But here we 
 have years of false and misleading assertions, publications, and acts so 
 dastardly bold that one can scarcely comprehend how such things can 
 be supported by and " published by the authority of the secretary of 
 agriculture" of the United States. A grave question is at stake. 
 He who shirks a duty imposed by a public necessity is a traitor to 
 
118 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 every principle of manhood. The authority of the government of the 
 United States is great. The authority of truth is greater, however. 
 Mr. Rusk closes his letter to Senator Paddock, as follows: 
 
 If the state of Nebraska wishes to continue this kind of a man in 
 such a conspicuous position, paying him $3,600 per year, and allowing 
 him to spend two-thirds of her Experiment Station funds, I suppose 
 she has the power to do so ; but her people cannot expect, and have 
 no right to shift on outside parties the discredit and disgrace which he 
 brings on her fair name. 
 
 Respectfully yours, J. M. Rusk. 
 
 The people of Nebraska have answered. They have judged and 
 passed the verdict. It now remains for the people of the United States 
 to read the evidence, consider it coolly, and pass the verdict as to who 
 is a " discredit and disgrace " to the country, Secretary Rusk or the 
 writer ? 
 
Fakmeks 1 Bulletin No. 8, 
 
 ON INOCULATION, 
 
 CKITICALLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 (119) 
 
SUPPRESSED, ERRONEOUS, AND INCOMPETENT TES- 
 TIMONY IN REGARD TO INOCULATION PRIOR TO 
 THE FALL OF 1891. 
 
 In the previous article we have considered Mr. Rusk's letter to 
 Senator Paddock. We come now to the consideration of the letters 
 published in the " Farmers' Bulletin, No. 8," with reference to inocu- 
 lations done prior to 1891. There are forty-seven letters in all, 
 most of which apply to this period ; thirty-six of which are hearsay 
 evidence, which would not be admitted in any court in the world. It 
 is not my purpose to deny failures or even to try to explain them 
 away, but rather to show why they occurred, in order that others may 
 avoid them. It is as well known to the investigators of the Agricul- 
 tural Department as to every investigator in the world, that failures 
 do not militate against a success in scientific investigation. But sup- 
 pose inoculation had been uniformly successful from the start, has any 
 one stopped to think how little we should actually know as to inocu- 
 lation under such circumstances ? Such success as that, were it possi- 
 ble, would be most detrimental to the acquisition of knowledge. It 
 would kill out ambition. People should remember that the records of 
 the great discoveries which have made our race what it is have been re- 
 corded in words of bitter disappointment on the grave-stones of buried 
 and forgotten failures. 
 
 The millions on millions of men whose lives have contributed 
 nothing to the advance of human knowledge lie buried and forgotten 
 in unknown graves. Only those whose lives have blessed the race 
 have carved their own immortality in the annals of history with deeds 
 incomparably more imperishable than obelisk or pyramid. We know 
 not even the burial place of many of them, and yet the lives of such 
 men as Aristotle, or Hippocrates, or Plato, or a Democrates will con- 
 tinue immortal so long as the human race continues to advance and 
 memory is an attribute of intelligence. Let it be at once understood 
 that I have nothing to defend or advocate in inoculation so far as I 
 
 (121) 
 
122 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 am personally concerned. Every investigator knows that if right the 
 world will do him justice in the end. For that he can afford to wait. 
 In that regard I have nothing to wait for. My work has been suffi- 
 ciently accepted and appreciated already by those capable of judging as- 
 to its value. Were that all, I should not only keep still, but cease to- 
 be anvestigator in this field. When Nebraska builds a suitable labora- 
 tory I hope her people will be willing to let me retire. My own am- 
 bition as an investigator will then have been satisfied. But I may not 
 wait too long for that. The great battle for justice now going on in 
 the social world has always had far more charms for me than this 
 work I have been doing, though it has been the best fitting possible 
 for it. The " call " is getting so urgent that I .shall not resist it many 
 years longer. It is that same " call " which urges me on in this com- 
 bat against manifest and malicious dishonesty in the public service of 
 our government. I shall continue the battle absolutely, regardless of 
 public opinion at present, and confident of* complete justification in the 
 future. 
 
 In point of fact the government is not making its attack on our 
 work on account of our failures, but on the baseless assumption that 
 we are a public curse, and our work a dangerous element to the hog* 
 interests of the country. This accusation of danger, the suggestion 
 behind the lines, that the majority of the hogs that have died of 
 disease after inoculation have been actually killed by that procedure, 
 is unequivocally false, and proven to be so by the very testimony brought 
 forward by the government. 
 
 Cheerfully admitting the failure in all the instances quoted, either 
 in part or total as any one may care to look at it, the reader will please 
 remember that it is not failure to protect, but the killing by inocula- 
 tion of which I am most accused, and that out of those forty-seven 
 correspondents only one man who had his hogs inoculated positively as- 
 serts it to be his opinion that inoculation killed his hogs, Mr. Hess, of 
 Surprise, Butler county, Neb. Why did not the other men who in- 
 oculated and lost their hogs at the same time also write Mr. Rusk 
 to the same effect ? That story is an old worn out chestnut. There 
 is not an intelligent citizen of Nebraska, who knows the facts, that 
 believes inoculation killed one hog or pig at Surprise in 1888. We 
 all know of men who, when they have once made an assertion of 
 that kind, stick to it forever afterward. A bill was put into the legis- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 123. 
 
 lature of Nebraska that year nominally to pay Hess and others, 
 virtually to act as a political lever to lift me out of Nebraska. The 
 legislature did not dare to consider it. The case was too rotten even 
 for politicians. A consistent but mistaken adherer to an error is far 
 more respectable than a malicious and intentional liar. Take, for in- 
 stance, the reports from Richardson county, six men report on what 
 they have heard only. I have a record there of eleven bunches of 
 hogs inoculated by Mr. F. L. Lewis, of that county, besides his own, 
 viz., for Messrs Jordan, Wittwer, Harding, Shearod, Holman, Car- 
 penter, Cox, and Hummel, but we do not find one of those names in 
 the list of Mr. Rusk's correspondents from that county. If either one 
 of those men thought for a moment that inoculation actually hilled his 
 hogs, does any one suppose that some one would not have heard of it ? 
 
 But no complaint has ever been made on that score. Therefore, the 
 testimony of the correspondents from that county is next to worthless. 
 Some men have reported of inoculation in counties where there never 
 has been a hog inoculated according to my records. For instance, W.. 
 J. Davis, of Dawes county, who, however, says: "I would recommend 
 inoculation/' and Byron Street, of Phelps county, who says that 
 "about ten per cent died from the inoculation. After a time a herd 
 was taken into a yard where other hogs had the cholera in the worst form. 
 Part of the inoculated hogs sickened, but none died." 
 
 "What kind of testimony is that? If anything, it is favorable to 
 inoculation. To whom did the hogs belong of which "ten per cent 
 died from inoculation." How many hogs were there that " had the 
 cholera in the worskform"? How many of them died? How many 
 were in that herd of inoculated hogs that were put with them of 
 which "none died"? If such a thing did take place, did any one 
 ever hear of putting a herd of hogs in with a lot of hogs "that had 
 the cholera in the worst form" and none dying? The inoculations at. 
 Lyons, Nebraska, were failures from reasons which we did not then 
 know. 
 
 Is this a failure because four or five died a few days after inocula- 
 tion, or is it any proof that inoculation killed the hogs? Mr. 
 Wright's name is not on my list. Mr. Underwood inoculated 120, 
 and as the u owners of both these herds claim that the animals have since 
 been exposed and no further losses have occurred" one can see no reason, 
 why they should complain. 
 
124 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 John W. Tohman, Danbury, Red Willow county, Nebraska: 
 Two herds that I know of have been inoculated. They belonged 
 to C. Underwood and P. P. Wright. One herd contained about 100 
 head, and there were four or five of them died in a few days after 
 they were inoculated. I do not know the number in the other herd. 
 The owners of both of these herds claim that the animals have since 
 been exposed and no further losses have occurred. 
 
 Mr. C. M. Branson, of Lincoln, who "knows nothing of his own 
 ■experience," writes about some work at the state penitentiary, of which 
 he also knows nothing. 
 
 The state prison tried inoculation, and an extensive feeder of cattle 
 and hogs tried it. It was done by Dr. Billings. There were two 
 herds — I think about fifty in each herd. Nearly all died in one herd, 
 and I think none in the other. Some who have had hogs inoculated 
 have told me that they were highly pleased with it, and say they 
 would not risk having hogs without inoculation. Dr. Billings has 
 often assured me that it is a wonderful preventive. I know nothing 
 of my own experience. 
 
 Mr. Branson was in the laboratory a few days since and I asked 
 him who "the extensive feeder of cattle" was? He said, "Hon. S. 
 W. Burnham," late county treasurer. Mr. Burnham never had a hog 
 inoculated. We tested some inoculated hogs in his sick herd and 
 succeeded. 
 
 The straight facts are, that in the summer of 1888 I personally 
 went to the penitentiary and inoculated some fifty little pigs; they 
 were then "penned," and it was positively understood they were to 
 have ear-tags put in the next morning, as it had been promised that it 
 should be done before they were inoculated. This was not done and 
 no one could tell them a few days after from about 100 more of the 
 same kind. Not one was injured. The only singular thing about 
 this was that later in the season swine plague broke out and all of the 
 pig crop that was left corresponded almost exactly to the number that 
 had been inoculated. Nothing can be claimed for that kind of work, 
 but it is worthy of record under the circumstances. No other hogs 
 were ever inoculated at the penitentiary. 
 
 Mr. H. C. Stoll writes a long letter of complaint. His hogs were 
 sick when inoculated. Mr. Stoll told me, at the breeders' meeting at 
 Beatrice last February (1892), that if I would "give him $200 he 
 would say nothing about it." He then offered to take $100. The 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 125 
 
 value of such testimony is self-evident. Mr. Stoll had "been seen" 
 These hogs were inoculated in 1890. In February, 1891, Mr. Stoll 
 nominated me for president of the Breeders' Association at its meeting 
 that year. 
 
 G. D. Mullihan, Paddock, Holt county, Nebraska, reports: 
 
 Near Creighton, where I formerly lived, there were some hogs inocu- 
 lated, and there are various opinions as to its preventing cholera, but 
 the majority are not favorable to it as near as I can learn. 
 
 How much does that man know about it? The owner of the only 
 herd that I know of that has been inoculated in that district writes: 
 
 6-16-'92. My sows and pigs are all pictures of health, at least, so 
 say some of the best hog raisers in the country. C. Cline. 
 
 Here is a most striking example of the reliability of the " authority 
 of the secretary of agriculture" on inoculation: 
 
 Dr. H. N. Hall, Ayr, Adams county, Nebraska : 
 
 The last outbreak of hog cholera in this vicinity was in 1889. Two- 
 herds were inoculated. One belonged to W. Lowman, of Hastings,. 
 Nebraska. The owner says one died while testing it, and the rest 
 never did well and were hard to fatten. The other herd contained ten 
 animals, and in this none died from inoculation. The popular opinion 
 on inoculation in this part of the state is not very favorable. We are 
 waiting for a chance to test it more thoroughly. 
 
 Edward Creager, Juniata, Adams county, Nebraska: 
 Inoculation has been practiced to a certain extent. It was tested in 
 four herds that I know of, an average of five in each herd being in- 
 oculated. I cannot say positively how many deaths occurred for thirty 
 days, or how many afterward, but most of the deaths occurred before 
 that period had elapsed. I would not recommend inoculation. 
 
 J. W. Coulter, Hastings, Adams county, Nebraska: 
 Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity, and particularly in- 
 one herd of about 300 head; the number in the other herds not 
 known. In the large herd a few died in about twelve or fifteen days 
 after the inoculation; exact number not known. I am a strong be- 
 liever in inoculation, but I would advise care in its use. All the hogs on 
 the place should be inoculated at one time that have not been previ- 
 ously inoculated. Everything said in regard to this should be taken 
 with a grain of allowance, for in 1883, 1884, and 1885 my neigh- 
 bors' hogs had the cholera and large numbers of them died, and mine 
 were not affected, although they frequently intermingled. I thought 
 this was because I treated my hogs somewhat differently, and that I 
 
126 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 had found a preventive for the cholera, but in 1886 my hogs nearly- 
 all died. 
 
 Let us see how well these men agree: Mr. Hall says "two herds 
 were inoculated " ; Mr. Creager says that " it was tested in four herds 
 that I know of, an average of five in each herd being inoculated." 
 Mr. Coulter does not know exactly. 
 
 The facts: Mr. Lowman inoculated 234, Mr. Robinson 20, Mr. 
 Jones 130, Mr. Price 95, Mr. Underwood. 50; something different 
 than Mr. Rusk's correspondents, Avho "know" so much, had any 
 knowledge of. These were done at about the same time. We see no 
 letters from any of these men. That evidence has been willfully sup- 
 pressed in this connection, I have simply to say that the government 
 refers to " Pamphlet No. 3," sent out by Frank S. Billings & Co. 
 when I was in Chicago, in its Bulletin No. 8. The testimony there 
 given by Mr. Lowman as to his hogs being injured, or that they 
 i( never did well and were hard to fatten," directly contradicts this 
 statement of Mr. Hall, so that I wrote Mr. Lowman, sending him 
 Mr. Hall's testimony in full, as given by the government, and re- 
 ceived the following: 
 
 Hastings, Neb., May 25, 1892. 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th at hand. I do not know how to 
 answer your letter better than to refer you to my letters of Jan. 1 and 
 Jan. 22, '90, which I enclose herewith, as taken from your circular 
 ("Pamphlet No. 3"), which I enclose. These letters, having been 
 been written while we were in the business, ought to be good : 
 
 " Hastings, Neb., Jan. 22, 1890. 
 
 "Dear Sirs: On November 7, 1889, my first experience with in- 
 oculation commenced. On that date Mr. Bassett inoculated over 234 
 head of hogs for me, of different ages. On about the 10th of De- 
 cember we inoculated these hogs again, except seven head of shoats 
 that we put out with other herds to test. So far as heard from, these 
 shoats are doing well except one, which has died, but the man with 
 whom it was placed says he cannot say whether it was cholera that 
 killed it or not. He says there was no bunch or mark on this shoat 
 when he was inoculated, and is of the opinion that it may not have 
 taken on him. Understand, these seven shoats were put up with 
 cholera hog on infected ground, and were only inoculated once. Four 
 were put at one farm and three at another, and they are still there. 
 
 " The balance of my herd are doing well ; in fact, the inoculating did 
 not set them back any, and I have never had hogs do better. There 
 has been a good lot of cholera the past fall in the neighborhood. I 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 127 
 
 shall keep on inoculating this coming spring as soon as our pigs are 
 old enough. We have about 70 sows to farrow the coming spring. 
 " Yours truly, W. M. Lowman." 
 
 "Hastings, Neb., March 22, 1890. 
 "New circulars received, which are good. My hogs are doing 
 "well. We are now commencing to get our new crop of p^gs; have 
 -about 50 nice ones. You will remember last December I put out a 
 few shoats to test. I placed three inoculated shoats at H. D. Rood's 
 farm. They have been been in their yard with his hogs ever since, 
 and are all right. He told me recently that he lost six hogs out of 
 that yard with cholera after our shoats came there. 
 
 " Yours truly, W. M. Lowman." 
 
 It is evident that Mr. Rusk had this testimony at hand as he used 
 •other testimony from the same pamphlet. What can one say to a 
 secretary of a department who will with " authority " authorize such 
 -deception of the people as indicated in that one case of the inocula- 
 tions in Adams county, Nebraska, in 1889? A government which 
 •gives its authority to the publication of such false and deceptive re- 
 ports is too dishonest and maliciously culpable to be continued longer 
 unless torn down, changed, or built over again on an honest basis. 
 
 In his letter to Senator Paddock Mr. Rusk says that I "quoted 
 from department reports, garbling the extracts and misrepresenting 
 the position of the writers in order to deceive his readers and to con- 
 vey the impression that the department had been inconsistent in its 
 published reports." While I deny Mr. Rusk's assertion most posi- 
 tively, I think the reader must now be convinced that the remarks of 
 the secretary of agriculture are manifestly self-accusing, and that the 
 reports of his department are not only inconsistent in all directions 
 but equally consistent in doing just what he accused me of. As fur_ 
 ther proof in that direction, I clip three "garbled" quotations from 
 Bulletin No. 8, which were evidently so "garbled" in order to de- 
 ceive his (Mr. Rusk's) readers, and to convey the impression "that 
 inoculation had been a most dangerous or unsatisfactory procedure' 
 to the persons quoted : 
 
 The following extracts from letters received by Frank S. Billings 
 & Co., and published in pamphlet No. 3 on inoculation, are also of 
 interest in this connection : 
 
 Thos. L. Peifer, Lincoln, 111.: 
 
 Out of the 42 head (of which 25 were pigs, and of which 4 of the 
 
128 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 latter died and 1 of the large hogs, since inoculating), ray hogs have 
 done exceedingly well ; they appear healthy, but I can scarcely at- 
 tribute this to inoculation, as there has been no disease in the immedi- 
 ate neighborhood, so that the preponderance of evidence would not 
 prove much yet with me. (P. 22, Bulletin No. 8.) 
 
 That which was studiously left out, reads : 
 
 yet with me, " but I mean to test it more thoroughly next spring and 
 hope to send you a weighty testimonial in its favor. 
 
 " Yours, Thos. L. Peifer." 
 
 As the first part of the letter is also omitted, and as it is of great value- 
 as testimony in favor of the consistency of the secretary of agricult- 
 ure, in giving his "authority" not to publish the whole truth, it is 
 
 appended : 
 
 Lincoln, III., March 10, 1890. 
 
 Dear Sir : As you are endeavoring to know the results of your 
 work I will give you the effects of inoculation on ray hogs as near as 
 possible, and impartially, for the benefit of science. 
 
 First, I would say that I am inclined to think that the virus used 
 on ray hogs must not have been just right, for the fact that there was 
 no effect observed on any of the hogs except one, which got an enor- 
 mous sore right over the shoulders. I could not say that this was due 
 to inoculation. One other of the large hogs died. 
 
 As to the pigs, I could not notice any effect physically, but don't 
 think it stunted them any, as the pigs were quite small when inocu- 
 lated, and are now nearly large enough for market. I would there- 
 fore say that if inoculation has effect either way, it promotes the 
 growth of pigs. 
 
 No injury was done that man. 
 
 H. A. Lee, Kearney, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 
 
 About the 20th of October, 1888, I had 154 pigs inoculated as a 
 preventive of hog cholera. Twenty-four of the above number were 
 at my home farm, and the balance, 130 head, were 2 miles distant, at 
 the stock ranch and feed yards. 
 
 During the two years previous to this I had lost the larger part of 
 my pigs during the late fall and winter with cholera, and believing 
 the yards to be thoroughly infected with the disease, I concluded to 
 try inoculation as a preventive. No cholera has made its appearance 
 on my farms since. 
 
 As to its immediate effects; I will say that the 24 head at the home 
 farm, whose feed was principally corn, were most of them affected, 
 over one-half showing cholera symptoms. Some of them did not get 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 129 
 
 over it for weeks, and one died. The 130 head, up to the time of in- 
 oculation, had been kept almost entirely on oats, and the inoculation 
 produced no visible effect on them. 
 
 On the 24th of October, 1889, Mr. Bassett inoculated 143 head of 
 pigs; 137 of them were at the cattle ranch and 6 small, runty pigs at 
 the farms. The operation produced no visible effect on the 137, but 
 of the 6 head at the farm 4 died. 
 
 On the 8th of December, 1889, I took 4 of the 137 and placed 
 them with the hogs of John Reddy, of Gibbon, whose hogs were dying 
 with the cholera. One took the disease and died; the other three are 
 still at his farm, and the last time I saw them seemed healthy and were 
 doing well. On the 28th of December last, Mr. Bassett came and 
 wished to reinoculate those which he had before inoculated, saying he 
 feared the virus used on the 24th of October had lost its protective 
 principle. About 135 head were reinoculated ; over half of them 
 were sensibly affected, ceased growing, and lost flesh, and there are 
 fully 40 head that have not yet recovered from the effects of the last 
 operation. (Bulletin No. 8, p. 21.) 
 
 Left out : 
 
 While the virus used in the operation in October was not strong 
 enough to protect when put to so severe a test as that at Reddy's farm 
 (where over 200 died), I still believe that those hogs would have been 
 safe from all ordinary exposure on my own farm. 
 
 I think more care should be used in the operation to proportion 
 the amount of virus used to the size of the hog. It is the light hogs 
 that are injuriously affected, and the heavier ones never show it, is my 
 experience. 
 
 Respectfully yours, H. A. Lee. 
 
 Without the passage purposely omitted the reader would suppose 
 that Mr. Lee was seriously complaining about the results in his hogs. 
 I do not even now think that the inoculation produced the effect Mr. 
 Lee assumes it did. It is far more likely that the natural disease got 
 in its work at the same time that the hogs were reinoculated. 
 
 The third quotation is as follows: 
 
 Chapin, III., March 19, 1890. 
 Frank S. Billings & Co., Chicago, III. 
 
 Sirs : In answer to your inquiry of the 8th, will say that with me 
 inoculation has not been the success that I hoped it would be. The 
 first lot of seventy-four did fairly well; two died soon after the opera- 
 tion, and one disappeared : do not know whether he died or not. 
 One of that lot died a few days ago ; he drooped around a few days 
 
 9 
 
130 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 with outward symptoms of cholera. The rest seem all right of that 
 lot. 
 
 The last lot of twenty-seven I would pronounce a perfect failure. 
 They never seemed to get over the operation. They keep running 
 down until they die. There has more than half of them died, and I 
 think more of them will die yet. 
 
 Truly yours, C. S. French. 
 
 My own comments were omitted ; they were : 
 
 It is self-evident that this second lot were infected at the time they 
 were inoculated, and, as seventy of the first lot were with them, it 
 would seem as if the treatment in this case must have been successful 
 rather than the contrary. 
 
 In that same pamphlet was published a large number of very strong 
 letters from farmers who had generally tested their inoculated hogs, 
 and it would seem natural that if those unfavorable were selected out, 
 some of the others should also be published, if the "authority of 
 the secretary of agriculture" extends to telling the whole truth to 
 the farmers of this country. Here are a number of the omitted let- 
 ters : 
 
 Bureau County, Illinois. 
 
 On October 17, 1889, Dr. Billings inoculated a herd of 130 
 thoroughbred Poland China hogs for L. H. Matson, of Princeton, 
 111., and three boars for Mr. Matson's father. At the same time we 
 bought ten of Mr. Matson's boars from him to show our own faith in 
 the method. Mr. Matson has tested a large number of his own hogs 
 in outbreaks in his vicinity, as well as sold four of our boars and 
 numbers of his own, warranting them against swine plague, with the 
 most satisfactory results, and recently bought our six remaining boars, 
 considering them good property to hold. 
 
 December 23, 1889, he wrote us: 
 
 " Of my father's hogs which were inoculated, one died after being 
 inoculated, but he says the boys hurt him in catching him, and he did 
 not die of disease; the others are doing well, and have been out nearly 
 three weeks among another man's hogs that have the cholera, and are 
 all right. I have inoculated pigs up to Mr. Sawyer's, whose hogs 
 have the cholera; they have been there two weeks. My hogs did 
 first rate after the inoculation. I am the only man here that has 
 missed the cholera, and it must be the inoculation which saved me." 
 
 On March 17, 1890, Mr. Matson writes: 
 
 " I do not think inoculation hurts a pig in the least ; my hogs have 
 done first rate, and grew right along. I think they ought to be in- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 131 
 
 oculated twice to staud the severe test farmers seem to be giving them. 
 My father says his boars grew right on as if nothing had been done 
 to them. Our hogs have done well ever since they were inoculated, 
 and all we can say is we have every reason to believe in it. 
 
 " Yours truly, L. H. Matson." 
 
 "Lincoln, III., January 15, 1890. 
 "Dr. Frank S. Billings. 
 
 "Dear Sir: I am glad to say that I have the utmost confidence 
 in the new discovery of inoculation. On the 23d day of November 
 your agent, Mr. Seiler, inoculated 120 head of hogs for me. Three 
 days after I could see a change among them, they seemed to have 
 a slight fever, and were a little off their feed. In ten days after my 
 hogs were all doing well, and I can say that I never had hogs do 
 any better. I do believe that a hog that has been inoculated cannot 
 have the cholera again. I think that hog inoculation is just as much 
 a preventive against the cholera as vaccination is a preventive against 
 small-pox in the human race. I further believe that nine-tenths of 
 the hogs that die from disease die from cholera, and all of the so- 
 called hog cholera medicines are nothing more than humbug and an 
 imposition on the farmers. In the last two years previous I lost 200 
 head of hogs from cholera, and spent over forty dollars each year for 
 medicine, but of no avail. Therefore, I can say that since I have tried 
 your new discovery I find grand results, and sincerely believe that it 
 has saved my herd of hogs from cholera. 
 
 " Yours truly, H. J. Peifer." 
 
 The Clear Creek Swine Co. 
 
 "Denver, Colo., Feb. 17, 1890. 
 «F. S. Billings. 
 
 "Dear Sir : This is the tenth day, and there is not a sick pig on the 
 place; in fact, they are growing faster than ever before. I was just 
 thinking it would be a good custom to inoculate them about once a week, 
 if it makes them grow so; will ivait a day or two and if they do not show 
 it, will send back for some more virus. 
 
 "I suppose I did the inoculation all right. I pulled the skin up a 
 little and squirted a syringe full under the skin of the inside of the 
 hind leg, up above the knee joint. Was that right? 
 
 "Very truly yours, James I. Boyer." 
 
 Mr. Boyer reinoculated this bunch on April 1, 1890. 
 
 And is still inoculating. Many who attended the breeders' meeting 
 at Beatrice, Neb., February last, will remember how strongly Mr. 
 Boyer spoke of inoculation. 
 
132 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 
 
 Mr. R. C. Fulton, Taylorville, 111., writes: "The reports in your 
 issue of March 19, by C. A. Cantine, A. R. Hubbard, and Ma- 
 rion Ryman, on inoculation, remind me that it is surely due Dr. 
 F. S. Billings, also the farming world, that I should make report of 
 my experience with two inoculated boars sent me tor the purpose of 
 proving so far as possible that inoculation is a preventive. The pair 
 of hogs were received about the 8th of February, and at once placed 
 in the lot of about one acre, adjoining which were breeding pens for 
 six sows. In the lot and pens named I had lost forty head of hogs, 
 and yet had a few left when the two boars were placed in pens. 
 These hogs have continuously bedded on the same litter and in the 
 same pen where eight head had laid while sick and dying. I have 
 fed them on ear corn only, and that was strewn on the excrement and 
 cleanings from other infected pens, and for drink they have had slough 
 water, which catches the waste of barn lots and pens above named. 
 This I consider a crucial test, and I felt nothing short of that would 
 satisfy even my unprejudiced mind as to the prevention of swine plague 
 by inoculation. Many of my neighbors have looked on incredulously, 
 and I was even laughed at by more verdant ones, but the laugh ceased, 
 incredulity has vanished, and all admit that something prevented, and 
 what else but inoculation? For my herds have been reduced or swept 
 away before. In conclusion, the hogs named are doing fine on the 
 same ground where fortv died, and we all say honor to the intrepid 
 Frank S. Billings." 
 
 Experience with Inoculation in Iowa. 
 
 Mr. C. A. Cantine, Quimby, la., had his pigs inoculated with 
 the virus manufactured by Frank S. Billings & Co. for preventing 
 swine plague, and gave two of the inoculated pigs to a neighbor, Mr. 
 A. R. Hubbard, to test them. Mr. Cantine writes, under date of 
 February 14: "I saw A. R. Hubbard again to-day. He says the 
 shoats he took from my place are all right. He took them January 
 27, and is cutting the dead ones up and mine are eating them. He 
 thought when he took them he could kill them, but to-day gives it 
 up. I will have him bring them home at the end of thirty days. 
 If they live until that time there will be considerable work in this 
 vicinity." Under date of March 9, three weeks later, Mr. Hubbard 
 writes: "I received of Mr. Cantine on January 27 two inoculated 
 pigs, selected at random from his herd for exposure in my yards to 
 cholera. I placed them in the same yard and next where my sick 
 ones were, with three of mine which were in a very bad condition 
 (one dying about that time). One especially was rotting alive, the 
 flesh dropping off in pieces from its ears and head, the stench of 
 which was fearful. At the end of two weeks I concluded to get the 
 germs into them some way, so I sliced up a dead pig and fed it to 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 133 
 
 them without cooking. In fact I have tried in every way to kill these 
 pigs, but have not even made them sick. My neighbors have watched 
 this experiment very closely, knowing that I had the genuine cholera, 
 and that these pigs were inoculated, and that there could be no fraud 
 practiced. To continue the experiment I have lately put in two well 
 pigs that I received from my neighbors. One has been in two weeks 
 and was sick yesterday. I cannot tell whether it is the cholera or not, 
 at this time, but it has all the symptoms. I have just bought some 
 more and will put in two to-morrow. I intend to make this trial as 
 severe and also as fair as possible. I will say this: If any man will 
 succeed by any method in giving two of Mr. Cantine's hogs the chol- 
 era I will give him $10. Mr. Cantine will furnish the pigs free if 
 they die, but if they live they must be returned to him." 
 
 Experience with Inoculation. 
 
 To Western Resources: Like all progressive farmers who have got- 
 ten done with scrub stock of all kinds, I have watched the reports 
 from experimental farms of the different states, and being a citizen 
 and farmer of Nebraska, was particularly interested in the investiga- 
 tions being made by Dr. F. S. Billings in the swine plague known as 
 hog cholera; and to say that I felt elated when I read of the appoint- 
 ment by the government of a commission to harmonize the difference, 
 as I understood it, between Dr. Billings and Dr. Salmon, don't nearly 
 express it. 
 
 I was in hopes that their report would settle the difference between 
 the doctors and give us a remedy that would assist in combating the 
 much dreaded disease. The report of the commissioners gave me no 
 satisfaction ; in fact, it left me unsatisfied as to any remedy at all. 
 
 I had carefully read all the reports that I got possession of, giving 
 an account of Dr. Billings' inoculation to prevent swine plague, and 
 concluded to experiment, as I then thought, at home. 
 
 I went into my feed lot, where I had 120 hogs, and drove out the 
 first twenty shoats that I came to. I moved them fifty rods, placed 
 them in my breeding pens, and had Mr. Courtney inoculate them. 
 
 I let them remain thirty-four days, fed them light as per instruc- 
 tions of Dr. Billiugs, yet they gained in weight rapidly. During the 
 time that I had the twenty in quarantine my hogs in the feed lot got 
 the cholera, and every hog that I had not sold (seventy-four head) got 
 very sick. Out of seventy-four I lost thirty-one, or nearly one-half. 
 
 Well, contrary to my intentions, just when my hogs in the lot were 
 dying at the rate of three to five a day, my inoculated hogs got with 
 them and remained with them, slept in the same beds, and to tell it 
 square, two of the inoculated got the disease and died — two out of 
 twenty — nothing near the per cent of the uninoculated. 
 
 The eighteen inoculated have never stopped growing, and are 
 
134 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 doing very much better than the hogs that had the disease, so much 
 so that I am well pleased with the experiment, and will continue to- 
 further investigate inoculation, believing that Dr. Billings is on the 
 road to success. J. H. Curyea. 
 
 Greenwood, Neb. 
 
 Leland, III., Dec. 31, 1889. 
 Mr. Frank 8. Billings. 
 
 Sir : You must excuse me for not answering your inquiry as to 
 pigs you inoculated for me. I expected to see them a little dumpish, 
 but they got along all right and are doing well. My neighbor across 
 the road had to draw his shoats away, as they were coming down with 
 the cholera. I would like to know if you have inoculated any boar 
 pigs for any firm that has any for sale. I want to buy one, and I 
 want him inoculated if I can find one, and oblige, Lewis Bend. 
 
 Leland, III., March 20, 1890. 
 Mr. Frank 8. Billings. 
 
 Sir : Yours of the 8th received, inquiring after the health of my 
 hogs. I have not lost any by swine plague. I had three smothered 
 by the hogs piling together and one by thumps ; the balance are all 
 right and doing well. I never had a better lot of shoats than I have 
 now, and I do not know that any of them lost a meal by inoculation. 
 
 Lewis Bend. 
 
 Another Iowa Experience. 
 
 L. W. Fry, Defiance, la., writes to Iowa Homestead: "Mr. 
 Maxwell, of this place, and myself suffered severe losses from swine 
 plague during the past season, so we concluded to try inoculation on 
 a small scale, and for the purpose selected small pigs that had never 
 been exposed to the cholera. They were thoroughbred Poland China 
 boars. We have experimented with them until we are satisfied that 
 inoculation will inoculate. I do not believe that inoculation will hurt 
 a pig or interfere with its growth in the least. It did not with ours, 
 and they never were off their feed. After this, we shall inoculate our 
 pigs, and warrant them cholera-proof." 
 
 A Kansas Man Tells His Story. 
 
 To the Kansas City Live Stock Indicator: Last July, when my herd 
 of swine were inoculated for protection against hog cholera, I promised 
 to inform you of the result, which, I am pleased to say, has, in every 
 respect, come up to my most sanguine expectations. 
 
 I have been engaged in stock raising and farming since 1868, with 
 varying success, and during all this time have gained a moderate de- 
 gree of knowledge of the nature, habits, diseases, raising and fattening 
 of the hog, with a good deal of experience in treating him when sick,. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 135 
 
 which, fortunately, very seldom happens when the dread cholera is not 
 about. 
 
 In 1885 a most malignant type of swine plague ravaged my yards, 
 also in 1886, but the loss was lighter for waut of material; again in 
 1887, but still less fatal. In 1888 the dread disease was still present, 
 but, contrary to former experience, it confined its attack to old sows. 
 This year it attacked my young pigs in April, and by May 20 five had 
 died, and most of the herd were coughing. I placed them on new 
 ground, bedded slightly, and soon observed improvement, so that by 
 July 5 they were in a fit condition for inoculation, since which time 
 they have been doing well, better than at any time since 1885. The 
 fall pigs I sold in August, and last spring's pigs will be ready for sale 
 by the middle of December. It is needless for me to say that I am 
 greatly pleased with inoculation as a preventive of the great losses to 
 which I have been yearly subjected. I feel protection, safety, and in- 
 dependence in my business, the same as any other legitimate business. 
 
 I wish to say that during these years of destruction to my property 
 I tried every kind of medicine recommended as cholera cures, and 
 never found the least benefit. Experts came to cure the sick ones and 
 prevent the well from becoming sick, but they also failed, and I had 
 about concluded to quit the business, when Dr. Billings wrought out 
 the problem of inoculation. 
 
 Perhaps some might think it was not hog cholera, but some other 
 disease that staid so long with me and caused such loss. If there are 
 any such, I wish to inform them that I had a veterinary surgeon open 
 and examine the hogs at different times, and the lungs were always 
 found hardened, the air cells filled with putrid matter, the liver ulcer- 
 ated, the entrails nearly always inflamed. These symptoms were al- 
 ways present, whether the attack was mild or severe ; besides, my own 
 judgment should be of some weight after so long experience. 
 
 To my doubting neighbors I offered to put five of my inoculated 
 pigs in any diseased pen they wished, and subject them to the severest 
 test, even to eating the carcasses of those that died with cholera, and 
 that offer is still open and has been published in our local papers. 
 
 I hope, Mr. Editor, you may find room in your valuable paper for 
 this imperfect report. If it be the means of saving even one farmer 
 from the loss to which I have been subjected, I will think myself am- 
 ply repaid. Kobert Henderson. 
 
 Junction City, Kan., Nov. 4, 1889. 
 
 These are but a small portion of the letters showing favorable re- 
 sults in inoculation. The selections, from many others in the pam- 
 phlet issued from Chicago, were all at the disposal of Mr. Rusk. Any 
 one who reads that Bulletin No. 8, and compares it with the evidence 
 here set forth, must at once admit that everything tending to throw 
 
136 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 discredit on our Nebraska work has been published and the testimony 
 in our favor largely withheld from the people. Do not, for a moment, 
 lose sight of the fact that every particle of testimony, and probably 
 more, that has been here published as favorable to inoculation was in 
 possession of the Agricultural Department and withheld with the 
 " authority of the secretary of agriculture." This we are justified 
 in assuming, because the "garbled" selections against our work were 
 taken from the same source and published with the same authority. 
 
 Two Letters From Iowa. 
 
 E. J. Currier, Harlan, Shelby county, Iowa: 
 
 In the fall of 1889, November or December, F. S. Billings, by his 
 agent, Mr. Courtney, inoculated 133 young hogs for me. The inocu- 
 lation was repeated about sixty days after. Between one and two 
 months after the hogs began to sicken, and about 70 of them died. I 
 sent 21 to another farm, and after they had been there a month they 
 took the cholera and gave it to the healthy hogs already on the place. 
 There was no other case of cholera in that region, and my neighbors 
 were not losing any at the time mine were sick. Did inoculation do 
 it? It looks like it. At any rate, I shed no tears because Billings 
 has shut on the supply of virus for all outside of Nebraska. (Bulle- 
 tin No. 8.) 
 
 "Harlan, Iowa, March 28, 1890. 
 "F. 8. Billings, Chicago, III. 
 
 "Dear Sir: Yours of recent date as to the condition of the hogs 
 Mr. Courtney inoculated for me, came duly to hand. Would say in 
 reply, that two died of the second inoculation ; probably, however, it 
 was their first dose, as our second count slightly overran our first. 
 The hogs did not seem to thrive as well for about two weeks, but got 
 all right afterwards. Two of Mrs. Stiner's died, small ones, and oth- 
 ers of the same litter lost their hair. She is well satisfied, however, as 
 the cholera, which was on adjoining farms, did not touch her hogs. 
 I am well satisfied myself, so well satisfied that I have not taken any 
 pains to place any of my hogs in infected herds. The satisfaction of 
 a feeling of security is worth a good deal to a nervous fellow like 
 myself. 
 
 " Yours truly, E. J. Currier." 
 
 From late advices we learn that this herd is not standing as well as 
 we could wish, though the loss is small in comparison to a general 
 outbreak. (Pamphlet No. 3.) 
 
 Time and "inflooence" make a great difference in some persons' 
 opinions. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 137 
 
 THE SURPRISE AND OTHER INOCULATIONS IN 1888. 
 
 It is singular that the Agricultural Department should still persist 
 in promulgating a lot of falsehoods about those inoculations. The 
 very fact of my recall to Nebraska and indefinite re-engagement, is 
 ample evidence that no intelligent person in Nebraska believes that 
 any hogs were injured by the inoculations which the secretary of ag- 
 riculture claims killed 45J per cent. Here is what they say : 
 
 Name of Owner. 
 
 No. In- 
 oculated. 
 
 No. Lost. 
 
 Surprise, Neb. : 
 
 93 
 163 
 
 52 
 
 46 
 260 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 154 
 
 34 
 
 18 
 
 30 
 121 
 
 73. 
 
 Ed. Hinkley 
 
 
 F. W. Luddon 
 
 
 L. E. Luddon 
 
 Nearly all. 
 220. 
 
 H. H. Hess 
 
 C. H. Walker 
 
 
 Gibbon, Neb.: 
 
 W. A. Rogers 
 
 
 S. C. Bassett 
 
 
 H. A. Lee 
 
 
 Humpbrey & Harris 
 
 
 
 
 Lincoln, Neb. : 
 
 
 Falls City, Neb. : 
 
 Mr. Steele 
 
 Large number. 
 
 
 Total 
 
 1,014 
 
 
 
 
 *[We have never known how many Mr. Hinkley lost, as he made no complaint at the time 
 and so the number did not get into the papers. The statistics had no value whatever. It was 
 a question of killed or not by inoculation. B.] 
 
 Mr. Walker has since stated that in L. E. Luddon's herd all but 6 
 died, and that some of Mr. Hinkley's were lost, but the number was 
 not given. An article in the Omaha Bee at the time stated that Mr. 
 Steele lost 110 within thirty days. Mr. Hess states that his total loss 
 was 240. This would make the loss from the information at hand 
 463 out of the 1,014 inoculated, or 45J per cent. This does not in- 
 clude Mr. Hinkley's loss, which is unknown. 
 
 When it is considered that the experimenter had asserted for nearly 
 two years that he could prevent the disease by inoculation, that during 
 this time the question had been contested and he had been perfecting 
 his method, and that these experiments were made to demonstrate the 
 value of the method, such a complete and disastrous failure in the re- 
 sults is certainly surprising. Under such circumstances it is self-evi- 
 dent that more than ordinary care would be observed in preparing the 
 virus, and in having the conditions as favorable as possible for success. 
 
138 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 An attempt has been made to explain these losses on the theory that 
 the herds were infected before they were inoculated, and that the inoc- 
 ulation had nothing to do with the production of the disease. It is 
 said that in one herd several had died before the inoculation; that the 
 two Luddon brothers, who were among those that inoculated, lived 
 side by side, the road only separating their door-yards; that their hogs 
 were inoculated at the same time and in every particular alike, using 
 virus out of the same bottle, yet not one out of the larger herd sickened 
 perceptibly, while with the other herd all but six died ; that another 
 brother had a dozen or more hogs that were not inoculated and were 
 kept in a tight pen on the premises with the latter herd, to which they 
 were in no way exposed, "but simultaneously with them sickened and 
 died in about the same ratio." 
 
 The following are some of the letters published with regard to 
 
 these cases : 
 
 Surprise, Nebr., February 2, 1892. 
 
 Sir: Yours of the 28th ultimo received, and I will try and give 
 you my experience with inoculation. The fall of 1888, some time in 
 October, as near as I can remember, Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, sent 
 Dr. Thomas here to inoculate my hogs, which numbered 260. In 
 about eight or ten days after they were inoculated they all took sick. 
 Within four weeks 230 died, and between that time and spring 10 
 more died. Only 20 survived out of 260. 
 
 My hogs were perfectly healthy when inoculated. 
 
 That, in brief, is my experience. If Dr. Billings had not been en- 
 dorsed by the state I should never have allowed him to inoculate; 
 but he had stated in a lecture that it was no more an experiment, but 
 a settled fact; that it was a preventive. I do not believe that making 
 the virus out of a cholera hog and putting it into a healthy hog will 
 work. 
 
 I could not recommend inoculation. 
 
 Very respectfully, H. H. Hess. 
 
 Hon. J. M. Eusk. 
 
 D. P. Ashburn, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska: 
 Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity by 6 or 8 persons, 
 having from 30 to 200 animals in a herd. With one single exception 
 none were lost. H. A. Lee, of Kearney, lost 3 or 4 head out of a 
 pen of 24 that were closely confined and had only dry corn and water 
 to eat. He also inoculated about 125 that were running after cattle 
 in a field or large corral at the same time and with the same virus, 
 and the effect was not noticeable. None died or were sick. I would 
 recommend inoculation in careful, intelligent hands, but not otherwise. 
 It creates a mild case of cholera, from which the disease will spread 
 if not prevented, and as the average hog-raiser is not to be relied upon 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 139 
 
 in this particular, I think for general use as a preventive it would be 
 likely to create as much loss as it would prevent. I have used it for 
 several succeeding years with success, and if I again raise hogs shall 
 use it if nothing better offers. I am impressed with the great need 
 of a safer virus, and think it possible that scientific research might 
 discover it. 
 
 John Reddy, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 
 
 In answer to your inquiries I must say none of my hogs were in- 
 oculated, but my neighbors put 8 hogs in my yard as a test that were 
 inoculated by S. C. Bassett, the agent of Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, 
 Neb. Seven out of the 8 died of cholera, and the 1 that lived had a 
 slight touch of it, but recovered. A very poor showings as we all 
 thought, since a greater per cent of my hogs lived that were not inoc- 
 ulated at all. 
 
 S. C. Bassett, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 
 
 A few hundred hogs were inoculated in this vicinity in the years of 
 1888 and 1889. A less number were inoculated in 1890 and 1891. 
 According to my recollection, seven herds were inoculated, containing 
 from 20 to 150 head in a herd. In the majority of these herds — five, 
 as I remember — none of the inoculated hogs died within thirty days. 
 In the other two herds, 3 in one herd of 20 inoculated, and 7 in one 
 herd of 150 inoculated, died. These experiments were mostly confined 
 to pigs ranging from six weeks to three months old. Five of these 
 inoculated pigs were placed in a herd suffering from one of the most 
 fatal outbreaks of cholera I have ever known, and 3 of said pigs died. 
 On my own farm I inoculated hogs first in the spring of 1888, and 
 with one exception have inoculated all pigs farrowed on the farm since 
 that date. I have had no hogs die from the effects of inoculation j 
 neither have I had inoculated hogs die with hog cholera. From my 
 observation and experience I am strongly of the opinion that of hogs 
 inoculated by the Billings method as now practiced a large per cent 
 may be prevented from contracting the disease, hog cholera. I am 
 positive that inoculation by this method does not kill, does not stunt, 
 does not injuriously affect the hog. Its effects are hardly perceptible 
 to those who care for hogs. 
 
 C. Dean, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska: 
 
 I cannot tell just how many herds or the number of animals in 
 each herd that were inoculated. Inoculated hogs died in all the 
 herds so far as I know, but cannot state the number. It has not 
 proved to be a preventive for hog cholera in our part of the country. 
 
 William Welland, Gibbon, Buffalo county, Nebraska : 
 Inoculation has been practiced in this vicinity in seven or eight 
 herds, from 25 to 200 in a herd, in past years. None in 1891. In 
 one or two instances 3 or 4 head died. In several instances hogs have 
 
140 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 been taken from inoculated herds and exposed. They stood the test 
 where the inoculation was properly done. I would not recommend 
 inoculation in its present condition. I believe the practice and prin- 
 ciples are right and will prevent disease, but the great liability of 
 spreading disease by inoculation in careless hands is too great to make 
 its general use practical. What is needed is virus that will produce 
 the effect without starting the disease. 
 
 Isaac N. Ewalt, Falls City, Richardson county, Nebraska: 
 Prof. Billings, of the State University, inoculated about one-half 
 of a herd for a man in this neighborhood, and about half of them 
 died within thirty days. This is the only herd inoculated in Richard- 
 son county that I am aware of. I would not recommend inoculation, 
 as I have but little faith in it. I saw Mr. Steele the other day. He 
 is the man who owned the herd inoculated here. I asked him his 
 opinion, and if he could recommend inoculation. He said he did not 
 know whether it was a preventive or not, as the disease was in his 
 herd when they were inoculated, and there were as many of them died 
 that were inoculated as of those that were not. 
 
 The government says that 45 J per cent were killed or made ill by 
 that inoculation. 
 
 The Gibbon hogs were not injured, as shown by the testimony from 
 there, and in the table, nor were the thirty-nine done at the state 
 farm with the same virus within a day of each other. Those thirty-nine 
 hogs and the eighteen of Mr. Ashburn's were tested in January, 1889, 
 by inoculating them with two cubic centimeters of the same virus 
 which killed fifteen out of seventeen well hogs in one cubic centimeter 
 dose, and the other two only escaped with their lives. That swine 
 plague commission knew all about that test, in fact saw a portion of 
 the hogs, but never mentioned it in their report. It is singular that 
 all the letters they publish direct from the men about Surprise is a 
 repetition of that old old story from Mr. Hess, and that they publish 
 no other letters from a direct sufferer which is good enough evidence 
 that not one of the others think that inoculation killed their hogs at 
 that time. The reader need not fail to notice that of all the hogs 
 killed, according to Mr. Rusk, by inoculation, this Mr. Hess is the 
 only owner that has ever made complaint. Singular, is it not? It is 
 known that Mr. F. W. Luddon did write Mr. Rusk, and that that 
 letter must have been suppressed because it was not the kind of testi- 
 mony wanted. 
 
 That the people of Nebraska never believed that story as to the in- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 141 
 
 jury of the hogs at Surprise by inoculation, especially those who had 
 the direct responsibility in the matter, is thoroughly attested by the 
 following letter of the president of the board of regents of the State 
 University, which was written to the editor of the Farmers' Review- 
 Chicago, in relation to this very matter : 
 
 HON. C. H. GERE'S LETTER TO "FARMERS' REVIEW." 
 
 The publishers of the Farmers' Review have referred to me con- 
 cerning the experiments of Dr. Billings in Nebraska, in the matter of 
 inoculation as a preventive of hog cholera, and requested me to give 
 such information in regard to the matter as I may possess. The letter 
 written to you from this state, as quoted, is wholly incorrect. 
 
 Dr. Frank S. Billings was employed by the University of Ne- 
 braska, in the summer of 1886, to investigate swine diseases, as well 
 as those of other domestic animals, and pursued his investigations 
 until his resignation last July. The hog cholera or swine plague was 
 the most serious of the infectious and fatal diseases among domestio 
 animals in Nebraska at that time, as it has always been, and the first 
 investigation that the doctor proceeded with was with reference to its 
 cause and prevention. 
 
 It was not long before his microscope had detected the cause. It 
 was an ovoid microbe that had been previously tolerably well de- 
 scribed by Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, Ohio, while in the service of 
 the National Agricultural Department. He immediately began " cult- 
 ures" of the microbe, studied its characteristics and habits, and soon 
 began inoculating with it. He found that he could kill sound pigs 
 in twenty-four hours with a large "dose" of inoculating material. 
 He proceeded patiently to experiment with different quantities of the 
 culture until he found the line of safety. For the last year of the 
 doctor's experiments I know positively that no hog inoculated by 
 himself has died from the effect of the inoculation unless he pur- 
 posely gave a fatal dose. 
 
 Now, as to the alleged dying of " whole herds" in southern Ne- 
 braska last fall from inoculation. That is a matter that I have care- 
 fully investigated. He was called to New York for a month to 
 procure certain apparatus that had been ordered by the board, and in 
 his absence he authorized an assistant familiar with his methods to use 
 material for inoculation already prepared by him, upon sundry herds 
 in Butler county, where he had already inoculated with complete suc- 
 cess. He, however, directed the assistant to beware inoculating herds 
 that were already infected with the plague, or that he had reason to 
 believe had been exposed to the infection. The assistant went out 
 there and inoculated several herds for well known farmers that had 
 sent fn a request for inoculation, in which not a single animal was 
 
142 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 made perceptibly sick by the inoculation. Then a farmer living in the 
 neighborhood applied to have his herd inoculated. The assistant, on 
 examining the history of the farm and of the herd, was of the opin- 
 ion that the herd was infected, and declined to do so. The farmer 
 insisted, said that he fully understood that if the hogs were infected 
 the inoculation would be of no avail, but said he would take his 
 chances, and he wanted to save his herd if possible. The assistant 
 yielded, and made the inoculation. That herd commenced to die a 
 few days after, and, if I remember rightly, over sixty per cent died. 
 Then the same assistant, yielding to the entreaties of a member of the 
 State Veterinary and Live Stock Commission, went down to Rich- 
 ardson county and inoculated a herd belonging to the brother of that 
 member, where the hogs were already dying daily from the cholera. 
 Of course they kept on dying. These, with a small herd in Butler 
 county that the assistant had been assured were uninfected, and which 
 doubtless the owner thought were sound, are the only animals among 
 the thousands that have been inoculated in Nebraska for farmers at 
 their request that have died. In all other cases the hogs were not 
 taken off their feed. And in all these cases the inoculated swine have 
 been usually exposed to the cholera after the required thirty days has 
 passed, and have been immune, the losses having been probably less 
 than one per cent. And where a certain number of marked animals 
 have been left without inoculation in these herds, they have inevitably 
 died on exposure to a virulent outbreak. 
 
 Now this story has to do only with swine that have been inoculated 
 for farmers on their own places, and where the animals have not been 
 under the eye of the doctor. The experiments previously pursued on 
 the farm of the University Experiment Station, conducted with every 
 precaution against mistakes and misadventures, had absolutely proven 
 that inoculation gives immunity from further danger from the cholera, 
 and that a certain amount of virus administered under the skin of an 
 animal would secure almost absolute immunity, without any injury 
 whatever to the animal. We have to-day as fine a herd of hogs on 
 the farm as you can see anywhere, and they were inoculated when 
 very young. It did not make them perceptibly sick nor stunt them, 
 and they have survived repeated exposures to infection. 
 
 Dr. Billings voluntarily resigned his position as investigator of ani- 
 mal diseases, on account of the opposition raised against him by Dr. 
 Salmon, of the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, and his 
 agents in this state. The regents and faculty of the University were 
 convinced of the great value of his work, and believed that it was a 
 great injury to Nebraska, that the silly jealousy of the Washington 
 bureau was permitted to prejudice the minds of sundry state officials 
 and the members of the legislature against him to the extent of 
 threatening to starve the University by the withholding of the annual 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 143 
 
 appropriations unless he was dispensed with. These threats coming 
 to his ears, he at once resigned. 
 
 The letter you quote states falsely that the legislature investigated 
 the matter of those inoculations I have mentioned, of herds that after- 
 wards died. Such an investigation was demanded by myself, but re- 
 fused. And now when I tell you that the neighbors of the men who 
 were alleged to have had their hogs killed by the inoculation of Dr. 
 Billings' assistant are constantly applying to have their herds inocu- 
 lated by the doctor's agents, you may, perhaps, understand that farmers 
 have done some investigation on their own behalf. 
 
 But any reasonable man, of course, understands that even with the 
 greatest caution herds are likely to be inoculated that have already 
 been exposed to and infected with the disease. This, especially, be- 
 cause it is only those who know that their neighborhood is infected or 
 their own farm is full of the germs that desire inoculation. Such herds 
 will die. The inoculation is too late, and probably hastens the prog- 
 ress of the disease, if it has any effect whatever. 
 
 In after years this would not affect the reputation of the operator 
 or throw discredit on the theory. But you can see for yourself that 
 in the beginning of the experiments it would be easy to excite popular 
 prejudice against inoculation, if a herd already infected went on dying 
 all the same after the inoculation. Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) C. H. Gere, 
 
 President Board of Regents, State University, Nebraska. 
 
 Again these false assertions found their complete refutation at the 
 hands of the Nebraska Live Stock Breeders' Association when they 
 made Dr. Billings their president for the ensuing year at their late 
 annual meeting, and again the next year, and insisted on his continued 
 engagment in the face of all these "inconsistent" and malicious mis- 
 representations made " with the authority of the secretary of agricult- 
 ure." 
 
 I wish here only to call attention to the utter disregard of the truth, 
 or almost total ignorance of the facts, displayed by the government 
 correspondents from about Surprise, which is in conformity with the 
 balance of the testimony from the majority of these hearsay corre- 
 spondents. On the other hand, the total disregard of the authors of 
 this bulletin for consistency most emphatically emphasizes the justice 
 of my former criticisms which have been so unpleasant to Mr. Rusk. 
 
 For instance, in the table given by the government of the inocula- 
 tions made with the same virus at that time, the name of Mr. F. W. 
 Luddon is given as having lost "none," while J. H. Sleeger says that 
 
144 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 he suffered " the same results" as Hess, aud others whose hogs were 
 sick when inoculated. Talmage says the same, and also that Charles 
 Luddon lost equally, who never had a hog inoculated. Again, Mr. 
 Steele, of Falls City, is said to have lost a "large number," whereas 
 Mr. Ewalt, of Falls City, says: 
 
 I saw Mr. Steele the other day. I asked him his opinion, and if 
 he would recommend inoculation. He said, he did not know whether it 
 was a 'preventive or not, as the disease was in his herd when inoculated, 
 and as many of them died that were inoculated as of those that were not. 
 
 That bulletin needed editing badly. 
 
 If the information gathered by the secretary of agriculture as to the 
 condition of crops and stock is no more consistent and reliable than 
 that published in this bulletin on inoculation, then the quicker the 
 people see that the expense is stopped the better. If these samples are 
 any criterion, the Agricultural Reports are not worth the paper they 
 are printed on, and, so far as the work of the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry is concerned, it is evident they are not. 
 
 What can we think of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Indus- 
 try who is so careless of his reputation, or so wanting in honesty, as 
 to allow such glaring inconsistencies to go out in a public document 
 as are here displayed? What can we think of the honor and honesty 
 of a secretary of agriculture who allows such things to be advertised 
 by his official authority? The whole evidence goes to show that it is 
 not neglect or carelessness, but an absolutely wreckless bravado which 
 openly defies the intelligence of the farmers of the United States, and 
 assumes that all they will see is that the Nebraska work on inocula- 
 tion is either a failure, or so terribly dangerous that no one dare even 
 look at it from a distance. 
 
 THE CRIMINAL IMBECILITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT 
 SHOWN UP BY THE HON. CHARLES H. WALKER OF SURPRISE, 
 NEB. 
 
 I am in receipt of a recent bulletin from the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry on inoculation for hog cholera, which assumes to give accurate 
 and reliable information on that subject. As a paper emanating from 
 the most dignified position of this great nation, in the interest of agri- 
 culture, the greatest interest of the country, it is certainly a remarkable 
 production. The question considered is one that involves the loss of 
 many millions of dollars to the class of citizens to whom it is addressed, 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 145 
 
 and the detection of a disposition to prevent anything but a truthful 
 statement of the facts unfortunately not only creates a distrust but car- 
 ries with it discredit to this great department of our government, as to 
 the reliability of its work and a lack of faith in the honesty of its 
 purpose. It will be a matter of great regret to every citizen of this 
 country who feels pride in our institutions, but more particularly to 
 those that suffered so severely and have felt such confidence in the 
 efforts put forth by the government in the matter of scientific research. 
 Science requires only truth; because of this it is difficult to anticipate 
 a condition of affairs that will lead one devoted to science to forfeit all 
 rights to that honor by the sacrifice of truth. It matters not what the 
 provocation may be, whether it is pure rivalry or revenge, the man 
 who cannot rise above personal considerations, but is willing to trifle 
 with so great an interest, in the hands of an innocent public, to ad- 
 vance himself, is of too small a caliber for so great a trust. Emanat- 
 ing as it does from this official source, the statements made in this 
 bulletin will be taken without question by those who have no other 
 means of information, whereas the most flagrant disregard for the 
 truth is found in the testimony submitted to establish the deductions 
 therein, and in some instances the positive statement of a party to an 
 expression is suppressed and hearsay statement of a stranger is pub- 
 lished when the hearsay statement best suits the theory of the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry. Such trifling with the confidence of the people 
 is a crime against a noble trust, and it is a question whether even the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, fortified as he is, behind a 
 cabinet officer, can afford it. 
 
 To show the total disregard for truth, I will refer to the statements 
 of two correspondents that I am personally acquainted with. E. T. 
 Pliefke, Gresham, York county, Nebraska, says : 
 
 "I do not know of any inoculated herds that have been exposed to 
 hog cholera and have not afterward suffered from the disease. Mr. 
 Samuel F. Weaver of Ulysses, Butler county, Nebraska, had a herd 
 of seventy-nine inoculated. These were exposed two weeks after and 
 all died but thirteen. As far as I have noticed, it avails nothing. 
 One herd of forty-eight was doing well when inoculated, and in a week 
 began to get sick and die." 
 
 The following is a note from Mr. Weaver in reply to an inquiry as 
 to facts: 
 
 " Ulysses, Neb., June 13, 1892. 
 " C. H. Walker, Esq., Surprise, Nebraska. 
 
 "Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry in regard to my experience 
 with inoculation for hog cholera I would say that I have never had a 
 hog inoculated, and any statements that I have is without foundation 
 and untrue. S. F. Weaver." 
 
 I am unable to learn anything of the herd of forty-eight referred 
 10 
 
146 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 to. The number does not correspond with that of any herd that has 
 been inoculated in this vicinity. The statement is untrue. Referring 
 to the correspondence of Lewis E. Talmage, of Surprise, Butler county, 
 Nebraska, he says: 
 
 " In reply to yours, will say the last case I know anything about 
 was that of D. L. Sylvester, of Surprise. In the fall of 1890 he had 
 seventy-five inoculated, and then sold them to Mr. C. H. "Walker, of 
 Surprise, to ship to Iowa. I do not know the percentage of deaths 
 resulting from the inoculation. Miller Bros., of Surprise, in 1890, had 
 some seventy head inoculated and lost almost the entire herd. They 
 also had a bunch inoculated in 1888 and lost a large percentage. Mr. 
 Christ Schroeder, of Surprise, had 250 inoculated, and he told me he 
 lost nearly the entire herd, and the few that did live were damaged. 
 Mr. H. H. Hess, of Surprise, inoculated in 1888 probably 200 head 
 and lost ninety per cent. Wilber and Charles Luddon, of Surprise, 
 the same fall inoculated with the same results. The number of hogs 
 given in each case is from memory." 
 
 The following note from Mr. Sylvester throws a little light upon a 
 question that Mr. Talmage says he does not know about, viz., the 
 percentage of deaths resulting from inoculation : 
 
 "Sukprise, Neb., June 14, 1892. 
 "(7. H. Walker, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir : I take pleasuse in giving you all the information I 
 have relative to the action of inoculation on my hogs in 1890. I had 
 100 head inoculated in August. A single one only showed symptoms 
 that would attract the attention of a careful observer that he was sick 
 and his illness only continued for a few days. I did not lose a hog. 
 In September I had them tested with a double dose of virus. I could 
 detect no symptoms of sickness from this inoculation. In December 
 I sold them for 3J cents a pound when the market for like hogs un- 
 inoculated was only 2£ cents a pound. The price was demanded and 
 paid because we believed them to be proof against cholera. 
 
 " D. L. Sylvester." 
 
 The hogs were put in the pens at Davenport, Iowa, and fed out 
 without a single loss. The following letter from Miller Bros, tells 
 the story of their experience in detail: 
 
 "Surprise, Neb., June 15, 1892. 
 "G H. Walker, Esq. 
 
 " Dear Sir : Referring to a report in the bulletin of the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry, that we had a bunch of seventy head of hogs inoc- 
 ulated in 1890 and lost almost the entire herd, and that we also had 
 a bunch inoculated in 1888 and lost a large percentage, I would say 
 that the Bureau of Animal Industry has been wrongly informed. We 
 never had any hogs inoculated until 1890, and only forty-five head at 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 147 
 
 that time. We had two bunches of hogs kept in separate feed lots, 
 but had but one bunch inoculated. It happened that three or four 
 days after this bunch was inoculated that the cholera appeared in the 
 other feed lot and every pig in the bunch died. Later on we lost 
 seven or eight of the inoculated lot. Whether they died from inocu- 
 lation or from contracting the disease as the others did, we cannot say, 
 but this is true; our place had been a hot-bed for cholera, and the 
 probabilities for catching it were great. Be that as it may, no fair- 
 minded man, knowing the surroundings, would condemn inoculation 
 from the experience we had. 
 
 "Frank D. Miller, for Miller Bros." 
 
 Referring to Chris Schroeder's experience this correspondent says 
 he has 250 inoculated. At the close he says "the number of hogs 
 given in each case is from memory." I notice this statement to show 
 the unreliability of the correspondent's "memory." Mr. Schroeder 
 had simply one litter of ten pigs inoculated, instead of 250. Further 
 comment under this head is unnecessary. 
 
 The following is a letter from Wilbur Luddon, which answers the 
 statement that in the fall of 1888 he and Charles Luddon lost 90 per 
 cent of their hogs from inoculation : 
 " C. H. Walker, Surprise, Neb. 
 
 " Dear Sir : In answer to your inquiry as to my loss of hogs from 
 inoculation, I have to say that I had fifty-two inoculated in 1888, but 
 that I lost none of them. Some showed symptoms of being sick, but 
 recovered in a few days. Most of them, however, did not seem to be 
 sick at all. Charles Luddon never had any hogs inoculated. 
 
 "Yours, F. W. Luddon." 
 
 Mr. Luddon remarked that he had made a similar statement to the 
 Bureau of Animal Industry in reply to the circular letter it sent to 
 him. (Mr. Luddon's reply is not mentioned in the bulletin.) 
 
 As to the statement made with regard to the Hess herd it is true 
 that he had it inoculated. The work was done on the same day and 
 within an hour of the same time that it was done on Mr. Luddon's hogs. 
 It was done in the same manner and from the same virus, by the same 
 veterinarian, and the two farmers were on adjoining farms. Now it 
 is claimed that 90 per cent of the Hess hogs died from inoculation. 
 That they died is not denied. The conundrum propounded to the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry is, If this poison killed Mr. 
 Hess' hogs, why did not the same poison kill at least some of Mr. 
 Luddon's? It is a serious question in the minds of many whether 
 poison acts in that way, killing entire herds in the one instance, or 
 rather 90 per cent of a herd, and not affect the other to cause a single 
 death. If such a freak in the action of poison can be cited elsewhere 
 it may be that inoculation did kill them, but if such action is un- 
 known, it does seem that before it is accepted by men of science that 
 
14$ A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 the fatality was the result of this action, that a single precedent at 
 least should be cited to sustain the conclusion. 
 
 Charles H. Walker, Surprise, Neb. 
 
 The government is pretty hard put and seems to be "between the 
 devil and the deep sea" most of the time as to what to say about that 
 Surprise business. At one time it uses its figures in the endeavor to 
 show that inoculation failed to prevent the disease, and at another to 
 show that it killed "forty-five and one-half per cent" of the 1,014 
 hogs. It is not honest enough to call direct attention to the health of 
 the Gibbon, state farm, Walker, and F. W. Luddon hogs, especially 
 in the text (most of which were afterwards severely tested by their 
 owners), and to tell the reader that these were not injured, nor to tell 
 him that Mr. Sylvester's were sick at the time and inoculated at his 
 own request, and that Mr. Steele's were also sick by his own admission 
 in their report. They dare not tell the truth, for it would expose 
 their own base lies. They think the people are fools and will not see 
 these things, which, so far as the seeing goes, may be true, but they will 
 yet learn what became of the boy who cried "wolf" once too often; 
 these government lies have been published once too often in this Bul- 
 letin No. 8. 
 
 Leaving the Ed. Hinkley, Sylvester, and Steele hogs out of con- 
 sideration, we have inoculated with the same virus, the same dose, and 
 within twenty-four hours of each other, 331 hogs, not one of which 
 showed a sign of illness, which, as Mr. Walker remarks, is a most 
 singular affair. No infectious disease works that way. No experi- 
 menter on earth ever inoculated 1,014 animals of a susceptible species 
 with the same dose of the same culture of a given germ and saw it 
 kill forty-five and one-half per cent, and not touch in any way 331 
 others. The very fact that nearly 3,000 were inoculated last fall, and 
 that from August 14 to January 20 not an owner complained of in- 
 jury, and then but one who had "been seen," as we call it, either in 
 person or had seen some of these government lies, and then because a 
 few of his hogs did die nearly three months after inoculation believed 
 that it was the cause, all goes to show the contemptible folly of the 
 following reasoning brought forward with Secretary Rusk's authority : 
 A person who has had the reputation of being an investigator since 
 1878 (but who never investigated to any success), and who does not 
 know the difference between natural exposure to an inficiens in the 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 149 
 
 fields and by-ways of life, which is never equal on the same day and 
 to given quantity at the same time, and the experimental introduction 
 of that same inficiens in a given dose to every individual present, can 
 only be said to be a fit candidate for some retreat for feeble minded, 
 Mr. Rusk endorses the following : 
 
 In considering this explanation, we cannot lose sight of the fact that 
 the virus of contagious disease is exactly the one poison which does 
 act in an unequal and apparently erratic manner. When a roomful 
 of school children are exposed to one of their number affected with 
 measles or scarlet fever, every child does not contract the disease, 
 though all are equally exposed. The children of some families will 
 contract the disease, while those of other families will remain free 
 from it. This is not the result of living on different sides of a street 
 or in different parts of a town, but it is due to the difference in sus- 
 ceptibility, which varies both with individuals and with families. 
 
 What has that to do with the same dose at the same time to all in- 
 dividuals at once? I only wish to say here that all investigators have 
 given too much stress to individual resistance and individual disposi- 
 tions, which do not exist to natural infections, and not enough atten- 
 tion to the far more common sense fact of irregularity of exposure 
 and slowness of infection and the consequent resistance thereby created 
 in the exposed organism in many cases of natural infection. Unless 
 through traumatic inoculation the infection is generally gradual and 
 often at intervals in natural exposure, whereas in artificial inoculation 
 it is one and equal in all individuals. Of the thousands of healthy 
 hogs and pigs the inoculation of which I have directly followed, I 
 have never seen an indication of such a thing as varying or individ- 
 ual predisposition, and do not believe it exists in natural infection 
 where the natural infection is due to racial disposition, and not an in- 
 dividually acquired weakness, which only predisposes to such a disease 
 as phthisis. 
 
 The above attempt at a comparison between the exposure in natural 
 infection and intentional inoculation is too ridiculous to notice further; 
 but for the benefit of people who possess healthy brains, I must say that 
 altogether too much a priori valuation has been given to a supposed 
 idiosyncratic variation in the susceptibility of individuals to natural 
 infection. I dogmatically assert that such a peculiarity as greater 
 susceptibility or great resistance in healthy individuals of a species 
 having a natural disposition to a certain inficiens does not exist. The 
 
150 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 phenomena which lead to such an hypothesis are caused by the ir- 
 regularity of exposure and what might be called fractional infection, 
 some being sufficiently exposed all at once, while others are infected 
 so gradually as to acquire resistance during the exposure. Racial dis= 
 position and acquired predisposition, which is invariably individual, 
 are entirely different etiological factors. Of the thousands of healthy 
 hogs and pigs which have been inoculated under my direction and 
 over which I have watched most carefully, I have never seen such a 
 thing as " individual predisposition " predominating in a single case} 
 mind you, I say healthy animals. I pay no regard to age. One 
 thing more I would insist on, healthy hogs running at large. In 
 penned hogs I have seen after effects which did not appear in those 
 running free, inoculated with the same dose of the same virus on the 
 same farm at the same time. 
 
Suppressed Letters 
 fayorable to our inoculations in 1891. 
 
 NOT PUBLISHED IN 
 
 BULLETIN No. 8 5 
 
 Authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 (151) 
 
SUPPRESSED LETTERS. 
 
 There has previously been given a communication from C. H. 
 Walker, of Surprise, Neb., which conclusively demonstrates that 
 the Department of Agriculture has not published the true facts in 
 connection with inoculation in swine plague as done under the direc- 
 tion of the Nebraska Experiment Station. In that " Bulletin No. 8 " 
 occurs the following passage, which leads one to suppose that all the 
 testimony received by the department has been published. We now 
 wish to show that very much favorable testimony has been suppressed 
 and that the whole story has not been told by any means: 
 
 There are a considerable number of owners of inoculated herds in the 
 list from whom the department has received no replies, and it is there- 
 fore probable that full returns would considerably increase the per- 
 centage of loss as above given. 
 
 Surely from that language we are justified in assuming that the 
 eight letters published from correspondents regarding our work in 
 1891 was all the Agricultural Department received. 
 
 In an open letter to Chancellor Canfield, of July 16, received since 
 this manuscript was written, Mr. Rusk admits receiving other letters 
 as follows : 
 
 There were a large number of letters both for and against inocula- 
 tion which were omitted because they were written entirely from a 
 theoretical point of view and made no reference to any facts in sup- 
 port of the position taken, or for equally good reasons. 
 
 That the writer of Mr. Rusk's letter stated a falsehood will be 
 shown by a large number of letters from men who actually had had 
 practical experience and from others who have watched this work and 
 are in a large measure personally and officially responsible for it. Re- 
 member the essential accusation is that inoculation has killed hogs and 
 extended the disease. 
 
 Col. F. M. Woods, the popular live stock auctioneer of Nebraska, 
 
 (153) 
 
154 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 was written to by the department, and yet we see no mention of his 
 answer, which he writes was in this wise : 
 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have the greatest faith in inoculation and in your 
 ultimate success. It is to just such men as yourself that the world is 
 indebted for all great discoveries, and I wish you all success. 
 
 Mr. Ed. Slattery, Douglas, Neb., writes us that he answered two 
 circulars that he received, and that his hogs are doing well, and that 
 he has lost none since he inoculated. 
 
 Mr. Ezra Wilter, Grafton, Neb., inoculated 195 pigs and hogs in 
 the fall of 1891. When called upon to report in January, 1892, he 
 wrote to us : 
 
 We have only been on the present farm long enough to raise one 
 crop of hogs, but will say that the former owner was always having 
 swine plague; in fact, so badly that he gave up raising hogs. 
 
 As to danger or injury to his hogs he says : 
 
 Not a particle of either ; it is absolute carelessness to injure the pigs 
 where the directions are closely given. I have the same faith in it as 
 in vaccination in my family. 
 
 Now let us see on what Mr. Wilter pinned his faith. In a detailed 
 letter to us he says : 
 
 We live on four corners ; on one corner, within four rods, lives 
 Mr. E. ; he lost thirty out of sixty head. Mr. T., distant about 
 eighty rods, lost all his young pigs and some old ones ; and all along 
 in all directions my neighbors who did not inoculate lost at about 
 that rate. We have not had a sick pig on the place, and I would 
 not be afraid to drop a diseased hog in my herd. In fact, neighbor 
 E.'s sick hogs were among mine every few days. You will undoubt- 
 edly get reports that in some herds where inoculation has been done the 
 hogs died, which will be true, but you have always warned against 
 vaccinating sick or exposed hogs as of no benefit. We inoculated a 
 lot of many such pigs and it did not hurt them a bit. 
 
 Now it would seem as if the secretary of agriculture would be de- 
 lighted to hear from such a man as that, for as Mr. Wilter writes us 
 again in another letter : 
 
 My inoculated hogs were fully exposed, many of E.'s sick ones 
 coming among them, and one case in particular was a large sick sow 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 155 
 
 which got in with them, and when we got her out and got her home 
 she died in four days. 
 
 But we find no letter from him mentioned in that " Farmers' Bul- 
 letin," though Mr. Wilter did report to Mr. Rusk as shown by the 
 following letter : 
 
 Grafton, Neb., May 28, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : I got a letter from Secretary Rusk with stereotyped 
 questions respecting my experience with inoculation. I will say that 
 I thought the questions fair ones, and I wrote to him the absolute 
 facts as I have written them to you. Had I anticipated they were 
 were going to take undue advantage of it I would have reserved a 
 copy, and have no hesitancy whatever to prepare a statement of facts 
 over again and send them to you for publication in any agricultural 
 paper. You must not get discouraged, for every new departure from 
 the old school has always been met with scorn, and not until the man 
 was dead has justice been meted out. Then they piled stones on his 
 grave so heavy that the poor fellow could not turn over. # 
 
 Mr. Wilter has just inoculated his spring pigs. 
 
 Hon. F. I. Foss, of Crete, Neb., inoculated 153 in the fall of 1891 
 without injury or loss and sold a lot of them for extra prices because 
 they had been inoculated, as the purchaser himself told me. Mr. 
 Foss has just inoculated, June 24, 1892, seventy-five three-months-old 
 pigs. Here is another man whose testimony would have been inter- 
 esting and valuable to the farmers to whom Secretary Rusk pretended 
 he was telling the truth, according to his oath of office and the re- 
 sponsibilities then assumed. Mr. Foss' name is not mentioned in that 
 " Bulletin." Did he write to Mr. Rusk ? 
 
 Crete, Neb., June 4, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir: In answer to yours will say that on receipt of circular 
 from Mr. Rusk, I answered it fully. Can't remember just what I 
 said, but it was all that was necessary. Anything that I can do to 
 aid your cause please let me know. 
 
 Yours respectfully, F. I. Foss. 
 
 Messrs. Matthew and Jenner, of Loup City, Neb., inoculated thirty- 
 one head of all ages in the fall of 1891. They report that two small 
 pigs died from some cause, but do not lay it to inoculation, and about 
 June 15 reported to us: "Have not yet had sufficient experience to 
 give an opinion that would be worth anything, but am satisfied with 
 
156 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 experiment." They write us that " they have reported fully to Secre- 
 tary Rusk/' and as they say nothing more it must be concluded that 
 they have seen no cause to alter their opinion. 
 
 Three herds were inoculated by Mr. Ernest Schoff of Axtell, Neb., 
 for Messrs. Pamblade, Lundren, and Johnson (farmers). He reports 
 to us the loss of thirty out of seventy -three for Pamblade, none out of 
 seventy-seven for Lundren, and forty out of eighty-nine for Johnson, 
 against a loss of 95 per cent in the uninoculated herds in the vicinity. 
 Whether Mr. Pamblade reported on the balance of these to Mr. Rusk 
 we have no means of telling, but he does say, " none of them (his own) 
 died from inoculation." He also says : " Sold the old ones and lost 
 about seventeen out of the fifty-five young ones," which is different 
 than my report, as can be seen. 
 
 Mr. A. P. Seymour, of Unadilla, Neb., inoculated forty-eight hogs 
 in 1891 and reported that they were "not hurt at all." He writes as 
 
 follows : 
 
 Unadilla, Neb., June 6, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : In reply to your favor of the 4th inst., let me say that 
 I received some questions from Mr. Rusk, but have not received the 
 bulletin you mention, though I noticed extracts unfavorable to inocu- 
 lation, in some of the papers. I stated the facts in the case to Mr. 
 Rusk as regards my connection with inoculatiou. We have not lost a 
 hog from disease to date, though there have been losses within two 
 miles. I shall want some virus in the future to inoculate our spring 
 pigs. 
 
 Very respectfully yours, Alfred P. Seymour. 
 
 At Diller, Neb., the following farmers inoculated in 1891 : 
 
 J. P. Cully, 44 — " Does not think it injures hogs at all." 
 
 Hon. Wm. H. Diller, 196, ninety-eight two months' old — "None 
 injured; valuable." 
 
 J. D. Steiner, 57— "Thinks it valuable." 
 
 J. B. Diller, 38—" Valuable and safe." 
 
 A. B. Wright, 75 — Disease must have been on place at time. In- 
 oculated sows and pigs at same time and the pigs naturally died. 
 
 As all this was done at the same time and with the same virus it is 
 logical to suppose that as the 325 of the other owners, except Mr. 
 Wright, were not injured, and as he only lost his young pigs (all 
 died), and as he reports his older ones were made ill, it must be as- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 157 
 
 sumed, as the other 325 were not at all injured, that the cholera was 
 in the old ones, and that the double dose received at the time, inocu- 
 lation being added to the natural disease, caused the death of the 
 young ones. It is fair, however, to let Mr. Wright speak for him- 
 self. Here is what he wrote us January 25, 1892: 
 
 My hogs at the time of inoculation were extremely healthy and 
 were all doing well. I had about twenty head that would range 
 from 250 to 375 pounds. After the operation they eat but very little 
 for four or five weeks and at the expiration of that time they had not 
 gained any and four or five of them were at least forty pouuds lighter 
 and one went nearly to a rack of bones, but all at once that one com- 
 menced gaining and fattened very fast. The shoats that were from 
 four to eight months old did not seem to have been hurt any, except 
 that they were sick for a few days. The nineteen pigs, about three or 
 four weeks old, were nice and fat. In about four days the sows were 
 nearly dried up and the pigs began dying, and eventually they all 
 died. Taking the thing as a whole I am somewhat damaged by in- 
 oculation, though I have said nothing about it even when asked. 
 
 The intelligent reader, especially those who have had experience 
 with inoculation, can judge for himself whether this could possibly 
 have been due to inoculation. To resume: We have 325 pigs and 
 hogs inoculated at the same time and with the same virus in the same 
 place, without a particle of injury. Mr. Wright inoculated seventy- 
 five. According to his letter he had twenty old hogs and nineteen 
 sucking pigs, leaving thirty-six shoats not injured by inoculation and 
 which did not even become sick, and none of the old ones died. This 
 is a singular experience in swine plague. The question is open, did 
 not the inoculation after all save the old hogs and shoats by giving 
 them a power of resistance to the natural disease, which the sucking 
 pigs could not possibly have had to an unlimited dose of both natural 
 and inoculated germs ? It is worthy of remark that the virus used 
 in this case did give almost absolute protection and did not injure a 
 hog in nearly every herd in which it was used. 
 
 I wrote Mr. Wright about what has been said above, and it did 
 not seem to suit his views. In a second letter, as evidence that the 
 same virus was used as on the others, he says : " J. D. Steiner used it> 
 what was left after inoculating his own, and he did the work accord- 
 ing to the printed directions that were sent him." It will be remem- 
 bered that Mr. Steiner did not injure his own hogs, and considers 
 inoculation very valuable. 
 
158 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 
 
 Mr. Wright reported to Mr. Rusk as he did to me: 
 
 I inoculated seventy-five head of swine last fall, of different ages. 
 The large hogs were damaged. Some of them lost in weight nearly 
 100 pounds. The shoats from six to eight months old I could see no 
 difference in. I inoculated nineteen sucking pigs, every one of which 
 died. There has been no cholera in the neighborhood since I inocu- 
 lated. My opinion is that inoculation is of little or no benefit. 
 
 The interesting question is, what did the others report, or did they 
 report at all? In this connection I received the following letter from 
 Hon. William H. Diller, who does not say whether he wrote Secre- 
 tary Rusk for the others or not, but this is what he does say : 
 
 Diller, Neb., June 9, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : I wrote some time ago to Secretary Rusk in regard to 
 inoculation and made it as strong as possible in your favor and have 
 heard nothing since. 
 
 Yours truly, W. H. Diller. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Cully, Diller, also writes that he reported to Secretary 
 Rusk as he had done to me. 
 
 Mr. C. H. Crocker, of Emerald, Neb., also inoculated in 1891, and 
 though his name does not appear in Mr. Rusk's list of correspondents 
 
 he writes me as follows : 
 
 York, Neb., June 8, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of the 6th received. In reply will say that I 
 did receive a letter of some description from Uncle Jere, making in- 
 quiries. I do not now remember whether I answered it or not; if I 
 did, I stated that my shoats did not show any bad effects from inocu- 
 lation, that I lost none, and would not hesitate to inoculate again. 
 This is the substance of what I wrote, if I did write at all. Wish- 
 ing you success in your labor for Nebraska and her people, I am, 
 Respectfully yours, C. H. Crocker. 
 
 Another interesting correspondent whose name does not appear in 
 the list of Mr. Rusk with regard to our inoculations in 1891 is Mr. 
 John Morgau, of Lincoln, who contributes the following: 
 
 Lincoln, Neb., June 10, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : This is what I said to Secretary Rusk : He wanted to 
 know my experience of hog cholera and what I thought of it. Here 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 159 
 
 is what I said: In August 1891, I inoculated seventeen hogs, four- 
 teen pigs ten weeks old and their mothers, three sows. I went con- 
 trary to the instructions of the laboratory and they got too heavy a 
 dose of virus, and they got in among the sick hogs that were dying 
 with the cholera and eat them. A near neighbor of mine inoculated 
 five at the same time, and they lived and did well. Later on another 
 near neighbor of mine had fifty hogs and we inoculated them, sick 
 and well together, and we thought it saved about half of them. Jan- 
 uary, 1892, I inoculated seven pigs of my own and they have lived 
 and done well. If you go according to instructions I think it is a 
 good thing and I believe in it. 
 
 Yours with respect, John Morgan. 
 
 I now come to a most interesting and valuable case, the testimony 
 of which has been suppressed in Bulletin No. 8. Mr. A. M. Cald- 
 well, of New Holland, 111., and a very well known breeder of the best 
 of Poland Chinas, has had more experience, good and bad, with inocu- 
 lation than any other farmer in the country, with the exception of Mr. 
 Walker, of Surprise, and Mr. Bassett, of Gibbon, Neb. The first time 
 I attempted to prevent swine plague in Mr. Caldwell's hogs was in 
 September, 1889, and failed completely and learned more thereby 
 in that and some others, to be considered in another place, than at 
 any one time in my six years' experience. We tried again and the 
 disease got in ahead of us, but the old saying that the " third time 
 never fails" proved reliable for us, and here is what Mr. Caldwell 
 says of his experience in 1891 : 
 
 New Holland, III., January 17, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir: I have on my farm now about fifty pigs that were 
 inoculated when about three weeks old, and then in about two weeks 
 later they were out with my hogs when the cholera broke out, and 
 they are now on the very ground where most of my pigs died that did 
 die, and all sleeping in the very pen where the sick pigs slept, and I 
 never had pigs do better and look finer in my life. I had at the time 
 I inoculated these three sows that farrowed during the interval be- 
 tween the inoculations and at the time of the second inoculation I 
 thought they were too young, and, as I did not care much about them 
 I let them go. They lived on some six weeks and then commenced 
 to die and I don't think a single one of them is left. My inoculated 
 pigs showed slight symptoms, but only one or two died, and are now, 
 as I stated before, doing exceedingly well. I had bought three breed- 
 ing boars and three sows since I inoculated my pigs. I have them in 
 
160 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 pens not infected, and as soon as I am done breeding, which will be 
 soon now, if you think it safe to send virus in such cold weather, I 
 want to inoculate them. I have not bred the sows and will not until 
 after inoculation. I have bred some twenty-five or thirty sows for 
 spring litters and shall of course want to inoculate as soon as three or 
 four weeks old. 
 
 In the years 1888-90, etc., my losses were enough to buy a pretty 
 good farm. My hogs were not injured or stunted by the inoculation, 
 and my little pigs also were not injured. 
 
 I do not think inoculation at all dangerous, and I should scarcely 
 think of raising hogs on my farm without it. 
 
 Yours very truly, ' A. M. Caldwell. 
 
 Unless the mails went astray Secretary Rusk did hear from Mr. 
 Caldwell, and here is what the latter says about it: 
 
 New Holland, III., June 1, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 My Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 2d I will say I did 
 not take a copy of the letter I wrote Secretary Rusk on my experience 
 and opinion of inoculation as a preventation for hog cholera, but it 
 was in substauce this: That I had been inoculating since the fall of 
 1889, that some of my experience had been just as satisfactory as 
 could be wished and that some had been failures. I then gave some- 
 what in detail my last year's experience, as it was given to you and 
 published in the Omaha Bee and Farmers' Review. I said further that 
 on two occasians I had cholera break out a few days after inoculation, 
 but that in neither case did I believe it was due to inoculation, for on 
 each occasion I had a bunch of some fifty or sixty head that were in- 
 oculated from the same bottle at the same time, which done exceed- 
 ingly well and never showed any symptoms of disease. 
 
 I said as to my opinion that I was very favorably impressed with, 
 and should continue to inoculate so long as I could get the virus; that 
 I had sent to you for virus to inoculate my spring crop of pigs. I 
 further said that I concluded from my experience that when the virus 
 was right it was just as sure to prevent as that I was living, but that 
 I did not believe it was always possible to tell when all things were 
 right, but that I was convinced that it was a step in the right direc- 
 tion and I hoped it would be followed up till perfected. I added that 
 this was my experience, plain and simple, without a disposition to 
 bolster up any one, and that with the unfortunate quarrel, which seemed 
 to exist between Dr. Billings and Salmon, I had nothing to do, but 
 that I was moved to say what I did from the fact that I had lost 
 heavily by this most terrible scourge and was anxious that some means 
 of relief might be perfected. 
 
 I remain yours very truly, A. M. Caldwell. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 161 
 
 Mr. Spencer Day, of North Bend, Neb., inoculated seventy head 
 in 1891, and though his name does not appear among Mr. Rusk's 
 correspondents, he writes as follows : 
 
 North Bend, Neb., May 31, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 My Dear Sir: Your note received last evening. I did receive a 
 communication from Secretary Rusk, and I see from the envelope un- 
 der date March 29, the inquiries were pointed and very minute, de- 
 siring the entire history of my experience with inoculation as a remedy 
 or preventive of hog cholera. He got, I think, all and more than 
 he wanted. I gave him in detail our experience, and said as a farmer 
 I had perfect and entire confidence in the principle and regarded it as 
 solving the hog cholera question. I did not stop with this. I gave 
 him my experience with Jackson's so-called cure, which I regard as 
 misnamed, as, in my case, it killed all the hogs to which it was given, 
 fifty-seven, old and young. 
 
 I saw Bulletin No. 8, but did not find any allusion to my letter, but 
 was not in anywise disappointed, as I was aware my letter was not the 
 kind wanted. 
 
 Now, my dear sir, if at any time I can be of any service to you, 
 command me. Yours truly, Spencer Day. 
 
 Dr. H. G. Leisering, a very skillful and highly educated physician 
 of Wayne, Neb., inoculated fifty hogs last fall, and reported in January 
 that they were not injured in any way and that he "considered it sci- 
 entific and correct if used as directed in all respects." Although his 
 name also fails to appear in Secretary Rusk's list of correspondents, 
 he writes : 
 
 Wayne, Neb., May 30, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : I received a letter from Secretary Rusk and in answer 
 told him that after using the virus I had lost no hogs; that whether 
 the result was due to the inoculation or not I could not say from my 
 limited experience, but that, judging from my knowledge of the dis- 
 ease generally, I considered inoculation with the proper virus the only 
 scientific and proper method of preventing the plague. 
 
 If any of my hogs get sick I will order my tenant to try the plan 
 you suggest. It looks reasonable to me and I will give it a trial. 
 Yours truly, H. G. Leisering. 
 
 Mr. John Campbell, of Nebraska City, Otoe county, Neb., one of 
 the few counties that was heavily swept by swine plague in 1891, in- 
 oculated eighty-five hogs in January last. He reported to us : "The 
 11 
 
1'62 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 •disease has been very bad in this section of the county for the past 
 sixteen months." He says : " I inoculated sixty-five shoats. About 
 ten days afterwards they commenced dying. They may have been 
 diseased at the time they were inoculated, as my neighbor's hogs 
 across the road were dying at the time. I think it worth a further 
 trial." 
 
 The hogs at Diller were all inoculated with the same virus; not in- 
 cluding Mr. Wright's, there were 325. Aside from these we have : 
 
 Isaac Pollard, of Nehawka ,. 279 
 
 P. J. Donlan, Lincoln 100 
 
 W. W. Abbott, Lincoln 79 
 
 Matthew & Jenner,Loup City 31 
 
 F. I. Foss, Crete 153 
 
 Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne 50 
 
 692 
 All inoculated with the same virus without injury. Mr. Campbell 
 reports to Mr. Eusk as follows: 
 
 On September 18, 1891, I inoculated sixty-three shoats about five 
 months old, and twenty-two old hogs, with virus received from Dr. 
 Billings, of Lincoln, Neb. In about ten or twelve days I lost one 
 shoat, and a good many of the shoats were sick. In about three or 
 four weeks I had lost fifty-nine of the shoats, leaving me four. The 
 shoats and old hogs had been in separate lots, not adjoining, but after 
 inoculating, which was all done at the same time, I moved all the old 
 hogs further away from the others, with the exception of one lame 
 one, and it died in about thirty days after inoculation, but the other 
 old hogs have never had the cholera. I have not much faith in in- 
 oculation. 
 
 Mr. Campbell also inoculated twenty-two old hogs, and if he fol- 
 lowed the directions, gave them one cubic centimeter. They were not 
 injured and escaped illness. As they were in a different lot, we will 
 not claim inoculation saved them, still it all goes to show that inocula- 
 tion did not cause the disease in the shoats. The government abso- 
 lutely ignores this side of the story. 
 
 As more evidence showing that testimony in favor of inoculation 
 has been purposely withheld from the public by Secretary Eusk, the 
 following letter from the celebrated Shorthorn breeder, Judge Eaton, 
 of Nebraska City, in Bulletin No. 8, is published, as it bears on Mr. 
 Campbell's case : 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 163 
 
 I only know of one herd that was inoculated, and they were evi- 
 dently infected before the operation. This herd belonged to John 
 Campbell, of Nebraska City. His neighbor, Simeon Patton, has a 
 hog yard just across the road, four rods distant, both being mostly in 
 a low swale. Mr. Patton's hogs had cholera and were dying fast 
 when Mr. Campbell got the virus and inoculated his own hogs. Mr. 
 Campbell inoculated twenty large hogs and sixty-five pigs or young 
 hogs. Of the large hogs nineteen were kept at some distance from the 
 others and from Air. Patton's. None of these showed any indications 
 of being sick. The other large hog, being lame, was kept with the 
 pigs. He died, and so did sixty or sixty-one of the shoats out of the 
 sixty-five inoculated. The shoats got sick in six or seven days after 
 treatment and died soon afterward. Mr. Campbell does not believe 
 in inoculation. 
 
 Mr. Eaton writes : 
 
 Dr. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir : I think I wrote this communication to the department 
 just as it is printed, in reply to questions. I got the statement from 
 Mr. Campbell, and think the facts as stated therein are very favorable 
 to you and your method of inoculation, except the last line, a mere 
 opinion of Mr. Campbell. In all my communications to the depart- 
 ment in reply to questions I have always expressed myself in my own 
 way as' decidedly favorable to you and stated my great faith in your 
 methods. I have always had a warm word for you either when 
 speaking to your friends or your enemies, especially the latter. The 
 way they came to get the statement about Mr. Campbell's hogs was 
 in reply to the printed questions. I had that bulletin from the de- 
 partment, but have mislaid it. I am prepared to stand by you in all 
 things, except lumpy jaw, but any other kind of jaw you can give us 
 all right, only I would not like to feast on the beef of a lumpy jaw 
 steer. Science and trade and taste are different things. I mean by 
 standing by you that I have faith and knowledge — that your theories 
 and discoveries in regard to hog cholera, corn-stalk disease, Texas 
 fever, etc., are right and will ultimately do much good. 
 
 Your friend, in haste, James W. Eaton. 
 
 As Judge Eaton is one of the regular correspondents of the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture regarding the condition of crops and stock in his 
 section of Nebraska, would it have been anything else than fair to the 
 work of our station to have printed his opinions as expressed, as he 
 says, and not have withheld them? Mr. Rusk should deal fairly and 
 honestly with the farmers in this as well as other matters pertaining 
 to their interest, or else say nothing at all. It is hard to see how a 
 
164 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 man in his position can possibly afford to pursue the course he has in 
 this matter of our inoculation. 
 
 Another regular correspondent of the Department of Agriculture 
 is my esteemed friend, our incomparable secretary of the State Board 
 of Agriculture, ex-Governor Hon. Robert "W. Furnas. In Decem- 
 ber, 1891, Mr. Furnas had occasion to write a report to the secretary 
 of agriculture, in which he said there was more hog disease in the 
 state than ever before, which was a serious error, as we had only three 
 or four counties seriously affected last year and were freer from dis- 
 ease than we have ever been since my advent in the state in 1886. 
 Mr. Furnas' remarks were so twisted by the department as to make 
 it appear that the disease reported by him was due to inoculation, 
 whereas there has never been a hog inoculated in Mr. Furnas' county. 
 These remarks by the government were taken up by the London Live 
 Stock Journal, as follows, which can but result in deterring immigrants 
 coming to Nebraska, and thus injure the state: 
 
 London, January 8, 1892. — Mr. D. E. Salmon, chief of the 
 American Bureau of Animal Industry, has issued a report on some 
 experiments carried out in Illinois for the cure of hog cholera by in- 
 oculation. Some of the pigs were inoculated by a method Tecom- 
 mended by Mr. Billings, others by that of the bureau, and a third 
 division of the same lot were not treated. Three of the first division 
 died in a short time, while the pigs not inoculated remained healthy. 
 But as the two inoculated groups were kept together from the first, 
 and the three pigs were infected by inoculation before the protective 
 effect of inoculation, if any, had had time to mature, the experiment 
 was a failure. Mr. Salmon, however, says: "The results already ob- 
 tained demonstrate the danger of spreading the disease by inoculation, 
 and particularly by the method used and recommended by Mr. Bil- 
 lings. This danger has been indicated by other inoculations made in 
 Nebraska and Illinois, but it has never before been so clearly and in- 
 contestably proved. In Nebraska, it appears, where inoculation has 
 been extensively practiced, the losses of pigs from disease was greater 
 in November than it has ever been before, according to ex-Governor 
 Robert W. Furnas, statistical agent of the Department of Agriculture 
 for Nebraska." 
 
 Knowing that Mr. Furnas had always been one of my most persist- 
 ently strong friends, even when the black clouds of public disapproval 
 caused me to leave in 1889, I had some curiosity to know what he 
 had written the department, and so wrote him, and received the fol- 
 lowing reply: 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 165 
 
 Brownville, Neb., Jan. 30, 1892. 
 
 My Dear Doctor : Reply to yours of the 26th. While a great ad- 
 mirer of you personally, and having great possible faith in your scien- 
 tific attainments and investigations, particularly in the matter of hog 
 cholera, you must excuse me from any controversy. I have already 
 written Secretary Rusk, in substance, what you now wish me to write 
 you, with the exception of saying I was mistaken. I distinctly stated 
 in my original letter to the department that the disease referred to 
 " was not hog cholera." That I reiterated in my second letter to Mr. 
 Rusk, and at the same time stated there had been no inoculation in 
 my county, and that I had the utmost confidence in inoculation when 
 done by you, and in the principle involved. Now, doctor, what more 
 can I say ? 
 
 Doctor, allow me, as your friend, to repeat what I said to you in 
 person when last in Lincoln ; you are paying entirely too much atten- 
 tion to Salmon. 
 
 Again, doctor, I say, go slow. You are all right, and the people 
 who know you are right, and are with you. 
 
 Very truly, Robert W. Furnas. 
 
 Mr. W. C. Dietericks, of Rockville, Neb., inoculated forty-four hogs 
 in 1891, and in January, 1892, Mr. Dietericks reported to the ques- 
 tion, " Were any of your hogs injured or stunted by inoculation ?" 
 
 Answer: "Can't say that they were; they look thrifty and healthy. 
 It did not have any noticeable effect. I have lost two little little pigs 
 since inoculation. I deem it a valuable procedure on my farm." 
 
 Later on he reported to Mr. Rusk: 
 
 I had about forty head of shoats inoculated last fall with virus and 
 instruments sent to me by Dr. Billings, of Lincoln, this state. Two 
 little pigs died soon after being inoculated. Do not know if inocula- 
 tion was the cause. None died of the cholera except one, and that 
 one got amongst a neighbor's hogs and staid several days amongst 
 them. These hogs of my neighbor's had the cholera very bad at the 
 time, although they had been inoculated on the same day mine were. 
 My hogs did not thrive well after being inoculated, and alioays looked 
 rough and not thrifty, although they had plenty to eat and were running 
 at large. I do not think now that inoculation is a preventive of hog 
 cholera. Perhaps the virus had something to do with it. My neigh- 
 bor and I inoculated the same day. The virus I used was in another 
 bottle than his. He lost five or six hogs, and I lost one, but could not 
 positively say it died of cholera as it died at the neighbor's. I do not 
 think I shall want to inoculate again for awhile. 
 
 Now here was a direct contradiction, for in his report to me Mr. 
 
166 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Dietericks said, " They look thrifty and healthy." So then I wrote 
 Mr. Dietericks, and strange to say got the following on that very- 
 point : 
 
 June 3, 1892. 
 As you know, my hogs were inoculated last fall. I thought when 
 I answered you (January, 1892, inoculated November 1, 1891)that my 
 hogs looked healthy and thrifty, in spite of my neighbors saying that 
 my hogs did not look as they ought to. I would not say that my hogs 
 were injured by inoculation. At the time that 1 answered you my hogs 
 were really K or I would not have answered you as I did. 
 
 Some time after this, and it must have been after his letter to Mr. 
 Rusk, Mr. D.'s hogs did come down with the cholera, showing the virus 
 was useless or at least not fully up to what it is when right, and he 
 continues : 
 
 I really don't know how long after that they became sick and 
 about twenty of those that I inoculated died, besides two old sows 
 that I had not inoculated, and their twenty pigs. There, you can see 
 for yourself that your instruments and views don't amount to any- 
 thing. My hogs were not sick when I received the question sheet in 
 regard to inoculation from Washington, or I would have answered 
 what I write to you to-day. When you find out something that will 
 really prevent cholera, I will try you again. Until then I am 
 
 Yours truly, W. C. Dietericks, Rockville, Neb. 
 
 Now only a word as to the cause of this failure. It is impossible 
 for me to follow out my own conditions for the selection of hogs and 
 outbreaks from which to select virus, unless the disease is pending to a 
 great extent around Lincoln, viz, a fresh outbreak of not over a week 
 old and a fresh hog in the outbreak, and I have to depend on farm- 
 ers to send me hogs and do the best I can with the material sent. 
 Though I can tell very closely how long the hog sent me has been 
 ill, I cannot always know how long an outbreak has existed, and a hog 
 from an outbreak of over a week or two's duration is never reliable 
 for preventive virus. At this time I was away on my vacation, and 
 the work was left to my assistant, who did the best he could, but was 
 not pathologist enough to know how long a hog has been ill by its 
 lesions. I find on reading his notes the hog used at this time pre- 
 sented chronic lesions, and also on inquiry that the outbreak had been 
 going on three or four weeks when the hog was sent. It is by our 
 failures that we learn when we compare their history with those cases 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 167 
 
 in which we succeed. This lias been a long and critical task, which 
 is one reason that no detailed report has been made on inoculation 
 since I left Nebraska. I simply was studying and comparing data. 
 
 Another man who inoculated in 1891, but whose hogs are known 
 to have been sick at the time, was Hugh McLaughlin, Lincoln, Neb., 
 who is said to have reported to Mr. Rusk : 
 
 I inoculated about fifty hogs last fall, of which twenty died after 
 inoculation. The others lived, and did well. They were all to- 
 gether at the time. I have not seen any sick since. 
 
 Now we do not know whether that was all that Mr. McLaughlin 
 wrote Mr. Rusk, but the above does not tell the story as reported here. 
 He writes us : " My losses have been about fifteen, not knowing that 
 they were diseased at the time when inoculated, or not supposing they 
 were, but I have about twenty-five left and doing well and I think 
 inoculation a valuable remedy as any more of mine have not died since ? 
 and if that's what saved them I think it would be a good thing for 
 every farmer to try inoculation who has had swine plague and it is 
 unsafe to raise hogs any more on his farm." 
 
 The following two farmers inoculated their hogs at the same time 
 and with the same virus as used by Mr. Dietericks. They did not 
 stand, for the same reasons, but I must think that when the full testi- 
 mony is considered that any experienced hog-raiser will admit that 
 inoculation could not have injured them and that it did give some pro- 
 tection even though the virus was not what I wish it had been. The 
 fault I find is that Secretary Rusk in his bulletin does not try to show 
 that it was a failure as much as he does that it was inoculation which 
 killed the hogs, an absolute impossible thing when the time between 
 inoculation and the time of illness is taken into account : 
 
 W. Rotton, Unadilla, Neb. : 
 
 I had fifty-one hogs inoculated. I have not lost any with cholera. 
 I have not much faith in it, as I sold eight shoats to a neighbor that 
 had cholera some time before, and he lost two with the disease. They 
 all took it, but all the others got over it and are doing well. (Bulletin 
 No. 8.) . 
 
 Henry A. Dan, Boelus, Neb.: 
 
 I do not think inoculation is a preventive. I inoculated on the 1st 
 day of November forty-nine hogs, and from that time on my hogs 
 have not done well, and the latter part of January the cholera broke 
 out in my herd, and I have lost ten up to this date, April 13th. 
 
168 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 They have all been sick, and the pigs that were born came dead or, 
 if alive, they did not live twenty-four hours. (Bulletin No. 8.) 
 
 We will let Mr. Button's story speak for itself. "Two out of eight" 
 is not much of a loss in swine plague, and we have admitted that the 
 virus was not such as to give any absolute degree of protection. The 
 assertion we are combating is that "inoculation has killed a very large 
 percentage of the hogs treated," which is the utterly groundless im- 
 pression Mr. Rusk has sought to place in the farmers' minds. 
 
 Henry Dan inoculated forty-nine hogs on November 1, 1891. 
 " From that time on," above he says, " they have not done well." 
 
 About January 20th, 1892, he answered the following questions: 
 
 "Were any of your hogs sick, injured, or stunted with inocula- 
 tion ? " " No." 
 
 " How did it affect your little pigs ? " -"Good." 
 
 As to his opinion as to its value he answered then : " I don't know 
 yet." 
 
 Now, that contradicts his story to Mr. Rusk, that his " hogs have 
 not done well," so far as the inoculation was concerned, up to the " lat- 
 ter part of January, 1892." From then up to April 13, 1892, he lost 
 ten out of forty-nine. All we can say to that is that either Mr. Dan 
 had an unusually light outbreak in his herd or that inoculation did 
 have quite a degree of protection, though not absolute, for to lose ten 
 hogs in an outbreak of cholera lasting from February 1 to April 
 13, or seventy-one days, is something unparalleled in the history of 
 swine plague as it naturally occurs. 
 
 We find only one other report in the bulletin regarding our inocu- 
 lation in 1891, which has no value in anyway except that it shows 
 the man's hogs were not injured, and that he, like many others, got 
 " stampeded" against inoculation by the cry of its terrible dangers 
 sent broadcast over the land by Mr. Rusk : 
 
 S. M. Geyer, Seward, Neb.: 
 
 I inoculated thirty head in 1891 with virus prepared by Dr. Bil- 
 lings. It failed to produce any effect at all. I have not lost any 
 since. As to my opinion of inoculation, I think it is more apt to 
 spread the disease than to prevent it. (Bulletin No. 8.) 
 
 In this place I will not consider here the balance of the inoculations 
 done in 1891 ; suffice it to say that while there were some failures 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 169 
 
 there were also many successes, and that the year's work answered our 
 purposes and established many causes of failure and the real cause of 
 success, as well as that farmers can be entrusted to inoculate their own 
 hogs. The most rigid honest investigation cannot find evidence that 
 one single hog or pig was actually killed or injured by inoculation. 
 The one point it has been my purpose to show is that Mr. Rusk has 
 either been most seriously misled, or, as this bulletin has been " pub- 
 lished with the authority of the secretary of agriculture," that he has 
 given his consent to withholding valuable letters which must have 
 been received, because they were favorable to inoculation; in other 
 words, that " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth " 
 has not been given to the farmers of the country in this " Farm- 
 ers' Bulletin No. 8," on inoculation. Nor can the following state- 
 ment be anything but false, or at the very best misleading, for by 
 reading it I think any one would be justified in assuming that the 
 eight letters here noted, published by Secretary Rusk with reference 
 to our inoculations in 1891, were all that were received by the depart- 
 ment. The large number of letters which are not noted, here pub- 
 lished, is sufficient evidence of the willful suppression of testimony 
 u by the authority of the secretary of agriculture," who says : 
 
 There are a considerable number of owners of inoculated herds in the 
 list from whom the department has received no replies, and it is there- 
 fore probable that full returns would considerably increase the per- 
 centage of loss as given above. 
 
THE 
 
 FAILURES IN INOCULATION 
 
 AND THEIR CAUSES. 
 
 (171) 
 
FAILURES IN INOCULATION AND THEIR CAUSES. 
 
 I have been accused of having published no list or account of the 
 failures which I have met with in my endeavors to prevent swine 
 plague by inoculation, which is true, but the very accusation is an ad- 
 mittance that our inoculations have been frequently rewarded with success. 
 
 As has been stated elsewhere, the successes of human advancement 
 are marked on the mile-stones of failure along the roadway of the evo- 
 lution of our race,. 
 
 I have not published my failures for one reason only, and that is, 
 that until now I did not know enough as to their causes to justify 
 their publication. What use is their to humanity in the publication 
 of things one is totally unable to explain ? The same is true with re- 
 gard to our successes, but unfortunately for us in this country, the 
 people demand a report of the mere fact and are very little interested 
 in the causes of success or failure. All they want is that inoculation 
 prevents. They have very little patience with delay in anything that 
 promises them relief from distress. My opponents know full well 
 this condition of things, and, being wily politicians, have done their 
 utmost to augment the popular demand on the one hand and to feed 
 the distrust on the other. Their only desire has been to " drive Billings 
 out," and then they would have had the whole field to themselves, as 
 there is no other special investigator of the infectious diseases of ani- 
 mals in the country, and they could then publish what they pleased, 
 whether consistent or not, whether true or not, without fear of contra- 
 diction, as the chances of other states taking up this kind of work are 
 very remote indeed. It is very expensive and absorbs entirely too 
 much of the Experiment Station finds to conform with the selfish do- 
 nothingism of the majority of the attaches to the experiment stations in 
 the different states. 
 
 It cannot be said, however, that I have been foolish enough to deny 
 having made failures, as is shown by the following quotation from my 
 " Pamphlet No. 3," issued while in Chicago : 
 
 (173) 
 
174 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 FAILUEES. 
 
 Above I have given testimonials of success only. From a strictly 
 scientific standpoint of view, positive successful results are only taken 
 into consideration, because where failures occur there must have been 
 good and sufficient reasons for them. The evidence given is such as 
 to place the question of preventive inoculation against swine plague 
 beyond the dispute of the most skeptical or the most determined and 
 fanatical enemies of the American hog-raisers. Failures? Yes, of 
 oourse we have made them, and quite a number also. We are often 
 asked " if inoculation is a dead sure preventive " ? Nothing is dead 
 sure but taxes while living, and death which puts an end to them. 
 
 Nothing is absolute of human creation. Even the laws of nature 
 are not always inviolable, yet we depend on them as such. It is a law 
 that when we cover a mare with a stallion that a colt shall result. 
 But it does not in every case. There are, however, reasons that cause 
 the failure, which does not militate against the law. It must be re- 
 membered that when we began inoculation as a business, much against 
 our will, having been forced into it by the despicable intrigues and op- 
 position instigated by a person in the employ of the government, that 
 we had had no experience in shipping the virus, and did not know 
 what accidents might happen to it during transit. Such things have 
 happened, and in many cases we have found out the cause and can in 
 future prevent it. But one thing we cannot prevent, except by stop- 
 ping business during the winter months, and that is, the repeated freez- 
 ing of the virus while in the hands of the express. That this must 
 have been the cause of several failures in Nebraska, western Iowa and 
 Kansas, where it was very cold, is conclusively shown by the fact that 
 none occurred in Illinois where the same virus was used, having been 
 shipped at the same time. In Illinois, instead of cold weather, we 
 had a mud embargo all winter. It should be known that every pre- 
 caution compatible with the most scientific methods is resorted to in 
 the preparation of this virus. 
 
 In Mr. Rusk's "Bulletin No. 8" it is said that "the attempt to 
 feed hogs on glucose refuse and protect them by inoculation was the 
 most disastrous failure of all, only because it was attempted on a larger 
 scale." That the attempt was in general, and from a financial point 
 of view, a total failure is absolutely true, but there were two very 
 large phenomenal successes in it which, could the causes thereof be 
 always repeated, would have led to success had the attempt been con- 
 tinued, and the causes of failure in the balance was not to be sought 
 in inoculation but in the character of the food. 
 
 It cannot be said that the Agricultural Department had no knowl- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 175 
 
 edge that there had been successes at Davenport, la., as well as fail- 
 ures, for it is most positively known that one of Mr. Rusk's special 
 agents visited that feeding station and also as to what he reported to 
 Mr. Rusk and other people at Washington. We do not find his name 
 mentioned, or the fact that he went there, in this Bulletin No. 8, and 
 hence have more evidence of willful suppression of evidence favorable 
 to inoculation " by the authority of the secretary of agriculture." 
 
 In Mr. Sylvester's letter to Hon. Charles Walker he mentions a 
 bunch of 100 pigs that were twice inoculated without any perceptible 
 injury, and that they were sold and successfully fed out at Davenport, 
 la. The second inoculation consisted of two cubic centimeters of a very 
 virulent culture. This was the " starvation year " in Nebraska, when 
 the crops failed. Mr. Walker himself had over 100 hogs that had been 
 treated in the same way and the same time with those of Mr. Sylvester, 
 and as both these gentlemen had been strong adherents I purchased 
 those hogs, about four months after the last inoculation, and placed 
 them in the pens at Davenport, la. We never lost one of them, and put 
 them all in market in Chicago, well and fat. We never were able to 
 feed any other inoculated hogs at Davenport on glucose refuse. We 
 would inoculate them on farms and then, when thirty days were over, 
 put them on the glucose feed, and in from fifteen to thirty days they 
 would commence to die in a most terrible manner; but if we left some 
 of the same bunches on the farms, they would remain well and we 
 often tested them successfully in farm outbreaks. 
 
 Now all this was known to the secretary of agriculture or his em- 
 ployes, because the agent of Mr. Rusk, who visited Davenport, pub- 
 licly explained it in many places and also told the results of his 
 investigation on inoculation among Nebraska farmers, telling of fail- 
 ures and successes as well, until "shut off" by the boss of the agricult- 
 ural machine, Hon. J. M. Rusk ; and as this agent and myself were 
 naturally so built as to become very close friends, and as for months 
 he has ceased to write me, it looks very much as if Boss Rusk was 
 very much of a despot and political terror in his small kingdom. 
 
 The story is worth relating, as it bears so closely on the point at 
 issue. Personally, I am above animosity towards any of my oppo- 
 nents at Washington. As said before, it is a question of honesty in 
 the public service with me, and I shall fight it out on that line until 
 honesty triumphs, utterly regardless of myself. On the other hand, 
 
176 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 it's a pure bread and butter question, or one of holding office, with 
 my opponents, and nothing is too contemptibly low for them to stoop 
 to or to be published "by the authority of the secretary of agricult- 
 ure." 
 
 At the meeting of the Improved Stock Breeders' Association of 
 Nebraska, at Beatrice, February, 1891, I met Dr. F. E. Parsons, 
 " special agent of the secretary of agriculture," and one of the most 
 charming men I ever met, one whose innate integrity as a man of 
 honor between men was written on every line of his face. As can be 
 seen, I was immediately taken "by storm" with Dr. Parsons. On 
 introducing himself to me and a group of breeders, the doctor said 
 that "he came out at the special request of Secretary Rusk, and that his 
 mission was to endeavor to show what the secretary was trying to do 
 for the farmers, and that he wanted to be on more intimate touch with 
 them." Dr. Parsons also remarked that " Secretary Rusk enjoined 
 him that he was coming into my territory and to be careful not to 
 intrench on my rights, or get into any difficulty ; all of which was 
 mistaken. I was at that time a citizen of Illinois, though president 
 of the association, as I was also when elected to that office. I have 
 never yet possessed, or tried to possess, a mortgage on any citizen in 
 Nebraska or his opinions. About the first thing Dr. Parsons said to 
 us, or rather to me, was "Doctor, I have been to Davenport." I nat- 
 urally asked him what they told him ? He said they said " it had not 
 gone all right at all times, but," with emphasis, "they showed me a fine 
 lot of Nebraska inoculated hogs that they said they could not kill." Those 
 were the hogs of Messrs. Sylvester and Walker. They gave the im- 
 pression to Dr. Parsons that inoculation was a " success " at Davenport 
 and he will bear me out that I told him it had been a failure and ex- 
 plained " why," as I shall soon in this place, and " why " we should 
 not go on with it, even though the Nebraska inoculated hogs had 
 shown that we could. Although Dr. Parsons said that he came to 
 tell the farmers what a good man Jere Rusk was, every one there 
 knows that about all he talked of was inoculation and that every op- 
 portunity was given him to find out all he desired with no restrictions 
 or private instructions. 
 
 In connection with Mr. Stoll, who was so terribly injured, accord- 
 ing to his story in " Bulletin No. 8," it was Hon. J. B. Dinsmore, the 
 president of the Shorthorn Breeders' Association, who mentioned to 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 177 
 
 the meeting that " Dr. Parsons was here and desired to know all he 
 could find out as to inoculation." After various gentlemen had told 
 their story some one suggested that "Mr. Stoll had inoculated some 
 hogs." Mr. Stoll had not "been seen" then by the bureau's agent in 
 Nebraska, but, as Dr. Parsons can bear witness, refused to say a word 
 as to his hogs in any way, and I told the meeting simply that "inocu- 
 lation had failed there," not mentioning that Mr. Stoll put a lot of 
 infected hogs on to my agent, probably innocently, with the frequently 
 mistaken idea that inoculation was a cure. Dr. Parsons then went to 
 Lincoln to inquire about inoculation, and again came here to the State 
 Fair in September, 1891, still inquiring about inoculation, and there 
 are numerous breeders in Nebraska, Iowa, and other western states 
 who know that one of the doctor's standard expressions was : 
 
 I don't care what they think in Washington, all these men I have 
 seen, and they are the most responsible and representative stockmen in 
 Nebraska, tell me that it succeeds when done right, and I know these 
 men are not all liars and I tell them down there [Washington] that it 
 succeeds and that is all there is about it. 
 
 Dr. Parsons told them in Washington " that it succeeds," " that he 
 saw Nebraska hogs in Davenport, where all the others were sick or 
 miserable wrecks, in which it succeeded," and Dr. Parsons was sent to 
 find this out, but not one word do we find from Dr. Parsons in Bulle- 
 tin No. 8, and as the doctor's " voice is no longer heard in the land " 
 crying "It succeeds in Nebraska," and as he all at once stopped cor- 
 responding with me, the natural conclusion is that Boss Rusk put the 
 machine-screw at work and that my friend had to choose between his 
 own self-interest and shutting up for the truth. 
 
 Verily this is a free and blessed government under which we live ! 
 When the American people once learn that it is the foulest blot on the es- 
 cutcheon of freedom and themselves the most contemptible slaves on earth, 
 because they can free themselves from their machine masters, there may 
 be hope that justice may once again find opportunity to bloom and thrive 
 in the land. 
 
 To finish up with the Davenport case. The reason that the Ne- 
 braska inoculated hogs did not die was that they had entirely recov- 
 ered from the effects of the inoculation and were entirely free from the 
 germs of the disease. Four months at least had elapsed before they 
 were put in the pens at Davenport. The reasons the others died were : 
 12 
 
178 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 First — Only thirty days had elapsed and not only were some germs 
 left in them, but their intestines must have been still somewhat con- 
 gested, though they showed no outward indication of illness. 
 
 Second — It transpired that the glucose food caused a change in the 
 (chemismus of the blood by which the germs again assumed a malig- 
 nant character and a virulence almost unheard of in ordinary form 
 infection. Nearly all died. I have said before that we tested this 
 by leaving pigs from the same lots sent to Davenport on the farms, 
 where they remained well and withstood many farm tests among dis- 
 eased hogs. We were not careful enough in going into this glucose 
 feeding business. Had we inquired of farmers, as I did later, we 
 should have found out that when "cholera strikes a herd of glucose 
 fed hogs it is all up with them, they go like prairie fire. It's all good 
 enough when no disease is about," as a large number of farmers told 
 me. This would not have deterred us at the time, however, as we 
 had tested inoculation sufficiently in other places to know that when 
 done by ourselves for ourselves we could rely on it in distillery feed- 
 ing, of which later. 
 
 In order to see what the glucose did in the hogs, I killed a large 
 number of sick and apparently well ones, and found the intestines of 
 the former almost turned to a solid tube, so thick were they covered 
 with the fine stuff in the slop ; the well hogs seemed to be able to 
 handle it. Inoculated hogs could handle it, as the Surprise hogs did, 
 if time enough were allowed to elapse so that all danger of the least 
 possible congestion of the intestines had passed off for some time. 
 We gave up because we could not afford to fight against the intrigues 
 and false statements of the secretary of agriculture and his agents. 
 The country is benefited by the result, so no one else has cause to 
 complain. It demonstrated that glucose slops are not safe to feed hogs 
 on in so conclusive a manner that no one should try it except when 
 driven to their use in an emergency of shortness of other food. In 
 sections where no swine plague exists it is safe, but I do not think it 
 nearly as good a food for hogs as distilling slops. 
 
 The primary cause of our failure was ignorance of the nature of the 
 material with which we had to do. Inoculation was never more 
 strongly shown that it could succeed than in the Sylvester and Walker 
 hogs at Davenport, Iowa. As Mr. Sylvester says, we paid them " one 
 cent" more than the market price because we knew we could feed them 
 out from some tests that we have made. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 179 
 
 While we spent over fifty thousand dollars finding out about inocu- 
 lation, and do not complain, as the people will reap the benefits of our 
 experience, we could never see what business it was of the United 
 States secretary of agriculture to do his utmost to make us lose money 
 and prevent our business being a success. I shall speak of that later 
 when I come to sum up J. M. Rusk's malfeasances as secretary of 
 agriculture, and shall show him to be anything and everything but a 
 friend of the farmer or a man of any sense at all as a public official. 
 What Jere Rusk is as a private citizen is none of my business any 
 more than it is his what I do, though he has kept me pretty closely 
 surrounded by his agents and spies. 
 
 HOW MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE IN INOCULATION. 
 
 The chief cause of all the mistakes that have been made in inocu- 
 lation against swine plague has been ignorance of the many phases of 
 swine plague in relation thereto. I started off on a wrong basis, being 
 entirely misled by the directions which Pasteur and the French school 
 had given to all investigations in search of a preventive virus in non- 
 recurrent diseases. As is well known, the method to which I allude 
 is that of " artificial mitigation." It is doubtless true, or at least ap- 
 pears so, that in diseases which, so far as we know, almost invariably 
 present to us an acute malignant character, or in diseases which are 
 due to spore-bearing germs, like anthrax or rabies, if preventive 
 inoculation is to be possible, artificial mitigation must be resorted to, 
 but there is no reason why' this method should be an absolute law — in 
 fact there is every reason why it should not be. In all cases of this 
 kind we are too apt to be blind followers of authority. In seeking 
 preventive inoculation in swine plague I have not made that mistake; 
 in fact my nature is such that I am a very poor follower of any other 
 authority than my own conclusions on the evidence, no matter who or 
 what the authority may be. In swine plague I have never used an 
 artificially mitigated virus prepared with that purpose, though I have 
 very often used a virus that has been robbed either in part or in toto 
 of its preventive power because I did not know two things: 
 
 First — That the assurance of possessing a mild, non-pathogenic 
 degree of virulence in a virus was absolutely valueless as 'a guide with 
 regard to the prophylactic power of the germs of swine plague. 
 
 Second — That under artificial conditions of cultivation in any known 
 
180 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 mode the germs of swine plague do not retain this immunity pro- 
 ducing power for any length of time ; in fact, that the first culture from 
 the sick hog, and then only a hog selected under very special conditions, 
 toould give immunity, or a resistance to natural infection, in inoculated 
 hogs. 
 
 It is rather a remarkable fact that I never failed in producing im- 
 munity in inoculated hogs to the most severe tests in exposures to 
 natural outbreaks on farms during my first engagement in Nebraska 
 up to the very last inoculations I made just before leaving the state^ 
 and it was from these failures that I first learned that while I had so 
 invariably succeeded, that I was still on the wrong track, though it 
 was not until I had completed and systematized the records of the in- 
 oculations of 1891 and compared them with all the records from 1886 
 to the present time that I thoroughly learned what a narrow margin I 
 had to work on in order to obtain success. This result has been ob- 
 tained by the inoculation of thousands of hogs and pigs divided into 
 bunches of from 5 to 500 and scattered very largely over the western 
 tates from Ohio to Georgia; Colorado being the most western point. 
 In this review it is only necessary for me to sum up the general 
 result, as it would have no practical value to give the details of each 
 inoculation. Let me again say, that with the exception of the actual 
 experiment work done at the State Farm, no honest investigation by 
 farmers only desiring the truth can discover any hogs or pigs either 
 killed or permanantly injured by the inoculation of virus sent to the 
 oivners directly by me. I shall speak of this again when I come to 
 consider the assertion of my opponents that inoculation is a " danger- 
 ous " procedure on that account. 
 
 To return to the 
 
 RELATION OF VIRULENCE TO THE PROTECTIVE POWER OF A VIRUS. 
 
 When I began my investigations I thoroughly believed that such a 
 relation existed. It has been said that had I diligently studied the 
 reports of the Agricultural Department I should not have made 
 the errors that I have. I have studied those reports probably more 
 diligently and accurately than their authors ever did, and have only 
 learned that tixey are the most inconsistent, contradictory, and valueless 
 documents ever published in the name of scientific investigation, and that 
 in no way are they more so than in connection with this very question of 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 181 
 
 preventive inoculation in swine plague. I have shown up this fact re- 
 peatedly, but it is of such vital importance to honest government in 
 this country, and to the swine breeders, that I must be pardoned if I 
 again sum it up in direct connection with the point at issue. The 
 government not only promised a preventive virus in 1883, but advo- 
 cated its mitigation on the plan of Pasteur as follows : 
 
 Our investigations have shown that the swine plague is a non-re- 
 current fever and that the germs might be cultivated; they have 
 even proved that these germs may be made to lose their virulent qualities 
 and produce a mild affection. Surely we have here sufficient evidence 
 to show that a reliable vaccine might be easily prepared, if we carried 
 our investigations but a little way farther. If we had such a vaccine ; 
 if it were furnished in sufficient quantities and of a reliable strength ; 
 if it proved safe in the hands of the farmers, would not our problem 
 be solved ? Could we reasonably expect anything better of this 
 disease ? 
 
 M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in 
 a very complete manner. He has shown that the disease is produced 
 by a micrococcus; that it is non-recurrent; that the virus may be at- 
 tenuated and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vac- 
 cine by spring. (Report 1883, p. 57.) 
 
 We now know that every word of those statements and promises 
 were made up out of whole cloth, as neither the government investi- 
 gators nor Pasteur ever knew they had the germ of swine plague in 
 their possession previous to 1886, and the germ was not even known 
 to exist in France until 1887. Pasteur worked on rouget and not 
 swine plague, and did not discover the germ of that disease, which 
 honor belongs to Loeffler and Schiitz in Germany, and was made in 
 1885. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT ADVISES THAT MITIGATION OF VIRULENCE IS 
 UNNECESSARY IN A VIRUS TO PREVENT SWINE PLAGUE. 
 
 It says : 
 
 We soon found that there was no indication of attenuating the vines 
 for this purpose, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypo- 
 dermically with impunity in considerable doses. Now as the stronger 
 a virus is the higher degree of immunity it produces, there is every 
 reason for using the fresh unattenuated cultures. But even these are 
 not sufficient. (Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry in Journal of 
 Comparative Medicine, 1888, p. 148.) 
 
182 , A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 I have most carefully examined all the reports of the Agricultural 
 Department from 1885 to date, and cannot find one case where "afresh 
 unattenuated culture" has been once used and its use free from most de- 
 cided objections in their attempts to prevent swine plague by inoculation. 
 (By "a fresh unattenuated culture" I mean one made directly from a 
 recently attacked hog and from a fresh outbreak, and used within 
 seven days from the time the bouillon was inoculated, and not one 
 used in a generation made from such, or from a culture passed even 
 once through any small animal. This is one of the vital points in 
 preparing a virus which will prevent, if used right, and the hog from 
 which it is taken correctly selected.) 
 
 MITIGATION PRACTICED IN THE FACE OF THE ABOVE QUOTED 
 POSITIVE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. 
 
 The first steps in this direction (of preventive inoculation) were 
 made at the Experiment Station early in 1886, soon after the hog 
 cholera bacillus had been discovered. (Report 1890, p. 110.) 
 
 How about those experiments which " even proved thai these germs 
 may be made to lose their virulent qualities and produce a mild affection," 
 reported in 1883? 
 
 Which is that, consistent or inconsistent ? The public would like 
 to have the secretary of agriculture answer that question without 
 prejudice or bias. 
 
 We soon found that there was no indication for attenuating the 
 virus, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypodermically 
 with impunity in considerable doses. (Report 1888.) 
 
 Another striking example of the consistency of Mr. Rusk's author- 
 ities is to be seen by comparing the above with the following: 
 
 The vaccine used: In order to obviate the fatal effects of doses of hog 
 cholera cultures injected under the skin, which sometimes shows itself 
 quite unexpectedly [They cannot show one such a case in all the ex- 
 periments which any scientists would accept as free from objections as 
 noticed by Frosch], especially in young animals, the writer deemed it 
 advisable to reduce the virulence of the cultures by appropriate means, so 
 that larger quantities of the culture liquid might be injected to increase, 
 if possible, the vaccinating effect without endangering the life or stunt- 
 ing the future development of the animal. [Which advice shall we 
 follow, that of 1888, which positively tells us that attenuation is not 
 necessary, or of 1890, which says it is?] 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 183 
 
 In reducing the virulence or attenuating it, the following method 
 has been pursued: Tubes of bouillon inoculated with hog cholera 
 bacilli were placed in a favorable temperature for multiplication 
 (95 to 100°) over night; on the following day the culture liquid, now 
 slightly clouded, was placed in an unfavorable temperature of 110 to 
 111 F. and kept there for ten days. Thereupon fresh tubes were 
 inoculated from these and subjected to the same process. From time 
 to time rabbits were inoculated to test any attenuation that had taken 
 place, and it was noticed that there was a slight modification of the 
 disease in rabbits after a time. After the bacteria had been thus ex- 
 posed to a high unfavorable temperature for more thantwo hundred days? 
 and passed through twenty cultures, a small dose of one-tenth cubic cen- 
 timeter injected under the skin did not prove fatal to a rabbit while larger 
 doses still were. The reduction of virulence was not, therefore, very 
 great even after this very prolonged exposure to high temperature. 
 At the same time it was thought advisable to use it as " vaccine a."' 
 
 A second vaccine was prepared at the same time. It was exposed 
 for only ninety to one hundred days, and passed through nine cultures 
 in place of twenty as with vaccine a. This we shall call vaccine &» 
 (Report 1890, p. 111.) 
 
 Will or can any competent investigator, or any one with a grain of 
 common sense, tell why such a procedure should have been gone 
 through with if what the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry 
 said in 1888 was true or based on the results of one single experiment* 
 viz., that " we soon found that there was no indication for attenuating 
 the virus, because the strongest virus might be introduced hypoder- 
 mically with impunity; and, as the stronger the virus is the higher 
 degree of immunity it produces, you can see that there is every reason 
 for using the fresh unattenuated cultures"? If that is not being 
 "inconsistent" the dictionaries and general understanding of the 
 meaning of that word are certainly most seriously at fault. 
 
 That all attempts at producing protection with such an " attenuated 
 virus" should fail must be self-evident if the words spoken in 188S 
 were true. Any one who will carefully read the reports of the de- 
 partment on swine plague or who has experimented with this germ in 
 order to prove its specific etiology in swine will soon learn two things t 
 
 First — That the words spoken in 1888 were true as to any general 
 danger of fatal results. Only cultures from the most exceptionally 
 virulent and very fresh outbreaks are dangerous to young, healthy 
 pigs over three months old, if allowed to run free, in doses of one 
 cubic centimeter; where fatal results are desired one of the best ways 
 
184 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 to assure them is to pen the animals up closely so as to give them as 
 little movement as possible. 
 
 Second — That the germ loses very fast in virulence in pigs if sick 
 long, and that it can be robbed of all virulence by being passed 
 through a series of pigs, and dies out in diseased hogs in a few weeks. 
 
 The government investigators have been perfectly aware of these 
 facts in the past and have borne witness to them, but they completely 
 forget both when it becomes necessary to confuse and mislead the 
 public with regard to our Nebraska work. In the report of 1885 
 they say : 
 
 The fact that it is difficult to demonstrate the presence of the bacte- 
 rium of swine plague in chronic cases which have lasted more than 
 three weeks and in which the ulcerations in the large intestines are al- 
 ready far advanced, cannot be emphasized too much. 
 
 Ignorance of this fact has no doubt led to previous erroneous de- 
 ductions in investigations on the etiology of this disease. Chronic 
 swine plague must henceforth be looked upon as an after stage, inde- 
 pendent of the disease itself, and caused by intestinal lesions, the indi- 
 rect result of the growth of the bacterium in the blood vessels of the 
 mucous and submucous tissues. The bacterium has already disappeared 
 from the stage, and makes way for either harmless or septic microbes 
 which gain entrance through the ulcerated intestines and are found in 
 the blood and serous exudates. (P. 211.) 
 
 The stage at which "the bacterium has already disappeared" has 
 been given as "chronic cases which have lasted more than three 
 weeks." 
 
 Every word of the above quotations is generally true and will be 
 confirmed by every observer who may in the future investigate this 
 disease. Such cases must be carefully avoided in the selection of a 
 hog from which to obtain virus, yet they are just the ones the major- 
 ity of farmers are inclined to send to a laboratory, simply because 
 they are emaciated and useless hogs. When the germ is present in 
 such cases it is often excessively mitigated in virulence for pigs, as well 
 as entirely without any prophylactic properties. This does not apply 
 to rabbits, which are especially susceptible to the injection of this 
 germ; infinitely more so than small pigs even. It is wonderful what 
 psychological somersaults the investigators of the government have 
 forced themselves to make in their malignant opposition to the Ne- 
 braska investigations, and how recklessly they throw all consistency 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 185 
 
 to the winds between one report and another. Keep the above in 
 mind and read this from the report of 1891 : 
 
 In case of hog cholera we have found the bacilli in the organs of 
 swine six to seven months after apparently unsuccessful inoculations. 
 These bacteria possessed the original virulence. (P. 1 23.) 
 
 How could that be if the inoculated swine were apparently well 
 and the inoculations had been "apparently unsuccessful"? 
 
 Surely the "original virulence" must have been very near null in 
 such a case as that. The "original virulence" was certainly tested by 
 rabbit inoculations, which are to be banned and condemned as worse 
 than useless, because misleading. 
 
 A HOG OR PIG SICK OVER A WEEK UNSUITABLE TO MAKE VIRUS 
 
 FROM. 
 
 Why this is so we do not know. We simply know the fact from 
 many experiences. It is probably due to the germs having, through 
 changes in nutrition offered by the porcine organism, lost the power 
 of producing a sufficiency of that chemical product which enters into 
 the unknown chemical combination with the product of some of the 
 cells of the infected organism, which gives to it the power of resist- 
 ance to a second infection in non-recurrent diseases. What these pro- 
 ducts are, how they combine, and, perhaps, how resistance to second 
 infection is produced, are all questions for the chemist per se, rather 
 than the pathologist, for the work of investigation of infectious dis- 
 eases is opening so many new and special lines of investigation as to 
 call most emphatically for more and special investigators in these sub- 
 divisions of labor. The pathologist can no longer encompass the 
 whole field of pathological research. It will be remembered that in 
 the report of 1885 the Agricultural Department told us "that it is dif- 
 ficult to demonstrate the presence of the bacterium of sioine plague in 
 chronic cases ivhich have lasted more than three weeks." Much fault 
 has been found with the method which I use in obtaining the virus 
 for inoculation as we use it in Nebraska, because in the practical work, 
 not that of investigation, I affirm that the exact methods of the labo- 
 ratory are unnecessary; by which I mean plate and control cultures. 
 Not only do I assert that they are unnecessary, but that the practical 
 result has conclusivelv demonstrated that the less we interfere with a 
 
186 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 culture, the less we carry it under artificial conditions, the quicker we 
 use it after making it from a diseased hog, the more certain are our 
 preventive results in the animal inoculated if exposed to infection. 
 The shorter the time the germ has been in the animal, the quicker we 
 obtain it after infection, the more reliable is the culture to give the 
 inoculated hog resistant power towards natural infection. Again, as 
 the government also well said in 1885: in these chronic cases, which 
 have "lasted over three weeks," "the bacterium has already disap- 
 peared and made way either for harmless or septic microbes" which 
 gain entrance through destructive disturbances set up previously by 
 the specific germ. To avoid all these disadvantageous points, I soon 
 found out: 
 
 First — That the most satisfactory and easiest way to get pure cult- 
 ures was to kill a hog or pig as soon after being taken sick as possi- 
 ble, and to use the heart's blood or spleen for that purpose. After 
 killing the animal it is always well to allow it to remain in a cool, 
 shaded place for thirty minutes or more to allow local development of 
 the germs after the circulation has stopped. This avoids, as far as 
 possible, the formation of destructive lesion, which act as ostia to ad- 
 ventitious germs. In all my work, hogs being plenty, I have been 
 enabled to follow this course, and to use dead hogs, or those sick 
 longer, and hence more or less emaciated, for the study of the lesions 
 in the disease, both together, permitting a close following of the 
 lesions from the primary or specific to the secondary complications. 
 During my earlier investigations, the most exact attention to plate 
 cultures was given, and thus I learned the conditions which were ac- 
 companied by the presence of adventitious germs, and by selecting 
 freshly attacked animals avoided their presence. As I have said in 
 another place, small pigs being cheaper and easier to be had, and as I 
 was studying swine diseases, I had but little recourse to rabbits in the 
 first year of my investigations. 
 
 For practically obtaining, in nearly every instance, a pure culture of 
 the germs of swine plague the above course will do, but to obtain a 
 reliable virus it is not sufficient even to take a hog just taken ill; it 
 must not only be a hog just attacked, but the outbreak must have only 
 just begun ; in fact, where possible, those who desire to succeed must 
 make it a rule to select outbreaks that have not run over one week and a 
 hog or pig just taken sick. The reason of this is, that that insures as- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 187 
 
 positively as we can do it that the germs have not been in the porcine 
 organism but a few days. 
 
 SWINE PLAGUE NOT A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE. 
 
 It is very well known that the government investigators, among 
 their almost innumerable contradictions of nearly every conclusion which 
 I have published, also contradict me when I say swine plague invari- 
 bly finds its primary origin in conditions outside the pig organism ; in 
 other words, that the germs are a natural inhabitant of certain soils: 
 they say that swine plague is a contagious disease, which I as positively 
 deny. Those who are acquainted with the opinions I have determin- 
 edly defended know that by a "contagious disease" I mean one in- 
 which, as far as ice know, the germ finds its primary locus of develop- 
 ment in some species of animal life, and never, primarily, in outside 
 conditions, like glanders, syphilis, contagious pleuro-pneumonia, etc. 
 I affirm that any form of transmission between diseased and healthy 
 individuals, no matter by what means, direct or indirect, natural or 
 intentional, accidental or experimental, has nothing whatever to do 
 with deciding that one essential point. That this class of diseases are 
 endogenous, as Pettenkofer calls them ; or " obligatory parasitic," to 
 speak with Hueppe; that is, in order to continue to live, the germs caus- 
 ing such diseases are absolutely dependent on the tissues of some species 
 of animal life for nutrition under natural conditions. 
 
 Now I assert, with dogmatic positiveness, that any person who dares 
 assert that swine plague is a disease of that kind is an ignoramus, 
 and a disgrace to that intelligence which should be the distinguishing 
 attribute of a member of the medical profession. I am perfectly well 
 aware that I am hitting some tolerably imposing (in their own minds) 
 authorities when I assert that ; that many of the most noted men 
 in the British medical and veterinary professions, the teaching of 
 the British schools, the laws for the suppression of swine plague in 
 England, and the veterinary authorities of the Privy Council, all as- 
 sert swine plague to be a "contagious disease," and yet in the face of 
 so much august authority, / tell them one and all that they do not know 
 what they are talking about when they say so. They may kill off all 
 the swine in Great Britain and pay for them out of the public funds; 
 they may forbid the raising of swine in all Britain for three, five, or 
 ten years and buy all their pork from foreign countries, and then I 
 
188 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 tell them, with equal dogmatism, if they stock their farms again they 
 will have swine plague again within one year, and they may buy assur- 
 edly healthy stock, and every hog bought may be well for three months 
 after landing on British soil, which will certainly forbid the animal hav- 
 ing been infected when imported. 
 
 The imbecilic, idiotic idea that swine plague is a contagious disease 
 and can be stamped out by killing as is done in "contagious diseases," 
 such as pleuro-pneumonia, glanders, etc., is also advocated and " pub- 
 lished by and with the authority of the secretary of agriculture " of 
 the United States, the great and only authority on such questions, to 
 whom the agriculturists of this great and free country bow down to 
 as some wonderful and pan-omnipotent fetich. The following is one 
 of the latest promulgations from the throne of agricultural (dis)grace : 
 
 HOG CHOLERA.— SECRETARY RUSK'S VIEWS UPON INOCULATION. 
 
 In answer to an inquiry from the National Stockman, Secretary 
 Rusk writes as follows : 
 
 I take no stock in it whatever, and I go so far as to say that if the 
 investigations of science should demonstrate the efficacy of inoculation 
 for this disease, it would in my opinion be a practical failure, even 
 though it might be termed scientifically successful. In the first place, 
 to keep the farmers supplied with virus means to perpetuate the dis- 
 ease somewhere or other all the time, and that I don't believe in. 
 Again, inoculation, to have any effect at all, means two weeks' sickness 
 of greater or less severity to the victim, then two weeks more to get 
 over the effects — I refer, of course, to fattening hogs — and you have 
 thirty days without gain. In my opinion, considering that we now 
 market our hogs at about ten months from birth, the loss of this one 
 month means the loss of profit on the animal. This is, mind you, 
 without taking into account the fact that inoculation, if performed at 
 all, must be performed by a skilled professional; no other person 
 should be allowed to handle such dangerous matter as hog cholera 
 virus. As to this idea which some people advocate, that if inocula- 
 tion is found to be efficacious, any farmer or farmer's hand can be in- 
 structed to extract virus from diseased hogs and inoculate the healthy 
 ones with it, — it is the wildest notion I ever heard put forth, and I 
 cannot see how any sane person can entertain it for a moment. [Mr. 
 Rusk should read his own authorities and advisers' letters on this 
 subject, in one of which it is said that any one can make the virus. 
 Mr. Cadwell made a culture of the germs at Ottawa. Read: "And 
 in the reports of this bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the details of 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 189 
 
 the experiments are given so fully that any one who can make a cult- 
 ure of germs can repeat the experiment himself." — Letter of Chief of 
 Bureau to Editor of The Homestead.] The idea of handling the 
 virus of a most contagious disease — the spread of which means many 
 millions of dollars loss annually to the farmers of this country — with- 
 out the utmost precaution and under the strictest supervision, is pre- 
 posterous. For my part, as I said at the beginning, I would oppose 
 the inoculation plan, if only because it necessitated a perpetuation of 
 the disease, under any circumstances. What we want to do is to treat 
 it as we did pleuro-pneumouia among cattle — wipe it out. 
 
 If asked, Why is it that the subject has continued to receive the 
 attention it has from the officers of the Bureau of Animal Industry? 
 That is easily explained; while I have no confidence myself in the 
 practicability of inoculation, I soon found after assuming my present 
 office that there were conflicting views in the country regarding the 
 subject. I determined that the most effectual way of putting an end 
 to the controversy was to permit Dr. Salmon to continue the investi- 
 gation undertaken in the bureau to the end. You can't satisfy people 
 by telling them simply you know a thing won't work ; you must be able 
 to show them that you have tried it and tried it thoroughly, and prove to 
 them that it won't work. Consequently, while the chief of the bureau 
 himself declared that inoculation had not been brought to such per- 
 fection as to justify the anticipation of favorable results, I instructed 
 him to satisfy the farmers of La Salle county by participating, through 
 a representative specially assigned for the purpose, in the inoculation 
 experiment they desired to carry out, and you know what the results 
 were. We will shortly publish a bulletin, brief and in plain terms, 
 on the subject of inoculation, and I expect it will be sufficient to con- 
 vince everybody that, whatever scientific men may be able to accom- 
 plish in the way of preventing hog cholera by inoculation, the system 
 can never be practically applied without destroying the profits on a 
 man's herd, and we will offer ample evidence from the practical ex- 
 perience of those who have tried it that the man who takes the risk of 
 experiment on his own herd with hog cholera virus, is, to use a slang 
 phrase, " monkeying with the buzz-saw." 
 
 Such advice is criminal in more ways than one. Mr. Rusk is so 
 totally ignorant on all such questions, and thereby absolutely unfitted 
 for the responsibilities of the position which he incumbers, that he is 
 led in any way it pleases the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 who, as he is Mr. Rusk's instructor, is evidently as ignorant as his most 
 pliable pupil. 
 
 Let us see why it is absolutely certain that swine plague cannot 
 possibly be a contagious disease. All contagious diseases which we 
 
190 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 know of have always occurred in new countries or districts where they 
 have not existed most generally through the admittance or entrance of 
 a diseased individual from some infected locality, and much less fre- 
 quently by means of material of one kind or another directly emanat- 
 ing from such an individual. In other words, we have no record of 
 the origin of obligatory parasitic (or contagious) diseases in any other 
 way. For us a diseased individual must have Joeen present. Now, ac- 
 cording to what we know, swine plague first made itself so apparent 
 as to attract attention somewhere between 1830 and 1840 in this coun- 
 try. No infectious disease degenerates de novo — out of nothing. The 
 cause must have been either here, or been introduced here from some 
 country in which the disease existed by sick swine or manure, or 
 something directly from sick swine. Even the government contagion- 
 ists have never hinted at the importation of this disease from Europe. 
 It would be ridiculous to do so in the light of conditions existing 
 fifty years ago. Sick swine would not live long enough to have been 
 imported alive in the slow ships of that period, and the landing of 
 offal or manure from such swine is too utterly improbable to be 
 thought of. It must not be understood that I in any way deny the 
 possibility and frequent occurrence of the conveyance of swine plague 
 from one place to another. I only say that it would have been im- 
 possible under conditions existing at that time to have introduced it 
 from Europe. "We know that uncleansed stock cars have been the ' 
 chief means of extending the disease in the states west of Ohio, where 
 some say it first originated in this country. As the disease could not 
 have been imported and could not have originated de novo, out of 
 nothing, the cause of it must have existed and been in the country 
 somewhere. 
 
 A prime factor in the cause of swine plague which does not seem to 
 have attracted the attention it deserves is the nature of the soil of the 
 localities in which it is in reality a plague. It is not a disease of 
 New England, or of our northern states, unless imported, and then 
 dies out of its own accord or without much attention. The line of 
 northerly extension in Wisconsin is quite sharply drawn by the change 
 of the soil from a rich, heavy loam to a light soil with gravel or 
 sandy subsoil. I understand, or am informed, that the same is true 
 of Britain where the disease exists and where it is seldom, or does not 
 permanently establish itself. There is not an obligatory parasitic 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 191 
 
 disease on earth (a contagious one in the only sense the word should 
 be used, not that of transmission but primary origin) that is thus 
 limited by climatic or telluric conditions; though the former may and 
 frequently does exert favorable or unfavorable conditions towards 
 their extension when introduced; the confinement of cold weather fa- 
 voring and the freedom of the open air in summer being less favora- 
 ble to their rapid extension ; in other words, the close grouping of 
 individuals. I would like to see the Washington authorities come out 
 squarely and assert that swine plague is not a faculatative, parasitic, in- 
 fectious disease. They dare not, for they know that every scientific in- 
 vestigator in the world would be against them. In calling this plague 
 "contagious" they are taking refuge behind the ignorance and care- 
 lessness of the medical profession in the logical use of medical terms, 
 which uses the word contagious according to its root-meanings as co- 
 equal with transmissibility; but that is not and never has been the 
 practical meaning attached to the word, for we would not find the ab- 
 solutely universal expression of common, every-day experience that 
 " while all contagious diseases are infectious, all infectious diseases are 
 by no means contagious." As both classes are transmissible in one 
 way or another it must be evident that there must be some one es- 
 sential reason for such a well-recognized differentiation. That one 
 reason is the source of primary origin of the cause. In the one case 
 the contagious, or obligatory parasitic diseases, it must be and is in 
 the diseased individual ; the germs only finding in such their proper 
 home and food — they are obliged to be parasites. In the other, the 
 germs, the cause, live naturally and primarily in conditions outside the 
 animal body — but can live in certain animal bodies and there do pro- 
 duce infection, because the food offered is favorable to that effect. 
 Hence, they are exogenous diseases ; that is, they have the faculty of 
 living and being infectious in certain forms of animal life. They are 
 faculatative parasitic diseases. Swine plague is such a disease. Its 
 germ must be a natural inhabitant of certain soils under certain con- 
 ditions, but only where those soils have become saturated with the 
 excreted materials of swine do they change their character and become 
 toxic, but only naturally to swine, because the tissues of swine offer 
 them the same toxic-producing food ; hence, swine-plague only in 
 certain localities is a permanent or oft-appearing infection. It is 
 nothing contradictory that the germs lose their virulence in time in 
 
192 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. ' 
 
 swine, for unless they did none would recover, and even the obliga- 
 tory parasites for a time do the same thing, but with this difference, 
 that swine plague germs do not regain it in passing through swine, 
 while obligatory parasites do in the species in which they naturally 
 cause disease, if continuously passed through a succession of fresh 
 susceptible individuals. Were the swine plague germ naturally in- 
 fectious and universally distributed, and were not its toxic effects pro- 
 duced through saturation of the soil with swine materials, we should 
 know it as a frequent infection in rabbits, tame ones, as they are man- 
 ifestly more susceptible than swine, but this is not so. We shall re- 
 turn to this subject shortly. 
 
 Again, swine plague, uncomplicated, when studied in its earliest 
 stages, is not necessarily either a pneumonia or an ulcerative or neoplas- 
 tic inflammation of the intestines, but a septicemia. There is not a 
 septicaemia known to man the cause of which is not faculatative para- 
 sitic. Not one in which the germs thereof do not originate primarily 
 in extra-organismal — outside — conditions. It is now years since the 
 Agricultural Department first asserted this disease to be contagious. 
 Why not more work and less talk? Why not have long ago taken 
 some severely infected western farms and proved their assertions by 
 actual demonstration, by buying the hogs and paying the men not to 
 keep hogs for some years and cleaning off the refuse and manure once 
 thoroughly ; in fact, giving such places exactly the treatment done in 
 contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and then leaving the yards for three 
 years unoccupied by swine and put new healthy ones on. If there is 
 money enough to squander in a bitter personal fight against the work 
 in Nebraska there should be funds enough for such a demonstration. 
 It would do no good. I can quote case after case where almost that 
 very thing has been done; where farms have been vacated for sev- 
 eral years and given up to banks because the owner had been rendered 
 bankrupt by swine plague; where no human being or live stock had 
 been on such farm for several years ; where the banks have either let 
 or sold them, and on being restocked swine plague has soon appeared 
 in a most virulent form, and in hog yards exposed to the vicissitudes 
 of the weather for several years with no buildings to shelter or protect 
 the germs on them. No obligatory parasitic or contagious disease is 
 known to man that works that way. I know of cases where the trans- 
 portation of the disease to such farms is absolutely excluded, there 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 193 
 
 being no other farms near enough and no other disease in the vicinity; 
 such restocked farms being the first and only case to occur for a long 
 time in that section of the country. Every observant hog-raiser can 
 call to mind similar cases. More are known where men have given 
 up all hog raising for a series of years and then restocked, to have the 
 disease occur in their newly purchased and assuredly healthy hogs 
 when there were no other cases in the vicinity. Contagious diseases 
 do not act that way. It requires only a little close thinking on the 
 part of swine breeders to demonstrate to themselves the unquestion- 
 able correctness of my views and the incorrectness of those advocated 
 by the secretary of agriculture. 
 
 It is more than probable that Mr. Rusk has been instructed that 
 swine plague is a contagious disease by his teacher, because, were that 
 view to be practically applied in the way it is necessary to do in such 
 diseases as contagious pleuro-pneurnonia, it would necessitate the em- 
 ployment of hundreds of political heelers and wire-pullers who would 
 be most useful tools in elections to those desiring a mortgage on pub- 
 lic positions. 
 
 If Congress means to be honest it will be a long time before it sad- 
 dles any such useless and expensive fraud on the backs of our alto- 
 gether overtaxed farmers. It must be either preventive inoculation 
 or cure, or both, and it is the duty of our government to intelligently 
 and honestly seek and perfect them by continued investigation. The 
 one has been conclusively demonstrated to be a fact; the other prom- 
 ises to be possible and is more than probable. 
 
 LET US EETURN TO THE CAUSES OF FAILUEE IN INOCULATION! 
 
 We left the subject after noticing the kind of hog to select in order 
 to obtain virus. Let us consider now the kinds most likely to be sent 
 in by farmers or most willingly given for that purpose. No one un- 
 acquainted with all the facts can realize what a vast amount of actual 
 experimentation has been done in order to arrive at the knowledge 
 we now possess. It has been one continued series of experiments 
 since 1886, experiments greater in number and covering more indi- 
 viduals than almost anything else of the kind, unless it be with 
 Koch's tuberculin. 
 
 The hogs on the farms have been used in the experiment, besides 
 hundreds that I have had a personal interest in. A record has been 
 13 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 kept of every hog used for inoculation, with as complete a history of 
 ■the outbreak as possible, and a record of the pathological lesions in 
 the animals used to obtain virus from. Take the year 1891, for in- 
 stance; forty-six bunches of hogs were inoculated, covering nearly 
 3,000 animals, the virus being taken from such hogs as the farmers 
 sent in, in order to see how closely they would follow directions. 
 These forty-six bunches varied in numbers from 5 to 297 animals. 
 What experiment station could supply the means and place to make 
 «uch a test as that? It would be impossible; and still more so to 
 5iave inoculated all these bunches at the state farm, kept them sepa- 
 rate, and then sent each bunch out into outbreaks to test them. I do 
 not desire to sound my own praises, but must say that few men in my 
 position, with the continued distrust fathered and continued by the 
 Agricultural Department, would have had the self-confidence and 
 •courage to have gone boldly out on the farms and done as I have. I 
 have boldly placed my reputation in the balance and used virus that 
 I had evidence would fail, and inoculated hogs on farms which I was 
 almost sure would not be protected, in order to conclusively demon- 
 strate a valuable point which I had not means enough to do at the 
 -experiment station. That kind of work is about done, as this publi- 
 cation will show. About all the reward I have thus far received 
 has been wholesale condemnation from those who should, in justice, 
 'have kept their " hands off." 
 
 As has been said, no honest investigation can find reliable evidence 
 of a single animal having been injured by inoculation itself. It has 
 also been asserted that we had no failures up to the time we left Ne- 
 braska in June, 1889, though we did not then know why we succeeded 
 simply because we had not failed. Mind, I positively deny both fail- 
 ure and injury in hogs inoculated at Surprise, Neb., in November, 1888, 
 because both those that "were not sick at the time at Surprise, Gibbon, 
 and the state farm were as severely tested as hogs should be, and al- 
 ways in company with healthy uninoculated stock subsequently. No 
 one of any sense would think of denying that inoculated hogs cannot 
 •be killed by overcharging them with virulent germs (or that inocula- 
 tion may sometimes fail in extra virulent farm exposure, or from insuf- 
 ficient inoculation, or unsuitable virus) as was done by authority of the 
 Department of Agriculture, in absolutely unnatural experiments with 
 some of these Nebraska hogs of 1888, but the person who made such 
 nonsensical and unequivocally unscientific tests himself says : 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 195 
 
 The last two series of experiments show that whatever the force of 
 the immunity may have been, there was an artificial means of over- 
 whelming its protective power. Such experiments do not, however, 
 conclusively prove that there is no immunity, either naturally or artifi- 
 cially acquired, capable of practically protecting against a natural at- 
 tach— (Report Bureau of Animal Industry, 1889-90, p. 143. E. O. 
 Shakespeare.) 
 
 The latter part of that statement is supported by words in Dr. Sal- 
 mon's letter to the editor of the Homestead as follows : 
 
 It is possible, however, as I have freely admitted, though hardly 
 probable, that the conditions of exposure on farms are not so severe. 
 In that case a degree of protection, which in our tests was insufficient, 
 might ward off the disease in most cases on farms. 
 
 What on earth, then, is the use of wasting public money in experi- 
 ments that have no practical value ? To the ordinary farmer, how- 
 ever, they would certainly serve the purpose of creating distrust in our 
 Nebraska work, which was the sole reason that they were attempted. 
 All the farmer, if he read such stuff, would see is, that the Nebraska 
 inoculated hogs were killed by these unnatural injections of large 
 quantities of the most virulent germs obtainable directly into the blood 
 in one dose, and not taken in at intervals as in natural exposure in an 
 outbreak ; their entrance to the blood being also obstructed and re- 
 tarded by their having to pass through various membranes. The 
 farmer would have probably forgotten, if indeed he ever knew, that 
 this same Shakespeare did, in what pertains to be his report as com- 
 missioner, say that (C the Nebraska (inoculated) hogs stood the test better 
 than recovered {from natural disease) hogs/' and the coadjutor of 
 this man, in his attempts to deceive the public and his unscientific in- 
 vestigations, and shirking the most solemn obligation a man can have, 
 Prof. T. J. Burrill of the State University of Illinois, also said, even 
 more emphatically, the same thing in the following letter to me: 
 
 Champaign, III., Aug. 10, 1889. 
 Dear Doctor: Have just answered your telegram to the best of 
 my ability. When I saw the pigs no trial had been made upon the 
 Nebraskans with Salmon's " swine plague," aud I am quite sure noth- 
 ing was said about it to me by Dr. Shakespeare subsequently. Abund- 
 ant trial had been made, both by feeding and by subcutaneous inocula- 
 tions with the Washington l( hog cholera, ivithout serious effect. None 
 stood the test so well as those Nebraska pigs. It is, however, quite pos- 
 sibe that Dr. Shakespeare has tried " swine plague " (Salmon's) since 
 
196 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 our correspondence upon the subject. Have not seen anything in 
 print on report. Am not certain what publicity has beeu given. The 
 two diseases are acknowledged, the one, however, said to be much 
 more prevalent than the other. No attempt is made in the report to 
 compare European work, though we did have some cultures from 
 abroad. 
 
 You can understand that it was difficult for separate workers to 
 make a report. Would liked to have published full details but found 
 only certain conclusions could be agreed upon, not always worded as 
 one would do it for himself. At any rate, nothing was considered ex- 
 cept what is the fact. 
 
 Very truly yours, T. J. Burrill. 
 
 The chief cause of failure has been, and will be, that the sick hog, 
 from which the germs for virus will be taken, has been sick too long. 
 
 Remember, the hog for such purpose should be selected from an 
 outbreak that has not existed for over one week, and if possible, be 
 the last pig to show signs of illness in such an outbreak. Inoculation 
 should be done twice to make surety sure. But in my earnest desire 
 to make it as cheap as possible to the farmer, I have tried to do it 
 with one inoculation, when the cost would not be over fifty cents for 
 1,000 hogs. But, while successful in the majority of cases, when the 
 virus was right, it is not safe to rely on one inoculation. We cannot 
 get in enough germs to thoroughly saturate the porcine organism, as 
 is done in the fractional infection of those mild natured outbreaks 
 which give the most absolute immunity, but with a second inoculation 
 of rightly selected virus we can give doses from one to three cubic cen- 
 timeters the second time with perfect safety, according to the age of 
 the animals. 
 
 The government has told us that it was only with great difficulty that 
 the germs could be found in cases of over three weeks old. That is 
 not quite correct. The germs can generally be found, even in such 
 cases, if care is taken to isolate them, but not always in a pure con- 
 dition, being often mixed with numbers of adventitious germs. 
 
 We had failures, after moving to Chicago, using the virus made 
 from the germs of such hogs, but from none that had been ill so long 
 as three weeks. When we came back to Nebraska we concluded, as 
 farmers would be most likely to to send us just such hogs, to make 
 one direct and extensive experiment in that direction. The govern- 
 ment says that it has reliable information that we killed certain pigs 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 197 
 
 by inoculation at the state farm in 1891. All I have to say is this: 
 That all the work I do at the state farm is experimental, and that 
 such experiments are the property of this laboratory until we get ready 
 to publish them, unless the results are demanded by those having the 
 authority to do so, though all records are free and open to the public. 
 The "three different correspondents of undoubted reliability," whose re- 
 port appears in Bulletin No. 8, are three cowardly sneaks, whoever they 
 may be, and their report as unreliable in spirit and as false in fact as the 
 majority of the testimony in that bulletin. Why not publish the 
 names of such undoubtedly reliable correspondents? The government 
 was afraid to. It is more than probable that their reputation for 
 " undoubted reliability " is more than doubtful in this community. 
 Here is the whole passage from Bulletin No. 8 : 
 
 FAILURE OF INOCULATION IN NEBRASKA DURING 1891. 
 
 Under date of January 6, 1892, Dr. Billings addressed a letter to 
 the Omaha Bee, in which he endeavored to explain the communication 
 of disease by the inoculations made in accordance with his method at 
 Ottawa, 111. The following extract from his letter is of interest in 
 this connection : 
 
 "I have inoculated some 50,000 hogs, and never in a single in- 
 stance that I know of has such an accident occurred through inocu- 
 lated hogs as at Ottawa, and there have been very few cases in which 
 incoulation has not protected. True, I failed completely in protect- 
 ing hogs that were fed on glucose refuse, except those from Surprise, 
 Neb., but that was due to the glucose and not the inoculation. Hogs 
 fed on distillery slops can be protected by inoculation. Every one who 
 is acquainted with the true facts knows that those herds reported as 
 killed at Surprise, Neb., in 1888 were all diseased at the time they 
 were inoculated. This year over 3,000 have been inoculated in Ne- 
 braska, and to-day I sent out virus for 1,900 more, but with some re- 
 grets, as I fear for its injury and the possibility of its being frozen. 
 Of the 3,000 I do not know of one being injured by inoculation, yet 
 one such case in sucking pigs is reported, and one failure in the same 
 herd ; the pigs I doubt, as five other lots of pigs were inoculated at the 
 same time with the same virus, and they all lived ; the failure I know 
 the cause of, and have learned to avoid it in the future." 
 
 In spite of this very positive statement, the department is in receipt 
 of information from three different correspondents of undoubted re- 
 liability to the effect that on the 12th of August, 1891, forty-eight 
 head of swine were inoculated on the state farm under the direction of 
 Dr. Billings, and four of the herd were not inoculated. August 30, 
 
198 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 four pigs were dead, and two others very sick were taken to the lab- 
 oratory for examination. Within thirty days after inoculation, 
 twenty-six died, and before the outbreak set up by the inoculation 
 ceased its ravages, forty-one of the fifty-two hogs on the farm died. 
 These facts were certainly known to Dr. Billings at the time the letter 
 quoted from above was written. 
 
 With Western Resources for February 10, 1892, was included a sup- 
 plement giving a statement by Dr. Billings of the inoculations made 
 in Nebraska from August 18, 1891, to January 1, 1892. Why the 
 inoculation on the state farm of August 12 was not included was not 
 stated. 
 
 In his open letter to Chancellor Canfield, Secretary Rusk hauls the 
 superintendent of the state farm over the coals for not reporting this 
 experiment. I will say to Mr. Husk that it is not the method of 
 gentlemen to go to servants for information. Neither Mr. Perrin, 
 the professor of agriculture, who is really the head of the state farm, 
 nor even Chancellor Canfield has anything to do with the experiments 
 carried on by this laboratory, no more than I have with their work. 
 What would he think of any one outside who desired to know of the 
 work of his experiment station who should apply to the foreman of 
 his men? Experiments are the property of the experimenters until 
 published, or until those having the right demand the results. Such- 
 a demand had not been made on me until Bulletin No. 8 appeared, 
 when I reported to the chancellor. The affair at the state farm was 
 an experiment, and not an inoculation to prevent, but to see would it 
 not fail? Mr. Perrin reported honestly on the results of inoculations 
 to prevent. A great many pure-bred stock hogs have been sold from 
 the farm on the warrant that they were inoculated and would with- 
 stand farm-exposure. All we know is that no purchaser has ever ap- 
 plied for the return of his money ; which is sure evidence of sat- 
 isfaction, as men are not over scrupulous in making demands on the 
 public funds on slight excuses. 
 
 Had those " three very reliable correspondents" been honest citizens 
 of Nebraska they would have come to the laboratory and made some 
 inquiries and found out the particulars about that inoculation at the 
 state farm, and would have discovered that not a hog or pig died from 
 the effects of the inoculation ; that the virus was not expected to pro- 
 tect, and that just ivhat we hoped for happened, though we expected to 
 have to turn the hogs out into some outbreak to attain it, but were spared 
 that trouble and expense by the disease breaking out at the state farm. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 199» 
 
 WHAT THE PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURE REPORTED ABOUT IT. 
 
 The following extract is taken from the report of the professor of 
 agriculture to the regents of the university: "The hogs upon the farm, 
 have been used for purposes of experiment in inoculation, and quite a 
 large number succumbed to the disease. The loss to the department 
 was considerable, but the result, to the state, no doubt, is worth the 
 price of many herds of hogs in the establishing of a scientific truth 
 for future guidance of the farmers of Nebraska." 
 
 C. L. Ingeesoll. 
 
 All Professor Ingersoll had to report was what became of the hogs 
 raised. The balance of the question belongs to this laboratory. 
 
 In the same letter to Mr. Can field, published at the end of this 
 work, Mr. Rusk says: 
 
 I might have applied for information in regard to inoculations 
 made in Nebraska as you intimate, but if the malignant hostility 
 shown toward this department by the person in charge of your labo- 
 ratory had not prevented me applying to that source, the unreliable 
 statements made from time to time, issued by him, would have been 
 sufficient. Comparing his statements made from time to time with, 
 letters received from unbiased citizens of Nebraska, I have no hesitation. 
 in saying that even if the latter were made from memory they deserve- 
 the greater confidence. 
 
 The value of the "confidence" to be placed in the "memory" of Mi\ 
 Rusk's " unbiased citizens of Nebraska" has been fully demonstrated- 
 It is begging the question to say that my " hostility" prevented his 
 asking for information. He never asked. He would have got it,, 
 with all the details from the letters of farmers in full had he asked,, 
 entirely regardless of my personal feelings in the matter. Not a false 
 or even misleading statement has ever been sent out from Nebraska in- 
 tentionally, and I do not know of one being sent at all. The evidence 
 here given in detail proves that. The long expressed confidence of 
 the best breeders of the state proves it. There is no clique of a "few 
 interested persons" holding me up. I am desirous to leave, but can- 
 not do it in justice to the people and shall not until I am turned 
 out, or I can no longer do them justice. There are no financial 
 charms to keep me in Nebraska. I can earn or have a larger in- 
 come in other ways which my duties here prevent me from obtaining. 
 I am here to gratify my ambition to serve the people. So long as 
 their desires coincide with my own purposes in life I shall stay, and no> 
 
200 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 longer. That is, so long as in serving them I am serving humanity 
 and the cause of original research. 
 
 It is very singular that such " reliable correspondents " should 
 have neglected to mention a much more important fact in that con- 
 nection, which was, that not one of the hogs inoculated previous years 
 were sick, though on the same ground and among the sich hogs. This 
 is illustrative of the whole manner in which Mr. Rusk and his agents 
 deported, themselves in obtaining information regarding the work of 
 this laboratory. It has been shown that their records in Bulletin No. 
 8 are not only false in many respects but generally unreliable, and that 
 a very large amount of truthful evidence favorable to our work has been 
 suppressed. This is a public laboratory, not supported by the people 
 of the state of Nebraska, but by the citizens of the United States, of 
 whom they are but a small part. Everything we do in our official 
 capacity, every record here kept, is constantly open to the public and 
 can be seen by any one. There has been and is nothing hidden. It 
 was my intention, and it may be done yet, to publish exact statistical 
 details of all my work on inoculation, but, as has been said, it is now 
 only that the proper time has arrived. Mr. Rusk could have selected 
 any of his correspondents here, such as Judge Eaton or ex-Governor 
 Furnas, and sent them here, and they would have had every oppor- 
 tunity to get at all the facts without suppression of any; but instead 
 of that he preferred the underhand and dishonorable method of ob- 
 taining his information generally from the people who knew nothing 
 of the subject. From those who knew something he has published 
 little or nothing unless they said something which could be construed 
 as unfavorable to our work. 
 
 Now, as regards those pigs inoculated at the state farm August, 
 1891. I desired to demonstrate that if a sick hog had been ill two or 
 three weeks that it would be useless in producing prevention. There 
 was no swine plague around Lincoln that I could hear of at the time, 
 and I had demands for virus for about 1,000 head and desired to send 
 something in order not to have it said that I was afraid to send it out, 
 as would have surely been the case had I tried to explain that I 
 could not until I got a certain kind of hog. On August 8, 1891, I 
 heard that there was disease at Diller, Neb., and went there, but 
 could find none but one outbreak that had been dallying along for 
 some weeks, and all the pigs were sick and had been for some time; 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 201 
 
 it was a very slow outbreak. Though unsuitable for virus I deter- 
 mined to kill one and use it experimentally, and if I found the germ 
 sufficiently pure to send it out and instruct the farmers that I would 
 send a second virus in two or three weeks in order to satisfy the de- 
 mand. The pig selected had chronic pneumonia and chronic intestinal 
 lesions, and had been ill some three weeks and was very much emaci- 
 ated. Cultures were made and two rabbits inoculated with the blood 
 from the heart mixed with sterilized water. One rabbit died in about 
 fifteen hours, and from its heart's blood was obtained the government 
 swine plague organism. The other did not die. The cultures were 
 hurried up in the thermostat, and some contained a mixture of the 
 government germ and the true swine plague germ, while some con- 
 tained the latter pure. These were subjected to plate tests and no 
 other germs were present. As I have never had any occasion to see 
 any cause for alarm in subcutaneous injections of the government 
 germ in swine after a great many tests since I first came across it in 
 Chicago (let me say I never had the thing in my cultures during my 
 first work iu Nebraska, as I shall show elsewhere, all assertions to the 
 contrary) I determined to inoculate all these pigs and hogs with a 
 mixed culture containing both germs, and the following bunches were 
 inoculated with such a mixed culture: 
 
 State farm 48 
 
 John Morgan, Lincoln, first inoculation 17 
 
 Jacob Dick, Lincoln, first inoculation. 5 
 
 J. P. Cully, Diller, first inoculation 44 
 
 A. M. Caldwell, New Holland, 111., first inoculation 115 
 
 Joe Antes, Syracuse, Neb., first inoculation 50 
 
 F. H. Connelly, Dorchester, Neb., first inoculation 163 
 
 * E. E. Pamblade, Axtell, Neb., first inoculation 73 
 
 Win. H. Diller, Diller, Neb., first inoculation 98 
 
 Spencer Day, North Bend, Neb., first inoculation 70 
 
 jGustav Lundren, Axtell, Neb., first inoculation 77 
 
 Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne, Neb., first inoculation 50 
 
 F. I. Foss, Crete, Neb., first inoculation , 153 
 
 Matthew & Jenuer, Loup City, Neb., first inoculation 31 
 
 994 
 Less the state farm hogs , 48 
 
 946 
 
 * Second inoculation, a second generation. 
 
 f Second inoculation, a second generation from one of the farm pigs. 
 
202 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 
 
 On or about August 24 these 946 all received a second inocula- 
 tion of a properly selected virus except those at Axtell, Neb. (see foot 
 notes), aud nearly all, with that exception, stood quite strong tests. 
 The loss at Axtell in surrounding herds was 95 per cent, and in those 
 inoculated less than 50 per cent. Not one of the 94-6 was sick at all 
 after either inoculation, nor injured, as shown by letters previously given- 
 
 In less than two weeks after the farm pigs were inoculated they be- 
 gan to come down sick, with the result reported to the government. 
 The virus was useless, as I knew, but desired to demonstrate in this 
 case conclusively, by actual experiment. Did even the mixture kill the 
 pigs, or was it a case of natural infection (the controls, not inoculated? 
 all died)? Here were 994 pigs and hogs inoculated Avithin a few days 
 of each other, with the same virus, and 946 which later received one 
 full cubic centimeter of a virus (with the Axtell exceptions) selected 
 by myself from a fresh hog in a fresh outbreak, and yet from both 
 inoculations, within three weeks, not one of the 946 ever showed a 
 sign of illness to amount to anything, and none were injured. 
 
 The difference of individual susceptibility argument brought for- 
 ward by the government will no more work in this case than in the 
 Surprise case in 1888, for the only hogs which were sick at all in the 
 whole 994 were those of Mr. Pamblade, at Axtell, who lost 30 out of 
 73, Mr. Lundren losing none. Mr. Pamblade's hogs were not taken 
 ill until after January 1, 1892, inoculated August 14, 1891, four 
 months, which excludes all possibility of inoculation having been the 
 cause, aud he reports that " they did nicely up to about January 1,, 
 1892." So here we have one partial failure in 946 pigs and no in- 
 jury whatever. If that is not sufficient evidence that the virus did 
 not injure or cause disease in the state farm pigs I can give no other. 
 It is a rank impossibility. Farmers should also bear in mind that 
 the germ of that terrible second swine plague was also injected into 
 those hogs, mixed with the genuine germ in a very weak condition, 
 so weak it would scarcely kill a rabbit. 
 
 That experiment proved what we desired, that a hog sick for some 
 weeks and emaciated, showing surely it has been ill some time, is 
 unfit for virus. Were it necessary I could give quite a list of failures 
 due to virus made from pigs not ill as long as that one, for I have 
 tried them in all stages, from those just taken to those sick three or 
 four weeks, and in every case the virus was only reliable and lost in 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 203 
 
 reliability from a pig just taken in a fresh outbreak to one ill longer 
 than a few days; when ill over two weeks the virus from such a hog 
 is useless. 
 
 I have also tested virus made from pigs in the earliest days of an 
 outbreak, and then every few days along its course until the last 
 showed signs of illness, and also found that one could not rely on 
 virus from the pigs showing signs of illness after an outbreak had 
 continued much over a week. I look for the cause of this singular 
 phenomena in slowness or fractional, day by day, infection and that 
 the action of the products of the tissues of the body exerts such an 
 influence on the germs when even so short a time in the pig as to 
 render them unreliable or unsuitable for preventive inoculation. 
 
 The fact can be absolutely relied upon for sure guidance in obtain- 
 ing a reliable virus, whether the hypothesis be a correct explanation 
 of the cause of the loss of prophylactic power in the germs or not. If 
 tested on pigs the germs will be found to lose in virulence, also when 
 taken from sick pigs along the course of a protracted outbreak, or if 
 taken from the veins of a sick pig in a mild outbreak. In other 
 words, the longer a pig is ill, the longer an outbreak continues, the less 
 virulent the germs from such pigs are to pigs themselves in inocula- 
 tion. Protection becomes null. 
 
Virulence in Cultures 
 
 HAS 
 
 NO RELATION WHATEVER 
 
 TO 
 
 THEIR PROTECTIVE POWER 
 
 NON-KEOURRENT DISEASES. 
 
 (205) 
 
VIRULENCE IN CULTURES. 
 
 Following the teachings of Pasteur and the generally accepted 
 views of the period when I first began work, I also thought that the 
 prophylactic power of the etiological germs in non-recurrent diseases 
 was directly related to their virulence ; or in other words, that it was the 
 same product of such germs that produced the disease which also pro- 
 duced the resistant power in the recovered individual that enables it 
 to resist infection or manifest disease on a subsequent exposure to in- 
 fection in the same disease. The only departure that I made from Pas- 
 teur's and others' teaching and example was that the fact that my en- 
 deavors to prove that the germ found in pure cultures from diseased 
 pigs not only seldom had the same degree of malignant virulence in 
 large numbers of much younger pigs used for such experiment ; but 
 also, that it was even quite a rare thing to produce fatal results in 
 young pigs by the subcutaneous inoculation of even one cubic centimeter 
 of bouillon cultures. Let me again say, that in all my work where I 
 wanted pure cultures direct from the diseased hog, I not only used 
 those most recently diseased, but soon learned that in order to be 
 sure of getting such, I could not depend on the farmer's knowing which 
 were recently diseased in the large herds kept in the west, so that I 
 also selected the freshest outbreaks I could find. Following this rule 
 almost invariably I have with equal certainty obtained pure cultures 
 ■of the swine plague germ from both the heart's blood and spleen of 
 diseased hogs. Until experience had conclusively shown me that this 
 method could be relied on I had invariably had recourse to plate (con- 
 trol) cultures, both on agar-agar and gelatine ; but finding I could 
 depend on cultures thus obtained for purity for general purposes I soon 
 left them off as unnecessary, for it must be remembered that I was 
 " man of all work," even to cleaning my floors and feeding my 
 animals and keeping them clean during my first year here, and hence 
 all unnecessary labor had to be carefully avoided. The microscopic 
 appearance of cover-glass specimens from my solid media and fluid 
 
 (207) 
 
208 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 cultures, with the general uniform character of the cultures was consid- 
 ered and found to be a sufficiently reliable guide to their purity. The 
 fact that pure cultures can almost always be obtained in this and kin- 
 dred diseases — septicsemise — has been seen by the numerous gentle- 
 men who have worked with me here and is also known to every 
 investigator, for when we have mixed cultures do we not inocu- 
 late some very susceptible animal and thus get the pure culture of 
 germ desired directly from the heart's blood of such animal, and do 
 we not do this to avoid the time and trouble of plate cultures? 
 
 It must be remembered that during my first year here that I used 
 young pigs, because I had no place to keep rabbits, and they were 
 more available. Again, in obtaining cultures in this way the pres- 
 ence of adventitious germs is almost entirely shut out, and as I was 
 only seeking the swine plague germ, and experience having taught me 
 that they could be obtained pure by following the above given rules, and 
 as good sense told me adventitious germs would certainly be in the lungs, 
 I did not use any other tissues for cultures, and so escaped coming 
 across that government germ of a nondescript plague, and it was only 
 when I had recourse to rabbits entirely that I found the thing in Chi- 
 cago. Let me here say, that if any one thinks rabbits reliable iu this 
 regard they will be most seriously misled. For example, let them 
 take a piece of badly diseased lung from a swine plague hog, and an 
 extra malignant outbreak (and from it also make a number of plate 
 cultures), and rub it up in sterilized water and inject a cubic centime- 
 ter of the material under the skin (or into the abdomen, which is 
 surer) of a young pig (two months old) and then one-fourth of that 
 amount under the skin of a rabbit; the rabbit may die of the govern- 
 ment germ and the pig of genuine swine plague, if it dies; the plate 
 cultures will also lead one astray unless the medium is rather alkaline, 
 for the government germ may not grow, while the genuine one and 
 adventitious germs, if present, will be found in more or less abundant 
 colonies. Again, though they may find the government germ in pure 
 cultures in the heart's blood of the rabbit, which will generally die in 
 from fifteen to twenty-four hours, if they will carefully sterilize the 
 skin at the locus inoculationis and open it with due caution they will 
 undoubtedly find that the genuine swine plague is present there in 
 great numbers, but time enough has not elapsed for its general distri- 
 bution through the blood and tissues, though plate cultures, especially 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 209 
 
 from the spleen of the rabbit, may even then bring out an occasional 
 colony, whereas the wire may not catch one in cultures made from the 
 heart's blood. No one ueed to take my word for these assertions. 
 They can prove them all if they desire and will have due regard to 
 exactness, and particularly honesty to the facts they see. 
 
 The misleading character of the following statement from the gov- 
 ernment investigators in connection with their second plague germ 
 must be at once apparent to the unprejudiced reader. Rabbits are 
 totally unreliable unless used with all the precautions suggested. In 
 mixtures of germs small animals are never reliable until demonstrated 
 to be so by all possible controls, especially by such in the species in 
 which a given germ causes a specific disease, for there is frequently 
 some adventitious germ that kills the small animal, which on subcu- 
 taneous injections with the natural species are harmless. Pulmonary 
 injections are to be condemned as misleading unless controlled by sub- 
 cutaneous in the same species, or directly indicated as in pleuro-pneu- 
 monia, but even then I should prefer spraying suspected cultures 
 gently into the trachea. The passage is as follows: 
 
 Of the 49 animals of the same herd 17 were found with collapse 
 and 8 with lobular broncho-pneumonia; more than one-half, therefore, 
 had some defect of the lungs. It might be questioned whether such 
 lesions as those of broncho-pneumonia are not due to the swine plague 
 bacteria, since they closely resemble the lesions found in many swine 
 .plague lungs. This question is effectually disposed of by the inocula- 
 tion of the lung tissue into rabbits. (Report 1887, p. 486.) 
 
 The position advocated by me is very strongly supported by that 
 taken in the Johns Hopkins laboratory, where they have probably 
 tried as hard as the government people to prove the second germ to 
 be the cause of a distinct plague and thus far failed, so far as we have 
 any statement from that source: 
 
 At the meeting of the United States Veterinary-Medical Associa- 
 tion, held at Washington, September, 1891, Dr. A. W. Clement made 
 some remarks which bear on the report of that " board of inquiry," 
 because "it has been my (C.'s) opportunity for the last three or four 
 years of doing some work in that line myself, in association with Prof. 
 Welch of Johns Hopkins University. I might say, in parenthesis, 
 that my work in this line has nothing to do with my position as gov- 
 ernment inspector. As to what connection the organism (Salmon's 
 swine plague germ) has with the lesions described in the reports of 
 
 14 
 
210 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 the bureau, is a question on which we all might^not agree. Neverthe- 
 less the swine plague organism does cause trouble. The trouble in 
 hogs is, as a rule, in our experience, one of mixed infection. We have 
 not had the opportunity of seeing an outbreak of swine plague (Salmon's) 
 pure and simple. We have found that it is very hard to say when 
 swine plague (Salmon's) is present that hog cholera (Salmon's) is ab- 
 sent, from the fact that swine plague kills [What, rabbits or hogs ? 
 B.] in a few hours while hog cholera requires some days. If, then, an 
 animal be killed and presents lesions in the intestines, as are generally 
 supposed to be characteristic of hog cholera, the statement must be 
 very carefully considered before it is made, that hog cholera is not 
 present. We were thrown off our track during the earlier part of our 
 investigations. We found afterwards that hog cholera did exist in 
 these animals that we thought had swine plague (Salmon's) pure and 
 simple. 1 would simply say in a general way that form our investiga- 
 tions ive have found Dr. Billings is right in certain other matters." — 
 (Journal of Comparative Medicine, Vol. XII, p. 549.) 
 
 Having then found : 
 
 First — That the most recently attacked animal from a very fresh 
 outbreak could be relied on to give pure cultures if handled lege 
 artis; 
 
 Second — That even one cubic centimeter of a fresh bouillon culture 
 was not by any means generally as deadly in subcutaueously inoculated 
 pigs, and seldom so except from the most malignant outbreaks ; 
 
 Third — Using no other cultures during my first three years here, 
 except just before I left, and having never had a failure on hogs thus 
 inoculated when put in outbreaks ; 
 
 I naturally came to the conclusion that artificial mitigation was 
 unnecessary and never have resorted to it, but I still thought that vir- 
 ulence was directly connected with the prophylaxis. But I had done 
 more. I felt that I should, if possible, have some means of controlling 
 the virulence, and so, following authority, I selected rabbits and found 
 that a virus, of which one-half cubic centimeter would invariably kill 
 a rabbit in about four days, could be given to six months old pigs in 
 one cubic centimeter doses without danger. As I shall show, I was 
 all wrong. The control of virulence in rabbits with this germ is ab- 
 solutely valueless as regards pigs. No matter how virulent and ma- 
 lignant the disease may be in pigs, no matter if an outbreak knocks 
 out 100 head of good healthy pigs within a week, or even less, and 
 many do not seem ill more than twenty-four hours, yet an injection 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 211 
 
 from a fresh bouillon culture of one-half cubic centimeter will have no 
 great variation in rabbits, the killing time will vary from three and 
 one-half to four and one-half days. Now carry that same culture in 
 bouillon indefinitely and six mouths afterwards try it on rabbits and 
 then in pigs intra-abdominally ; it will kill the rabbits just as before 
 and may not affect the pigs at all. Subcutaneously it will not. To 
 demonstrate this fully, let me say that I have here a culture from an 
 original culture made in 1888 that has been changed weekly to fresh 
 bouillon ever since. The virus was over a year and a half old when 
 these tables were made. Both are from two different hogs from the 
 same outbreak and were treated exactly alike. 
 
 Vwus No. 1. 
 Dose, one-half cubic centimeter. 
 
 Generation. 
 
 1 
 35 
 
 76 
 78 
 79 
 80 
 81 
 • 82 
 83 
 84 
 85 
 90 
 93 
 95 
 98 
 95 
 100 
 101 
 
 Date of Inoculation. 
 
 % 
 16, 
 23, 
 30, 
 
 September 28, 
 January 5, 
 October 
 October 
 October 
 October 
 November 10, 
 November 17, 
 November 25, 
 December 2, 
 December 9 
 January 26. 
 February 22 
 
 March 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 April 
 
 April 
 
 9, 
 31, 
 
 6, 
 13, 
 20, 
 
 1888 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1890 
 1890 
 1890 
 1890 
 1890 
 1890 
 1890 
 
 Killing Time 
 in Rabbits. 
 
 4 days 
 
 4 days 
 
 5 days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 Z\ days 
 4 days 
 3£ days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 3£ days 
 2| days 
 
 6 days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 
212 
 
 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Virus No. 2. 
 Dose, one-half cubic centimeter. 
 
 Generation. 
 
 Date of Inoculation. 
 
 Killing Time 
 in Eabbits. 
 
 1 
 
 September 28, 1888 
 October 5, 1889 
 October 13, 1889 
 October 16, 1889 
 October 23, 1889 
 October 30, 1889 
 November 10, 1889 
 November 17, 1889 
 November 25, 1889 
 December 4, 1889 
 December 11, 1889 
 January 10, 1890 
 February 22, 1890 
 
 4 days 
 4 days 
 3J days 
 4 days 
 34 days 
 34 day* 
 3| days 
 34 day& 
 
 77 
 
 78 
 
 79 
 
 80 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 
 83 
 
 84 
 
 34 days 
 5 days 
 3f days 
 3f days 
 
 85 
 
 86 
 
 90 
 
 95 
 
 34 days 
 
 
 A recent test of virus No. 1, May 2, 1892, in which a rabbit recived 
 one-half cubic centimeter of a bouillon culture subcutaneously, killed 
 the animal in three days and twenty hours. We then tried a peculiar 
 feeding test in pigs, which is the most reliable of all tests for the swine 
 plague germ, and used this virus, but used mixed cultures made by 
 inoculating the same flasks directly from tested pure cultures of this- 
 germ and the government swine plague germ, and at the expiration of 
 four days' developmen tested the cultures in rabbits; result, death,, 
 seventeen hours, government germ in heart's blood, swine plague germ 
 local, one colony of the latter grew in six plates made from spleen. 
 
 Experiment : Three six months' healthy and never-exposed hogs fed 
 2,500 cubic centimeters of bouillon culture for four successive days- 
 with this mixed culture; ill a few days, off feed, one had a slight diar- 
 rhea; all are alive and well now. In this experiment I hoped to show 
 that the real germ would give entrance into the blood of the govern- 
 ment germ by causing lesions in the intestines. 
 
 Two hogs, same litter, fed with same quantity of a pure bouillon 
 culture of the government germ at the same time. No effect ! This- 
 accords with the statement of the government that feeding experiments 
 with that germ are futile, which makes it necessary for them to ex- 
 plain the intestinal lesions which they claim are caused by that germ 
 alone, and not by the genuine germ. 
 
 The above results show the futility of any general dependence on 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 213 
 
 results in small animals in relation to those in which a given germ 
 •causes a specific disease. It is only when proven of specific value, as in 
 glanders in male guinea pigs, that any reliance can be placed on tests 
 in small animals. Otherwise thier value is only that of a supplementary 
 laboratory aid — a cheap living isolating medium, if I may use the 
 ■•terni. 
 
 As is well known, self-respect caused me to leave Nebraska in 1889, 
 on account of the persistent intrigues going on against meat the instiga- 
 tion of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. I left here June 
 20. I had done no inoculation since the previous winter, but before 
 leaving, at the urgent request of Mr. Allen, of the Standard Cattle 
 ■Company, of Ames, Neb., I inoculated fifty-nine pigs, and from 
 there went to Gibbon, Neb., and inoculated 614, some of them 
 being only two weeks old. Those at Gibbon were at once dropped, 
 and ran around as before; none ivere injured in any way. Mr. Allen's 
 were penned in a small pen, and he reports the loss of four. I did not 
 then know the danger of close penning of inoculated hogs, or that in 
 it and not in the inoculation was to be sought the cause of some pigs 
 being stunted in a few cases, which led me to some erroneous conclu- 
 sions that have been taken advantage of by the government, as fol- 
 lows, in its Bulletin No. 8: 
 
 Being requested to make this experiment by the state veterinarian, 
 an order that the method might be adopted in the field, if successful, 
 by the State Live Stock Sanitary Commission, he replied in a long 
 article from which the following quotation is made: 
 
 " I leave it to every practical farmer in Nebraska whether he con- 
 siders another test necessary to show that prevention by inoculation 
 can be done. Then why is it not practical as well as practicable ? 
 
 " First — Because it stunts the hogs in their growth. 
 
 " Second — Because the method used consists of a virus which con- 
 tains the germs or specific cause of hog cholera. 
 
 " (So long as we use sucji a virus as that, so long will it be for 
 every hog thus inoculated to infect the earth or pens where it is placed, 
 and hence make pestiferous centers where none may previously have 
 existed. As the earth is the natural abode of the germs of this dis- 
 ease, it is self-evident they would again acquire their natural viru- 
 lence in course of time.) 
 
 " We have not been engaged to spread the disease but to prevent it. 
 
 " These two circumstances were doubtless unknown to the state vet- 
 erinarian of Nebraska when he suddenly displayed such extraordi- 
 nary interest in the welfare of the swine breeders of the state. They 
 
214 
 
 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 show the utter folly of continuing this line of experimentation and' 
 the test demanded by him." — Nebraska State Journal, October 9, 1887.- 
 The above quotation shows that thus early in his investigations the 
 investigator recognized three conclusions as the result of his experi- 
 ments : first, that inoculation stunted the hogs ) secondly, that it spread 
 the disease; and, thirdly, that the method is not practical, and that it 
 is utter folly to continue this line of experimentation. 
 
 One of the reasons I would not make the test desired was the same 
 that caused me to refuse all connection with it at Ottawa, 111. I did 
 not dare to put my reputation so squarely into the hands of those whom 
 every one here knows would stop at nothing to ruin me. Regard- 
 ing the dangers and injuries I was mistaken. The hogs that led me 
 to the idea that inoculation stunted them were confined in pens six: 
 feet square at the state farm for months. The sale records of the 
 state farm will show that afterwards, when let out free, they overcame 
 it and when killed weighed over 500 pounds each. 
 
 This is not the first time the Agricultural Department has brought 
 up this matter, but it has carefully withheld the direct proof which I 
 gave, in 1890 that it was the confinement and not the inoculation which 
 did all the injury. In no sense of the word have these persons dis- 
 played any knowledge of the meaning of the word honor, and the 
 secretary of agriculture is partner with them in this dastardly and dis- 
 honorable course. " Evil communications [seem to] corrupt good 
 manners " in Washington as well as elsewhere. 
 
 In my paper on " Preventive Inoculation," read before the Ameri- 
 can Medical Association at Nashville, Tenn., May, 1890, I said: 
 
 Vii'us No. 5. 
 
 Generation. 
 
 Date of Inoculation. 
 
 Killing Time 
 in Eabbits. 
 
 1 
 
 December 19, 1889 
 December 24, 1889 
 January 1, 1890 
 January 10, 1890 
 January 19, 1890 
 January 26, 1890 
 February 22, 1890 
 March 31, 1890 
 
 2£ days 
 
 2 
 
 2J days 
 
 3 
 
 4 days 
 
 4 
 
 4 days 
 
 5 
 
 4 days 
 
 6 
 
 4 days 
 
 8 
 
 3i days 
 
 13 
 
 4i days 
 
 
 
 From the first generation of this virus No. 5, seven healthy hogs 
 received one cubic centimeter in the inside of the thigh subcuta- 
 neously; two of these died, which were closely confined, within ten 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 215 
 
 days ; the others were at first loosely confined, and showed no ill 
 effects ; but after the fifteenth day they were changed to the closest con- 
 finement possible, and all died between the thirtieth and thirty-fifth 
 days ; while five others, which were given plenty of room to roam 
 about, and which received the same dose, all lived. This experiment 
 was made to demonstrate, if possible, a certain well-known fact of 
 practical experience. 
 
 It has always been told me that if such hogs were shipped, the 
 death-rate would be checked, or even stopped, while on the cars ; 
 and it has also become more or less current among farmers that to put 
 sick hogs on a common wagon and rattle them over frozen and rough 
 ground was a good thing to do. In some few cases evil results have 
 followed inoculation. Some few hogs have either died after a pro- 
 longed illness or become somewhat stunted ; while others inoculated 
 with the same dose of the same virus have shown no ill effect. It 
 therefore becomes an interesting question to discover why this should 
 occur in one case and not in a great many others. 
 
 After very careful inquiry it was discovered that, where ill effects 
 followed inoculation, the animals were kept very closely confined, and 
 had not room enough to move around, and that this was the cause ; 
 or, in other words, insufficient movement to stimulate the circulation. 
 A very striking example of this occurred in two bunches of hogs in- 
 oculated at the same time for a gentleman who is a personal friend 
 and a great advocate of inoculation [Mr. Lee, of Gibbon, Neb., quoted 
 elsewhere]. At his house were twenty-five hogs in a small pen, while 
 in a field, running with his cattle, were about one hundred and 
 twenty-five others. Those in the small pen had a prolonged and very 
 severe attack of swine plague in consequence of the inoculation, 
 though none died; while the one hundred and twenty-five in the 
 field showed no ill effects whatever. 
 
 Exactly the same thing occurs in typhoid fever in man. The 
 patient has recovered from his typhoid, and the physician congratu- 
 lates him ; the next day he is cyanotic, rapid breathing is present, 
 and pneumonia develops; owing to stagnation of the circulation, and 
 the reflow, or pressure, of the blood to the point of least resistance, 
 which is the lungs. 
 
 Would not the spirit of common fairness which all gentlemen try 
 to observe towards each other demand that Secretary Rusk should 
 have at least noticed these remarks of mine, even though he might 
 say that he did not accept the explanation. " Fairness," however, 
 seems to be absolutely an unknown quality in the minds of my oppo- 
 nents. 
 
 The virus used in the hogs at the Standard Cattle Company and at 
 
216 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 Gibbon in 1889 was a later generation, exchanged weekly, of the 
 same used at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, and then used in the first gen- 
 eration, and which in every case (but in the herds diseased when in- 
 oculated) is known to have given immunity not only to herd exposure, 
 but twenty of Mr. Ashburn's hogs (at Gibbon) inoculated at that 
 time, 1888, were inoculated with two cubic centimeters of one of the 
 most malignant cultures I ever had, and the thirty inoculated at the 
 state farm, done when Mr. Ashburn's were, also received the same 
 dose with seventeen uninoculated controls, all of the latter were sick, 
 and fifteen died. Not one of the others ever lost a meal. The govern- 
 ment knows all this, but fails to mention it. 
 
 Now, here was a virus that was known to have given protection. 
 It was tested on rabbits and killed in the usual time. Its virulence 
 was known not to be dangerous and proved to be so in the 614 inocu- 
 lated at Gibbon, many of which were sucking pigs two weeks old, and 
 I remember I cautioned the owner of my lack of experience with such 
 small animals, but he said, "go ahead, they will die any how, and if 
 there is anything in it I want it." No experimenter ever had better 
 supporters than those farmers around Gibbon, Neb. I was leav- 
 ing Nebraska, and so on my return from inoculating the pigs at Ames 
 and Gibbon I wanted to be dead sure of my virus, and at once fed 
 four three-months-old pigs 300 grammes a day of a bouillion culture 
 of the same material for five days. Suffice it to say, they died of 
 swine plague before I left. 
 
 Now, what more could a man ask according to the mitigated viru- 
 lence theory of protection by inoculation. Here were all the neces- 
 sary conditions guaranteed lege artis: 
 
 First — A properly selected virus that had given protection in se- 
 vere tests. 
 
 Second — That had the same virulence in June that it had in Octo- 
 ber by rabbit controls. 
 
 Third — A safe relation between a fatal dose in rabbits and a given 
 dose in hogs. 
 
 What more could a man ask if the virulence theory of protection 
 was correct? 
 
 It was and is all wrong ! 
 
 The Ames pigs did not stand a subsequent test, though four died from 
 swine plague due to the inoculation. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 217 
 
 In Bulletin No. 8 occurs the following : 
 
 The attempt to protect hogs by inoculation when fed in distilleries 
 was a failure. 
 
 Our tests in distilleries were a success, and a marked one if the 
 whole truth was known, but that is just what the Hon. J. M. Rusk 
 does not desire to be known. After making the arrangements at 
 Chicago which enabled me to carry on these investigations, much to 
 the disappointment of that friend of the farmer, Hon. J. M. Rusk, I 
 decided to try a test in the distilleries, and purchased in Nebraska 
 thirty hogs inoculated in 1889 from Mr. Bassett, of Gibbon, and 
 twenty from Mr. Walker, Surprise, inoculated with the same virus, 
 when fresh, in 1888, but by mistake two uninoculated hogs were put 
 in by Mr. Walker; these two died, the others not only did not, but 
 were carted over Illinois and Indiana and kept in outbreaks until so 
 large they could not be moved any longer, and the whole eighteen, 
 as far as I know, were afterwards marketed. I saw several of them 
 when they weighed over 500 pounds, notably two Berkshires which 
 Mr. A. M. Caldwell, of New Holland, had. Of the Bassett hogs fifteen 
 of the thirty died. We purchased a dozen sick hogs and put them 
 with this lot. 
 
 What honest man would call that a failure? There must have 
 been some reason for such a singular difference in deportment. The 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry has made the dastardly as- 
 sertion that the eighteen hogs from Mr. Walker's were " recovered 
 hogs." That is an out and out lie, no matter who so "informed" 
 him. He knows, but dare not say it, that even had they been, his 
 very assertion is simply the reiteration of the natural proof that inocu- 
 lation is possible — -for the disease is non-recurrent. All we have to 
 do is to learn to repeat nature's handiwork. We are doing our best 
 to succeed, while the "dogs in [Mr. Rusk's] manger" will neither do 
 anything themselves nor permit auy one else to if they can help it. 
 
 A feeding test at the distillery at Terre Haute, Ind., under circum- 
 stances so terribly disadvantageous that I will not burden the reader 
 with the full details, with sixty-eight inoculated hogs, made especially 
 for Mr. George A. Seaverns, resulted so miraculously favorably as to 
 lead him to go into that mistaken venture at Davenport, la., with 
 glucose slops, because he could not get those in any distillery, they all 
 being controlled by a trust. No such test of preventive inoculation 
 
218 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 was ever made as this and none need ever be made again. The loss 
 was twelve out of sixty-eight against a square loss of 100 per cent in 
 the farm herd from which we took the sick pigs, and the conditions at 
 the distillery indescribably unfavorable. The hogs were in muck up 
 to their eyes, not a drop of fresh water for mouths, nothing but slop, 
 and no shade; with the July sun pouring down on them so hot that 
 no man could stand its rays very long unshaded. It was constantly 
 over 120° on the ground the whole day during most of the time 
 from 10 A. M. to 6 p. m. while the test lasted, and the distillery build- 
 ing put the hogs in an airless box open only towards the south and 
 the river. Their feed was shut off and the sick hogs put among 
 them and as they died cut up and eaten by the inoculated hogs. If 
 this was not a successful test of inoculation in distilleries I do not 
 know what to call success. 
 
 TO RETURN TO OUR HOGS INOCULATED JUNE, 18=- 9. 
 
 Something caused the success in the Walker hogs and the failure 
 in the Bassett lot, both being inoculated with the same virus, one lot 
 in October, 1888, and the other in June, 1889, which caused me to 
 stop and think, for those June hogs were the first I had failed in. 
 At once it came to me that in every other case I had used such a hog 
 for virus as I used to obtain pure culture, viz., a fresh hog in a fresh 
 outbreak not too malignant, and. from such had always been successful. 
 Was it true, then, that we were all on the wrong scent and that viru- 
 lence has no relation to the prevention in regard to the products of 
 these germs and that the protection had been lost in the cultures? 
 
 When I left Nebraska depending on this natural low degree of vir- 
 ulence theory, and on the supposed safety relation between a given 
 dose in rabbits and a proportional injection in hogs, I thought the 
 problem solved and that all I had to do was to continue this culture 
 indefinitely and use it as a preventive virus. With this idea satis- 
 factorily fixed in my mind we began inoculations from Chicago, which 
 antedated the experiment at the Peoria distilleries, to have our eyes 
 opened by some failures, the first being in the hogs of Mr. A. M. 
 Cadwell, of New Holland, 111. Seeing, then, that there must be some- 
 thing wrong in that virus, I fed six pigs with it until they were evi- 
 dently quite sick, stopped the feeding and they finally all recovered, 
 though they emaciated much in the meantime. These were what 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 219 
 
 might be called "recovered" hogs. I then procured five hogs 
 inoculated with a fresh culture from a fresh outbreak and an equal 
 number of " recovered " hogs from a natural outbreak, and put them 
 all in a severe outbreak just beginning. The six animals fed with the 
 old virus all died; the hogs inoculated with the fresh virus and the 
 recovered hogs all lived, and, in fact, were not sick at all. Rabbit 
 tests were again made with the same virus and they died as before,, 
 and still do in about four days. 
 
 These experiences conclusively demonstrated to me thai we were on the 
 wrong track and that a control of virulence either in small or any kind 
 of animals was absolutely useless unless as a guide with regard to the 
 prophylactic power in a culture made of the germs of a non-recurrent 
 disease unless experiment proved them to have value. 
 
 The first investigator who experimentally demonstrated the fact, 
 so far as I know, that many pathogenic germs produce a toxic or 
 disease-producing substance and an immunity-producing material, was 
 Chauveau, who published his investigations in the Archives de Med. 
 Experimentale, March, 1889. These experiments and experiences of 
 mine came in the latter part of the same year, and conclusively confirm 
 the observations of Chauveau made in relation to bacillus anthracis. 
 In my address made before the American Medical Association at 
 Nashville in May, 1890, I referred to my work as follows: 
 
 To discover this fact has cost an immense amount of experimenta- 
 tion and a large amount of money. There is one difficulty about it 
 which cannot be overcome. While the virulence of a culture can ac- 
 curately be tested on small animals, and the exact relation be estab- 
 lished between that virulence and a safe dose in the animals in which 
 a given non-recurrent disease occurs naturally, we have no means of 
 testing the preventive properties of a virus, except the results in inoc- 
 ulated animals of the species in which the disease naturally occurs, 
 and this takes a long time and a great many inoculations. 
 
 When I began this work, I thought that a test of virulence, with a 
 proper regulation of the proportional dose, was all that was necessary ; 
 •now I kuow that a test of virulence with such proportional control is 
 of no value whatever with reference to the protecting power of a given 
 virus. I know this by an experience in over one thousand five hun- 
 dred hogs. Either one of the six viruses named above will kill a hog 
 by subcutaneous inoculation in sufficient doses, but more reliably by 
 feeding experiments ; yet not a single one of them will protect a hog 
 an iota against the cholera; while a germ virus, without any virulence 
 
220 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 whatever, even by forced feeding, will protect securely and almost 
 invariably, in single doses of one cubic centimeter. 
 
 This assertion is obviously contradictory to all previous experiences, 
 and yet, if one stops to think a moment, supported by the most trust- 
 worthy experience which we have. 
 
 There is no question that, under certain circumstances, using a na- 
 tural virus, we must reduce the virulence to a certain degree in order 
 to produce a fatal attack by inoculation; but on the other side, we do 
 not need to have a virus possessing any virulence whatever to produce 
 immunity in a non-recurrent disease. 
 
 Vaccination gives the best possible example of the point we desire 
 to call attention to. While in variolation small-pox itself was trans- 
 mitted, and the variolated person was as much a source of contagion 
 as one having the natural small-pox, the vaccinated individual is ab- 
 solutely non-dangerous to those coming in relation therewith. 
 
 What has been lost? 
 
 Certainly something ; and the practical evidence conclusively de- 
 monstrates that it must have been, or is, that peculiar element of the 
 germ, the contagion, which rendered the variolated person dangerous 
 while the vaccinated one is not. 
 
 It is a question of nutrition only, which can be demonstrated by 
 exact experimentation if we only try. 
 
 The bovine organism must offer certain nutritive conditions which, 
 in some unknown way, rob the micro-organismal cause of small-pox of 
 its contagious (small-pox) producing qualities, while the preventive 
 one is retained in optima forma. 
 
 The same thing can be done with the germ of swine plague, but to 
 no such degree of absolute certainty as nature or accident has accom- 
 plished in vaccina. While it is the easiest possible matter to feed the 
 germ of swine plague up and down in virulence, to make it extra 
 malignant, or rob it of that quality altogether by changes in the 
 chemical nutrient, it is a most difficult thing to retain the preventive 
 physiological qualities of these germs. Sometimes it can be done for 
 months, and again they are lost in a few generations; but we have no 
 control over these matters except the practical tests. None of the 
 small animals which I have tried can be easily or successfully rendered 
 immune against swine plague. Rabbits and guinea-pigs can be ren- 
 dered somewhat immune by repeated inoculations of small quantities 
 of virus; but, so far, I have been unable to rentier them absolutely 
 so. Pigeons vary; but no more artificial immunity can be produced 
 in them than they naturally have, as will be shown later and at an- 
 other time. 
 
 As has been repeatedly mentioned, a test or control of virulence has 
 nothing whatever to do with the protective power of a virus. It 
 simply shows that it is safe to use, and that we can establish the point 
 of safety by experiment. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 221 
 
 This shows that we have all been working on an erroneous basis. 
 Prevention has no relation to specific virulence. Others have demon- 
 strated the same fact. 
 
 In The Times and .Raster, Philadelphia, of April 12 and 19, were 
 published a series of most interesting experiments by Chauveau, the 
 most eminent and conservative experimenter in France, in which he 
 demonstrates it in connection with bacillus anthracis. Chauveau says* 
 that " Energetic vaccinal (preventive) properties have been discov- 
 ered in a pathogenic germ (B. anthracis) not only attenuated in its 
 virulence, but systematically deprived of all infectious properties — 
 rendered so neutral and inactive that we are forced to ask ourselve^ if 
 this transformed microbe had not become a new species. 
 
 "Cultures of bacillus anthracis in this condition can then be car- 
 ried on in the ordinary atmosphere." 
 
 Chauveau conclusively shows that bacillus anthracis produces two 
 chemical elements in its bio-physiological development; the one toxic, 
 or specifically disease-producing, the other having exclusively the pre- 
 ventive properties; and that, by cultivation in two to two and one- 
 half pressures of oxygen, the toxic properties may be, or are, lost, 
 while the preventive are retained. Or, to use his own words, " In 
 fact, in my experiments the vaccine property of the transformed ba- 
 cillus anthracis is so active, and so well survives the loss of all infec- 
 tious properties, that we seem authorized to consider these two prop- 
 erties as being absolutely independent of eaeh other, and as each 
 belonging to a special product of microbe life." 
 
 Another point in evidence of this fact is this: If we take a culture 
 of the germ of swine plague which has experimentally been shown to 
 actively possess both of these preventive and toxic, or disease- produc- 
 ing qualities, by actual experimentation, and freeze it solidly for sev- 
 eral days, and then inoculate or feed hogs with it, we will find that, 
 while it has retained its toxic, or disease-producing, properties with- 
 out mitigation, it has entirely lost its preventive property. 
 
 That bacillus anthracis has the power of producing these two es- 
 sentially different chemical elements has also been well shown by 
 Hueppe and Wood. 
 
 Though I sometimes criticise the conclusions of my friend Hueppe, 
 still I think him one of the most competent and reliable patho-bacte- 
 riologists living, especially in regard to physiologico-chemical attri- 
 butes of pathogenic bacteria. In the publication mentioned, Hueppe 
 and Wood describe a saprophytic bacillus absolutely without virulent 
 qualities, which, in every method of artificial cultivation, or under the 
 microscope, bore such close resemblance to B. anthracis that it could 
 not be distinguished from that organism. It is a well-known fact 
 that all previous experimenters had not been able to render mice im- 
 
 * The original appeared in Archives Med. Experimentale, March, 1889. 
 
222 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 mune to anthrax by any system of preventive inoculation; and yet, 
 with this absolutely non-virulent germ, Hueppe and Wood were suc- 
 cessful in rendering these most susceptible animals immune to ex- 
 tremely virulent cultures of bacillus anthracis. 
 
 Now, it is neither logical nor reasonable to suppose that this was 
 any other micro-organism than baccillus anthracis. It was derived 
 from the earth possessing exactly the attributes described by these ob- 
 servers. In this case the nutritive conditions in the earth had natur- 
 ally produced exactly the same physiologico chemical conditions in 
 bacillus anthracis which Chauveau has conclusively demonstrated to 
 be possible of production by the cultivation of the same germ under 
 certain degrees of oxygen pressure, and I have been able to do with 
 the swine-plague germ by chemical nutrition, the only difference being 
 that while I have, as it were, "gone it blind," not being a chemist, and 
 accidentally hit on a means of arriving at a certain practical result 
 until I have empirically arrived at a method of obtaining a certain 
 result for an uncertain length of time, Chauveau has found a definite 
 means of obtaining it with reference to the bacillus anthracis. 
 
 That the chemical nutrition method is the one by which practical 
 results will eventually be obtained goes without question; but it re- 
 mains for the chemist alone to really discover and perfect it. 
 
 The discovery of Hueppe and Wood regarding bacillus anthracis 
 finds its confirmation in many diseases of extra-organismal origin, and 
 explains that heretofore mysterious condition known as "acclimatiza- 
 tion" in diseases of this character, such as yellow fever, southern cat- 
 tle plague, etc. In these cases the specific germs, in a saprophytic or 
 non-malignant condition, must have gained entrance to the individu- 
 als possessing this acclimatization immunity while they possessed this 
 prophylactic power, though not possessing the toxic or disease-produc- 
 ing. 
 
 That all these exogenous germs are, or can be, changed to sapro- 
 phytic, must be self-evident; and that their toxic or disease-producing 
 property is acquired by peculiar nutritive conditions in the soil which 
 they naturally inhabit, seems also equally clear. In fact, their acqui- 
 sition of disease-producing qualities is dependent upon the prolonged 
 saturation of the ground with the excreta of animal life or the de- 
 cayed products of animal tissues. The delicacy of the action of these 
 germs in different nutritive media is so little understood, and has en- 
 joyed so little experimentation, especially chemical investigation, that 
 we really know very little about it ; yet it is the open field of original 
 research which will eventually lead to success, and from which we can 
 only hope for decidedly practical results. 
 
 Why the swine plague virus should lose its virulent properties in 
 cattle, or even when cultivated in sterilized cattle urine, is a question 
 no one can decide at present. Why the germ of the corn fodder dis- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 223 
 
 ease should not be toxic to animals while still manifesting its presence 
 by specific lesions in green and growing corn, and only become toxic 
 when and after the leaves begin to wither and the chlorophyl suffers 
 chemical changes, are also questions of a nutritive nature, which can 
 only be elucidated by the most exact chemical investigations. 
 
 At one time in their existence all these organisms are saprophytic, 
 and again they become pathogenically toxic, all of which is determined 
 by the material they develop in. 
 
 This fact that pathogenic germs do produce a toxic or disease- 
 producing material and an immunity or resistance-giving substance 
 has been still more fully confirmed by the later researches of Breiger, 
 Kitisato, and Wasser.mann in the investigations "Ueber Immunity 
 and Gift-festigung" published in the Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 12, 
 p. 137, 1892. They say : " Our experiences with the germs of cholera 
 (Asiatic) and tetanus justify us, we think, in formulating the axiom, 
 that the toxic and immunity -producing principles are two entirely differ- 
 ent things" (p. 162); and again; "by the repetition of these experi- 
 ments we found, almost without exception, the existence of the protect- 
 ive power in the less virulent cultures in contrast to the virulent " (p. 
 163). 
 
 It will be seen, by referring to my own remarks again, that I said 
 that "Vaccination gives the best possible example of this condition, that 
 is, that the protective properties of a virus have no relation whatever to 
 its virulence." In other words, that virulence is what we desire to get 
 rid of entirely and to strengthen and retain this resisting product in 
 our artificial cultures. I called attention to the fact that the " bovin- 
 ation of small-pox," which is vaccina in the cow, had brought this 
 about to the utmost perfection, as a virus to prevent small-pox, with- 
 out an intelligent act on the part of man in the first place. 
 
 As usual, the authors of the publications of the Agricultural De- 
 partment find it necessary to contradict this statement, and with their 
 usual reckless inconsistency with regard to previous statements of 
 their own. In this ''Bulletin No. 8" they say: 
 
 Some breeders have advocated inoculation on the ground that vac- 
 cination had been found efficacious in preventing small-pox in the human 
 subject, and that, consequently, inoculation should be an equally reli- 
 able preventive of hog cholera. In reaching this conclusion they 
 overlook two very important facts. In the first place there are com- 
 municable diseases, such as tuberculosis, from which no immunity can 
 
224 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 be acquired, either from vaccination, inoculation, or an attack of the 
 disease contracted by ordinary exposure. It is therefore impossible to 
 decide such a question by reasoning from one disease to another. The 
 matter of immunity must be determined by observations with each 
 particular disease. In the second place, the effects of inoculation and 
 vaccination are radically different. The vaccine virus, as used in the 
 prevention of small-pox, is not the virus of small-pox, but of a different 
 and distinct disease. It produces a mild disease in cattle, and an 
 equally mild disease in 'people. It never assumes a malignant and fatal 
 character either in cattle or people. For this reason it can be used 
 with safety. Before vaccination was discovered, however, inocula- 
 tion with small-pox virus was sometimes used, but its results were 
 uncertain and often fatal. 
 
 Just how reliable the following quotation is I cannot say, but can 
 see no reason for doubting it. If true it puts a clincher on the gov- 
 ernment's statements as to variola and vaccina being different diseases. 
 The Medical Record, August 6, 1892, copying from the British Medical 
 Journal says: "Dr. T. "W. Heim has successfully transformed small- 
 pox into cow-pox by inoculating a calf with variolous lymph" (p. 164). 
 
 If swine plague is not a "non-recurrent" disease then nature is a 
 liar. Tuberculosis is not a "non-recurrent" disease. Such reasoning is 
 pure humbug. Let us quote one passage again to be sure of our ground : 
 "The vaccine virus as used in the prevention of small-pox is not the 
 virus of small-pox, but of an entirely different disease." Let us see 
 what these same authors said on that very subject in earlier reports: 
 
 In the following chapter the results of our experiments with the 
 vaccine (Pasteur's) will be given in detail, and from them it will be 
 seen that it does not prevent swine plague for the simple reason that the 
 vaccine of one disease cannot protect against another. (1885, p. 187.) 
 
 Again : 
 
 The above experiments with Pasteur's vaccine, do not, in our opin- 
 ion, therefore disprove the protective power of Pasteur's vaccine over 
 rouget, but simply shoio that the vaccine for one disease will not protect 
 against another. (1885, p. 194.) 
 
 For the same reasons preventive measures applicable to one cannot 
 be applied to another if there are differences in the microbes that cause 
 the disease. (1888, p. 193.) 
 
 What more evidence do we need that "consistency is (not) a jewel" 
 known to Mr. Rusk or his advisers. On the other hand, we have 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 225 
 
 some very competent observers who have come to the same conclusions 
 that we have, such as: 
 
 Each of the tested varieties of serum protected only against the species 
 of bacteria which the animals were made immune by from which the 
 serum was derived. It had no value against infection due to other 
 forms of bacteria. (Klemperer: Ueber die Heilung von Infectious 
 Kranhheiten. Berlin, Klin. Woch., 1892, No. 18, p. 422.) 
 
 It was demonstrated that the concentrated fluid possessed exactly the 
 properties of the original fluid: it is not toxic, but produces immunity. 
 (Klemperer: Ueber die Heilung von Infectious Kranhheiten. Berlin, 
 Klin. Woch., 1892, p. 423.) 
 
 Probably different substances are produced by bacteria in their de- 
 velopment, of which some in proper quantity are suitable and can be 
 used to produce immunity, while the others are only injurious. (Roux 
 on Immunity, International Congress of Hygiene. Deutsche Med. 
 Woch., No. 16, p. 362, 1892.) 
 
 This evidence is sufficient to show that we are on the right track 
 and that a number of experienced investigators in Europe have come 
 to the same conclusions and are working in the same direction. 
 
 THE PEOPHYLACTIC POWER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN CULTURES 
 OF THE SWINE PLAGUE GERM FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME. 
 
 It has been said that the bovination of small-pox, that is, the trans- 
 mission originally of small-pox to milk cows and then from cow to cow 
 by the milkers, eventually produced vaccina, a variola absolutely with- 
 out virulence, — for a vaccinated child is not a source of danger among 
 unvaccinated children, — but which had the protective power to fully as 
 reliable a degree as the small-pox itself gives to those who may recover 
 from it on a second exposure to natural infection. Man has nothing to 
 do, intelligently, in bringing about this great blessing. He has only 
 carried on the work which nature did, using the milkers as mere passive 
 tools. Thus far we have been absolutely unable to repeat this lesson 
 with the cultures of the germs of non-recurrent disease for any definite 
 period in our laboratories. The nutrition we offer such germs in our 
 laboratories and our methods of treatment are so unnatural that they 
 soon cease to produce this immunity or resistance-producing element, 
 whatever it may be. As to the toxic or disease-producing element of the 
 germ, it seems as if we could keep that up almost indefinitely ; at least 
 15 
 
226 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 for some species of small animals, though, as I have shown, my culture 
 of the swine plague germ from 1888, while it still retains its primal 
 virulence in rabbits, possesses little or none for hogs, showing the 
 fallacy of small animal tests as a reliance for effects in an original spe- 
 cies of animals in which a disease occurs as a natural infection. 
 
 As regards the germ of swine plague, I know that it is a faculatative 
 parasite ; that its native home is in certain kinds of soil under certain 
 climatic conditions, and that the porcine organism is really an unnat- 
 ural habitat for it, though it can be parasitic therein and produce 
 most damaging results, as is too well known. I think, that could we 
 find the germ in a non-virulent condition for swine, direct in the 
 soil, that we should find that it possessed the desired prevention- 
 producing properties in optima forma. To be sure this is an a 
 priori hypothesis, but we have much evidence in favor of it. In 
 the first place, let me recall Hueppe and Wood's experience with that 
 germ which they obtained from the soil that so resembled bacillus 
 anthracis that they could not distinguish the two germs by any means 
 of laboratory differentiation. This germ had no effect even when 
 inoculated in small animals most susceptible to anthrax, and yet it ren- 
 dered them immune to the action of the most virulent cultures of bacil- 
 lus anthracis. "Will any one assert that that germ was not bacillus 
 anthracis in a non-malignant state? Now, bacillus anthracis, like 
 the germ of swine plague, is a faculatative parasite ; its natural home 
 is the earth of certain localities, many of which have become so preg- 
 nant with death to cattle and other susceptible animals that they are 
 known as " anthrax centers." We also know that the germ which 
 produces one disease does not produce any chemical product that can 
 protect against another. Such a thing is too absolutely unnatural to 
 be worthy of consideration. Though we have vainly sought and at 
 times thought that we have found a combative destructiveness in the 
 products of two germs introduced into the same organisms, one dis- 
 ease-producing and the other not, because such things can be seen in 
 our cultures, yet no practical results have been obtained in that direc- 
 tion thus far, though such may be found in some cases in the future. 
 This is an entirely different question, however. There is one which 
 apparently offers far more sure and practical results. Whether one of 
 the two kinds of products now known to be produced by pathogenic 
 germs or another, we do know that, like all other living organisms, 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 227 
 
 germs do produce a something which, when accumulated in sufficient 
 quantities in fluid cultures, is death to themselves. This promises the 
 .possibility of a cure. That the nutrition is not used up, as has often 
 been assumed, is shown by the fact that other species of germs in- 
 troduced into the same bouillon, after the death of the first variety, 
 has been proven by suitable tests, develop for a time as well as in 
 fresh media to which no other germs have been added. 
 
 As further evidence going to show that the germs of swine plague 
 have their full protective power in the earth is the fact that the longer 
 they remain in the hog the less their protective power, hence the rule: 
 virus must be taken from a fresh outbreak, and the most recently dis- 
 eased hog in the outbreak, in order to obtain any positive degree of 
 success. Another very singular thing is, that virus made from an 
 unusually malignant outbreak, one in which all the hogs are sick 
 at once and when nearly all die about as quickly, has little or no pro- 
 tective power. This is shown by the practical though seldom ex- 
 perience of a hog having the disease twice. Careful questioning of the 
 most observant hog-raiser will bring out the fact that such hogs were 
 -one or two left out of such outbreaks as above described, and the 
 same kind of questioning will also bring out the equally valuable fact 
 that the less acutely malignant the outbreak, the greater the number 
 of recoveries, the slower the course of the disease, the more abso- 
 solute is the non-recurrent condition produced; hence, the need of a 
 second inoculation. 
 
 Now, then, these statements being facts, until we know a better way, 
 or can more closely approach the nutrition offered by the natural soil 
 where the germs live, there is but one way open to us, and that is to 
 obtain our virus as close to its natural home as possible, and that is 
 from afresh attacked hog and afresh outbreak, and one not too malig- 
 nant. In my directions I said last summer, "one not killing over 50 
 per cent." That is not quite correct, because in the end the fatality in 
 slow progressing outbreaks, from secondary complications, may be 
 quite large, and more than that, I shoidd have said not to take virus 
 from an acutely malignant outbreak such as mentioned above, which 
 gives little or no protection , but is too virubnt to use. 
 
 The chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry has said: 
 
 The results already obtained demonstrate the danger of spreading 
 the disease by inoculation and particularly by the method -used and 
 recommended by Billings. — (London Live Stock Journal.) 
 
228 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 A Dr. von Mansfelde, of Ashland, Neb., who dares not meet me in 
 open discussion, also wrote privately to a gentleman regarding my 
 method, that it was unscientific, and as the method which he recom- 
 mends is that of the authorities I will quote a few lines : 
 
 As to Billings' inoculation, he is teaching the farmers a cheap 
 method without much expense for apparatus [Is not that a most de- 
 sirable thing to attempt? B.] Allow me to say that I have suggested 
 a far more cheap and inexpensive method. 
 
 The exposure of healthy hogs in outbreaks is the method recom- 
 mended by this M. D., who neither advises the selection of the out- 
 break, nor seems to know that in all such exposures the amount of 
 germs taken into the exposed organism is unlimited. The losses of 
 the country from swine plague show what would be the result of fol- 
 lowing such nonsensical proposition. This egotistical follower of 
 Esculapius goes on to tell his correspondent " What is a modified 
 virus? Well it is not gained by transmission through animals only. 
 The application of higher or lower temperature, for a longer or shorter 
 time, subjection to such chemical agents as carbolic acid or bichromate 
 of potash; acidity or alkalinity of culture liquids; the abstraction or 
 addition of oxygen, and other gases; the use of blood of animals, or 
 its serum, refractory, or made refractory artificially, and other means 
 simple or complex in their character and application, enter into the 
 formation of modified virus." So "a modified virus is not gained by 
 transmission through animals only." The learned physician does not 
 seem to know that the only constantly reliable virus is one freshly 
 taken from the animal — vaccina. He would parade his great knowl- 
 edge of the methods by which investigators have attempted to pro- 
 duce modified viruses, and as a scientific fact have done so, but seems 
 to be entirely ignorant of the fact that every one of these methods 
 have utterly failed, and are not to be relied on when put to the prac- 
 cal test, unless we except Pasteur's anti-rabies virus, which is a thera- 
 peutic and not a prophylactic remedy, and of which we really know 
 less than we do of any other material we use in investigating, because 
 we do not know the germ. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Agriculture recom- 
 mended, or said, that the "strongest or freshest virus could be injected 
 with immunity," in 1888, and in 1891 contradicted itself and prac- 
 ticed heat-mitigation for " more than 200 days," still I must say that 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 229 
 
 the very closest study of their reports fails to show me one single case 
 where a fresh uuattenuated virus has been once used in their attempts. 
 One honest experiment of two inoculations made loith virus taken from 
 an outbreak of surely not over one week's duration, and if possible from 
 the last pig taken sick, will invariably give protection if used as quickly 
 as a fair development takes place in the bouillon. The government says 
 this method is dangerous and unreliable. The state of Nebraska says 
 it is not, by retaining me in position. We have tried it and never 
 failed, where all the conditions to success have been fulfilled. We 
 cannot always meet them. In no case has it injured an animal, all 
 assertions to the contrary. The secretary of agriculture says it is a 
 failure, but it has never been tried by his men and so he knows noth- 
 ing about it. The individual from Ashland, Neb., infers it is not 
 scientific because it is not an artificial method, which clearly shows 
 he does not know what science is. 
 
 Science is the endeavor to discover and follow nature's methods of 
 doing things and to apply them to the needs of man. 
 
 If we discover the natural method and can exactly reproduce it, we 
 cannot but succeed. Failure is impossible. The closer we keep to a 
 natural method the surer we are of success. The more we depart from 
 it the more liable we are to failure. It is self-evident that we cannot 
 always adhere so close to nature. 
 
 Let us apply this logic to inoculation as a preventive against swine 
 plague from the etiological point of view here presented. There cau 
 be no dispute that swine plague is a " non-recurrent disease." Hence, 
 if the same method by which nature produces "non-recurrence" can 
 be followed, we must also produce this "non-recurrent" condition in 
 inoculated swine. We cannot find the germ in the non-virulent soil 
 at present and inoculate directly into hogs, or even the mildly viru- 
 lent one which gives the greatest degree of non-recurrence to protected 
 hogs, so we do the next best thing possible; we use the germ from 
 the least virulent outbreaks, as close to its earthy home as possible ; 
 that is, we take it from the hog just as quickly as he gives evidence that 
 he is infected; and to assure ourselves of this point to the best possible 
 degree, we take the animal last taken sick in an outbreak of the fewest 
 possible days duration. We find by several hundred severe farm tests 
 that this method only has given success. Hence, it is as near scien- 
 tific as we can at present make it, for it is the nearest approach to 
 
230 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 natural infection possible, because the germs have been in other condi- 
 tions than those of their natural earthy home, the shortest time possi- 
 ble. We need go no farther than the experiments made by the 
 government investigators to find that all and every artificial treatment 
 of the germ has robbed it of this desired protection-producing power. 
 They admit total failure and so we need not discuss those methods. 
 
 It must be repeated that no one unacquainted with the facts can 
 have any idea of the vast numbers of experiments that have been 
 made before we have arrived at the knowledge that success was only 
 obtained in one way. In fact, scientific success is always arrived at by ? 
 seeking the causes of failure and eliminating them one by one as we 
 proceed. Not only did we have to test hogs from every kind of an 
 outbreak, but at every stage in the outbreaks and every stage of the 
 disease in individual animals, in order to find out within what narrow 
 limits we are at present obliged to work in order to succeed. But 
 more than that. Experience soon taught us that the limits were 
 even narrower than we supposed. Having found out that a virus 
 made from the most recently attacked hog in an outbreak of not over 
 a week's duration and of not too acutely virulent type would give 
 success, we had to learn, by failures also, that only the first generation 
 of a bouillon culture, and that generation never over a week old, could 
 be securely depended on to produce reliable resistance to natural infec- 
 tion. 
 
 We found that a second transfer to fresh bouillon was not any- 
 wheres as near reliable as the first; that a third had but little value, 
 and that a fourth was useless ; that is, weekly transfers to fresh bou- 
 illon, though the virulence, as tested in rabbits, remained standard all 
 the time. So, at present, he who would succeed can only do so by 
 using a virus made from the most recently attacked hog in a very 
 fresh outbreak, and then twice inoculate his healthy hogs, if possible, 
 when the culture is three or four days old, though, unless frozen, it 
 can be relied on up to the seventh day of development. While freez- 
 ing seems to have no effect on the virulence of a culture of this germ 
 it absolutely ruins their production of the prophylactic principle. 
 
 It has been said that a virus made from a hog sick over a week is 
 unreliable, that the nutrition offered the germs by the porcine organ- 
 ism even in that short time nullifies their prophylactic power. We 
 do not know why this is. It is simply a bare fact supported by nu- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 231 
 
 rnerous failures. Of course such a statement is not to be taken as a 
 cast-iron law; the time will naturally vary somewhat. No more do we 
 know why a virus made from the occasionally acutely malignant out- 
 breaks gives little or no protection. We know the fact again by fail- 
 ures, and the more striking fact, that it is in the recovered hogs from 
 such outbreaks that we find those cases of second infection which are 
 so very rare as to be the proof of the rule of the non-recurrent char- 
 acter of the disease. In the same line comes another striking experi- 
 ence, which is, that a virus made from an inoculated hog that does not 
 withstand exposure to natural infection will not produce immunity, 
 while one made from a freshly attacked hog in the earliest stages of 
 the same outbreak will give it. In this consideration I cannot give 
 all the details of the various failures and controls which have demon- 
 strated these points so conclusively that they may be looked upon as 
 reliable. I am now simply giving results and the causes thereof, as 
 far as I know them, for the benefit of the public and other investi- 
 gators, if there are any in this country who are unbiased enough to be 
 willing to profit by an experience which now extends over six years 
 of continuous study of this one question. 
 
 THE NEBRASKA METHOD THE ONLY ONE BY WHICH TO BEGIN 
 
 INOCULATION. 
 
 The farmers of the country who may read this, and particularly 
 the editors of the agricultural press, should firmly impress two things 
 in their minds: 
 
 First — That swine plague is a non-recurrent disease. 
 
 Second — This being so, whether another and better method for pre- 
 ventive inoculation may be found, that the Nebraska method is not only 
 the nearest possible approach to that by which nature produces the non- 
 recurrent coudition in swine, but that until inoculation has proven to be 
 possible and practical by this method, there is no use or indication for 
 trying for another and better one. 
 
 This should be self-evident to every reader who has any intelligence. 
 I once had great confidence that some method would be found by 
 which the chemical product that produces this non-recurrent condition 
 could be isolated, and for that reason, and in the hope that its prom- 
 ises would lead to the earlier establishment of a suitable laboratory in 
 Nebraska and a competent corps of works once objected, as noted by 
 
232 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 the government, in going on too fast with the present method, because the 
 chemical method would entirely remove the only rational objection to 
 the present method, the undoubted fact that we do resowthe ground with 
 the germ of swine plague ; but it is well known that we have a most 
 strict instruction,, that no hogs will be inoculated save on farms where 
 the disease has previously prevailed. We shall allude to this again. 
 When, however, I had more experience and found out the absolute im- 
 possibility of so feeding these germs in our artificial cultures as to re- 
 liably insure their producing the resistant principle in any culture but 
 the first generation direct from the properly selected sick hog, and 
 when I considered the immense amount of such chemical product 
 which would be required to fulfill the demand of the farmers, I at 
 once saw that could we even isolate it and demonstrate that it would 
 produce immunity, it would be next to impossible to produce enough 
 to meet the public demand. Hence, I truly believe that no other 
 method of preventive inoculation will ever be a practical possibility. 
 The investigators of the Agricultural Department have no other 
 way open to them than first to prove preventive inoculation exactly 
 by the "Billings method." Having done that successfully they may 
 be warranted in endeavoring, as we are, to improve on it; but until 
 they have repeated the natural method all attempts to find a chemical 
 method are a waste of the public funds and unwarranted. As in 
 1883, they are deceiving the public with promises that they cannot 
 practically fulfill. 
 
INOCULATION 
 
 NOT 
 
 DANGEROUS OR INJURIOUS 
 
 DONE AS DIRECTED. 
 
 (233) 
 
INOCULATION NOT DANGEROUS. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact of the complete failure of the government 
 investigators to make even one successful inoculation, because we have 
 succeeded, as we can demonstrate, in every case where the method 
 which we now state^ will succeed has been practiced, in order to decry 
 our success in those cases, which they cannot deny or nullify, they now 
 shout the terrible cry of danger, and not only do they publish cases 
 so that the inference which would be drawn by farmers is that inocu- 
 lation killed the hogs in such herds, but they refuse to publish testimony 
 which has been at their disposal, which positively demonstrates that in- 
 oculation could not have killed the hogs in the herds in question, but, as 
 has been shown, do publish, or fail to call attention to, contradictions in 
 their own published testimonials from hearsay correspondents who say 
 that hogs died in herds of men who never inoculated, and even in 
 herds that they themselves say "none" died, as in Mr. F. W. Lud- 
 don's case at Surprise. 
 
 Another case of the same nature is the following : 
 
 FAILURE OR INJURY AT TONICA, ILL., IN 1891. 
 
 It may also be stated that early in October, 1891, Mr. James Richey 
 of Tonica, La Salle county, 111., obtained virus from the Chicago 
 establishment organized by Dr. Billings. Mr. Richey inoculated 
 ninety animals, which in his words were "a first-class lot of young 
 healthy hogs." Nine days after inoculation they commenced to die 
 * * * The loss in this case was over 97 per cent. 
 
 That statement was printed notwithstanding the fact that I had 
 publicly contradicted it and shown it was impossible. The fact is, I 
 sent the virus from here to Mr. George A. Seaverns, of Chicago, who 
 sent on same day and date the same virus to this man Richey and to 
 R. C. Pointer, Pennington Point, 111., who used it on same day Richey 
 did, viz., October 9, 1891, some of the pigs being but ten days old. 
 As Mr. Pointer had inoculated several times previous to this and had 
 
 (235) 
 
236 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 some interesting experience I append his letter to me on the subject 
 with reference to the pigs inoculated October 9, as well as others: 
 
 Pennington Point, III., March 5, 1892. 
 Mr. Frank S. Billings. 
 
 Dear Sir: I at last acknowledge the receipt of your favor which I 
 received some time ago. In answer to it will say that the hogs I in- 
 oculated did well ; the spring pigs that were farrowed in March, 
 April, and May I sold in February out of the cattle yard and they 
 averaged 240 pounds; would have been heavier had they been fed in 
 the usual way. I got $4.55 per cwt. The small pigs I inoculated 
 were small for certain ; some were only ten days old. After they were 
 inoculated some thirty days, the cholera broke out in my neighbor's 
 hogs only about fifty rods from my hog lot, and my pigs went to their 
 pens and were in their pens with the sick hogs every day during the 
 outbreak and are doing well. I sold six small pigs, one to B. D. 
 Herndon, who took him home and turned him in with his hogs, when 
 they were dying at the rate of four to six per day ; he went through 
 all right, and is still all right. Sold one to Ed. Bell, of Bardolph : 
 said pig went through a bad outbreak of cholera, and is still all right. 
 I gave my married daughter a young sow last spring for brood pur- 
 poses, and she went through an unusually bad outbreak and was hearty 
 all the time and still is, and never showed a symptom of cholera. 
 When I began to inoculate, my neighbors made fun of me at first, but 
 they sold their hogs for $2 to $3 per cwt. when they weighed from 100 
 to 200 pounds, while I got $4.55 for mine, so the laugh is turned to 
 my side. Will say that if that offer of yours to instruct farmers to 
 make their own virus includes me, that I will surely go to Lincoln 
 and inform myself all I can, as I expect to inoculate all my hogs as 
 long as it works for me as it has the last two years. Wishing you 
 success. 
 
 Yours truly, R. C. Pointer. 
 
 The virus sent to Richey & Pointer was in the third generation and 
 was only sent to Mr. Seaverns, so no complaint would be made that it 
 could not be got. Subsequently I sent Mr. Pointer a second lot of 
 absolutely fresh virus, which he used on the same stock without injury, 
 as his letter shows, though he does not mention this second inocula- 
 tion. I may state that while at Ottawa several farmers who pretended 
 to know did tell me that "Richey's hogs were sick when inoculated," 
 which statement is corroborated by the facts. That the virus did not 
 hurt them is further proven from the fact as shown by my own rec- 
 ords, that the same virus was used fresh in Nebraska on 399 pigs and 
 hogs from one month to one year old, belonging to three different 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 237 
 
 farmers, and not one injured. The government could have been in- 
 formed had it had any desire to be honest in this matter. In conclu- 
 sion let me say that we are going ahead this year as usual, that every 
 endeavor will be used to induce farmers to receive instructions aud to 
 force them to make their own virus and do their own inoculation, and 
 we shall win our way out in spite of all and every assertion to the 
 contrary. The government's opposition has fallen as dead as its po- 
 litical tools should lie, so far as Nebraska is concerned. 
 
 As further evidence of Mr. Pointer's success I have the following 
 letter of very late date: 
 
 Industry, III., July 13, 1892. 
 Dr. Billings, Lincoln, Neb. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have not received any circulars or papers of any 
 kind from Secretary Rusk. I should have answered just as I did 
 yours. I shall want to inoculate my pigs in about four or six weeks. 
 Will send to you for virus. Will be to see you some time this fall, as 
 it is impossible to leave my work at this time. 
 
 Yours, etc., R. C. Pointer. 
 
 As further evidence in the same direction, and not coming from 
 myself, for the " prominent farmer" alluded to is the Hon. Samuel C. 
 Bassett, of Gibbon, Neb., secretary of the State Dairymen's Associa- 
 tion, and one of those public-spirited farmers without whose aid I 
 could never have succeeded as well as I have, and one who has been 
 most decidedly interested in my work from my advent in Nebraska, I 
 append the following editorial from the Nebraska State Journal: 
 
 INOCULATION NOT DANGEROUS. 
 
 One of the most prominent farmers in central Nebraska calls the 
 attention of The Journal to an article in Rural Life, published at 
 Waterloo, la. Mr. C. L. Gabrielson, secretary of the Iowa Dairy As- 
 sociation, writes as follows in regard to inoculation for the swine 
 plague: 
 
 " ' Our state never suffered more from hog cholera than during last 
 fall and this winter. It is high time the state took some steps looking 
 toward relief. We think extermination must be resorted to at a gen- 
 eral expense.' 
 
 "So writes Director Wilson, and we ask: What has the Iowa ex- 
 periment station done to discover or follow up the claims of others in 
 this line of research? 
 
 "We listened to Dr. Billings' address before the Nebraska dairy- 
 men, during their recent meeting in Norfolk, Neb., and we have 
 
238 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 come home with the idea that Iowa could well afford to send a few 
 bright young men to the laboratory of the Nebraska university to be 
 instructed in the secret or art of preparing the virus and experiment 
 on hogs in our own state. There are good men and true over in that 
 state who believe in the Billings' system of inoculation as much as 
 they believe in the existence of Nebraska. 
 
 "If the Iowa experiment station folks are dancing to the 'Bureau 
 of Animal Industry' music in its quarrel with Dr. Billings, then so 
 much the worse for Iowa experiment station. Have they investigated 
 the Billings inoculation theory with his cultures? is a fair question to 
 ask. If they have tried the Billings method the results of their tests 
 have never been published that we know of. 
 
 "It is to be regretted that of the scientists it cannot be said: ' Be- 
 hold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in 
 unity.' The opposition of government officers to the Billings discov- 
 ery is to be regretted unless they can fairly demonstrate that it is use- 
 less or harmful and liable to spread rather than check the disease." 
 
 Our friend goes on to say : "Mr. Gabrielsou also incorporates in his 
 article Dr. Billings' method of making virus, which has already been 
 published in The Journal. Persons who are interested in the public 
 discussion in regard to inoculation will readily call to mind the As- 
 sociated Press dispatch from Washington published December 11 last, 
 wherein Dr. Salmon stated that statistics from Nebraska showed that 
 losses from hog cholera had been unusually heavy in the fall of 1891, 
 .aud also that there had been wholesale inoculation of hogs by the 
 Billings method in that state during the summer and fall of 1891, 
 ^ud evidently deliberately intending to convey the meaning that these 
 heavy losses were the direct result of the inoculations. In view of 
 the eiFort of Dr. Salmon to show that inoculation is a dangerous pro- 
 cedure and likely to cause heavy losses from cholera — in other words, 
 to perpetuate and spread the disease — the above quotation by Mr. Gab- 
 rielsou from Director Wilson, of the Iowa experiment station, is of 
 peculiar interest and worth repeating. 
 
 "Director Wilson writes: 'Our state (Iowa) never suffered more 
 from hog cholera than during last fall and this winter. It is high 
 time that the state took some steps looking toward relief. We think 
 extermination must be resorted to at general expense.' No one, not 
 even Dr. Salmon himself, can claim that the losses in Iowa were due 
 to inoculation, and yet the same state of affairs, as regards losses from 
 cholera, existed in Iowa as was said to exist in Nebraska. As regards 
 the losses from cholera the past year in Nebraska, in the opinion of 
 the writer they have been greatly overestimated. This opinion is 
 based upon travels the past fall and winter in fifteen of the most pop- 
 ulous counties of the state and in attendance at farmers' institutes and 
 like meetings for the discussion of matters relating to agriculture, and 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 239 
 
 from information gained at such meetings it does not appear that 
 losses from cholera have been anything like as heavy in these counties 
 as in previous years. It is also true that in none of these travels or 
 at none of the meetings mentioned has the writer ever heard it 
 charged, either directly or indirectly, that inoculation was the cause of 
 the spread of the disease, or that the disease or losses therefrom could 
 be traced to inoculated hogs. Every intelligent farmer knows that 
 hog cholera flourished before inoculation was known and continues to 
 flourish, but not because of inoculation." 
 
 Of all the men who have had hogs inoculated, Mr. Hess of Sur- 
 prise, Neb., is the only one who positively asserts that inoculation did 
 it, and this he does because he said so before. 
 
 In relation to Mr. Gabrielson's remarks as to the relation of the 
 Iowa experiment station to inoculation the following letter and com- 
 ments may prove interesting to my Iowa readers : 
 
 Veterinary Department, 
 Iowa Agricultural College, Jan. 25, 1892. 
 Dear Sir: Your letter came to hand in due time. In regard to 
 his (Billings') inoculations I will say that I have no doubt but what 
 it is a success in many cases; neither do I doubt but what in some 
 cases it will produce fatal cholera, thus originating an outbreak. I 
 do not believe that farmers themselves are the proper ones to make 
 the inoculation. I have several experiments to make with virus of 
 different kinds as soon as opportunity offers. 
 
 Very truly yours, W. B. Niles, 
 
 Professor of Surgery and Obstetrics. 
 
 The above letter is in my hands in the original. Certainly since 
 January 25, 1892, time enough has elapsed for tests of virus already 
 prepared. Let me say this, as it is admitted that I do succeed "in 
 many cases," the first and only honest way to proceed, on the part of 
 any one else, is to proceed as I have so fully directed and by the methods 
 which have brought on the success which has been so far achieved. 
 The fact is, not one of the opponents of inoculation has as yet, so far 
 as I know, correctly and honestly repeated the methods by which in- 
 oculation has succeeded in Nebraska and elsewhere. They have all 
 been most diligent in using the methods of artificial attenuation, which 
 have invariably failed in my hands and therefore have been abso- 
 lutely condemned. Less jealousy of me and more honesty toward the 
 public would be more becoming in persons who are as much in the 
 public service as I am. 
 
240 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 THE MALICIOUS DISHONESTY OF THE DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULT- 
 URE SHOWN BY ITS COMPARISON OF LOSSES IN INOCULATED 
 HOGS WITH THE PREVALENCE OF THE DISEASE IN THE BAL- 
 ANCE OF NEBRASKA IN 1891. 
 
 If we deduct from the total number inoculated, as given by Dr. 
 Billings' statement (2,952), the number contained in the herds that 
 were said to be diseased when inoculated (394), we have remaining 
 2,558 as the number inoculated which had not previously been ex- 
 posed. Among these it is admitted that the loss from inoculation and 
 exposure amounted to 198, or 7f per cent. This is nearly twice the 
 average loss from all diseases of swine in the state of Nebraska for 
 the year 1891, which is given as 4 per cent by the statistical division 
 of his department. If we correct this statement and make it accord 
 with the letters received by the department from the owners of the 
 inoculated herds, which letters are given in this bulletin, we must add 
 the herd of John Campbell, which evidently was not infected before 
 inoculation, but which plainly contracted the disease from the oper- 
 ation. We should also add to the losses the 2 belonging to W. Rot- 
 ton, which died from exposure to cholera, the 10 belonging to Henry 
 Dan, which probably contracted the disease from the inoculation, and 
 the 3 belonging to W. E. Dietericks. This would give a total of 
 2,643 healthy hogs inoculated and a loss of 273, or more than 10 per 
 cent. This loss is two and a half times the average loss of the state 
 for the year from all diseases. — (Bulletin No. 8.) 
 
 Nothing can better demonstrate the fallacy of the position of Mr. 
 Rusk and his advisers than the statement made above. Mr. R. M. 
 Allen, of the Standard Cattle Company, Ames, Neb., writes me, " that 
 statement alone is sufficient to show the unreliability of the bulletin." 
 The absolute unreliability of his evidence, as given by his correspond- 
 ents in various parts of Nebraska, has been conclusively shown. Were 
 Mr. Rusk's statistics worth the paper they are printed on, did he de- 
 sire to give the honest facts in the case, his statistics must have first 
 shown that at least for six years there has not only never been so few 
 hogs in the states but also so little cholera as in the fall and winter of 
 1 891-92. Again, had he had reliable information from every county 
 in Nebraska, he would have discovered that, almost without excep- 
 tion, inoculation was only performed in those counties and districts 
 where the disease was prevailing to an alarming extent at the very 
 time the owners sent for virus. The only honest way, then, would have 
 been to compare the loss in the inoculated herds with those in uninocu- 
 lated herds in their immediate vicinity. It was not honest to ignore 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 241 
 
 my own statement, and infer if not assert, for it makes no difference 
 with the average farmer, who would only see the loss, that the losses 
 in herds I reported diseased at the time, or which come down within 
 twenty days after inoculation, were due to that, when, as has been 
 shown, large numbers of hogs inoculated at the same time with the 
 same virus were absolutely uninjured. It was due to the farmers, if 
 not to this station, to have made inquiries here, and published the en- 
 tire facts. 
 
 Take, for instance, the inoculations done at Axtell, Neb., by Mr. 
 Ernest Schaff, who inoculated for 
 
 D. E. Pamblade, 73 head; none sick until after January 1 ; loss, 30. 
 
 Gustav Lundren, 77 head; none sick; no loss. 
 
 Gustav Johnson, 89 head; inoculated September 28; sick October 
 25 ; loss, 40. 
 
 , Taking those who lost, neither lost 50 per cent, while Mr. Schaff 
 reports to me, "Adjoining farms, all around the inoculated ones, lost 
 95 per cent of their hogs. No hogs were hurt by inoculation." 
 That puts an entirely different shade on the story, which is increased 
 when we know the whole facts. My records show that the Pamblade 
 and Lundren hogs were first inoculated September 21, 1891, merely 
 to satisfy the demand with that virus obtained from Diller, Neb., Au- 
 gust 8, which I knew would not protect and which, as can be seen, for 
 some delay, probably by the express, was not used, at least as soon as it 
 should have-been. This is the virus which the reliable informants of 
 the department claim killed the state farm hogs inoculated August 12, 
 1891. Now again, this case is doubly interesting, for the second in- 
 oculation of these hogs was done with a virus in the second genera- 
 tion (Mr. Pamblade's) and with one (Mr. Lundren's) made from the 
 farm inoculated and at the same time naturally infected hogs, and by 
 this, and another experiment made to control this second one, we found 
 out that a virus from such a hog, or a hog previously inoculated and 
 not protected, is next to useless as a preventive virus. We had no idea 
 of this fact at the time. Mr. Lundren's hogs were doubtless not ex- 
 posed for some reason. For the same reason Mr. Johnson's hogs did 
 not stand as they otherwise surely would, for they only received one in- 
 oculation of the second generation from the state farm hogs, and now 
 we know that a second generation is also unreliable. These statements 
 are not made as excuses for failure, but to show their causes, that 
 16 
 
242 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 others may avoid them. We purposely used but one inoculation, in 
 general, last year; hereafter we shall invariably use two. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that while my experiences before my re- 
 turn to Nebraska in 1891 had led me to suspect the various causes of 
 failures here stated, that it was not until then that I had opportunity 
 to exactly demonstrate them by experiment, and that the only field 
 for experiment open to me was public iuoculations on the farms, so 
 that on beginning inoculations in August, 1891, I determined to sys- 
 tematically prove or disprove these points, no matter at what danger 
 of a temporary misjudgment on the part of the public. Further- 
 more, I could not come to any conclusions as to results until all my 
 returns were in, which was not until about February 1, 1892, my let- 
 ters of inquiry being sent out January 12, 1892. I did not intend 
 making any report until I had had time to fully tabulate all my ex- 
 periences since 1886, with every kind of virus ; history of the out- 
 breaks from which the sick hogs yielding the virus was taken ; with 
 autopsy notes of each hog used, showing the time it had been sick, with 
 the effect of the time the germs were in the hog on the preventive 
 power of the virus, and lastly, the effects of time in artificial (bou- 
 illon) cultures on losing the preventive power in such cultures. Any 
 one at all acquainted with such work can readily see the vast amount 
 of labor it would require; but with other demands on me constantly 
 coming up it has thus far been impossible to begin it, particularly as 
 the regents have demanded a revision of my bulletins, with the re- 
 sults of recent researches, to be made ready as soon as possible. On 
 the other hand, I cannot see what interest such tables would have to 
 any one but certain investigators, the above statement of the results 
 being all the public desires and really all that is necessary for the 
 guidance of other investigators. Of course there may have been 
 other unknown factors at work as the cause of the failures that have 
 been hypothecated, but in this publication I have endeavored to give 
 the conditions under which failures of any kind have occurred as well 
 as the only conditions under which absolute success has been attained. 
 
 The accusation that the hogs inoculated by Mr. Cadwell at Ottawa, 
 111., were not only killed by the inoculation, and were the cause of 
 extending the disease to the other hogs in that experiment, and the 
 government's warning of the terrible dangers of our method, caused 
 me to publish the table of inoculations issued last winter, but only 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 243 
 
 such parts as do show to any unbiased observer that not a hog was 
 injured by inoculation. In justice to myself I must say that this cry 
 of "danger" has caused such a prejudice against me that I have not 
 only found it very difficult to get sick pigs sent to me to obtain virus 
 from, but still more the kind I wanted, because the disease is not al- 
 ways so obliging as to appear in the localities where my most intelli- 
 gent supporters and inoculators live, and I have had to use hogs for 
 virus at times to meet the public demand which had been ill longer 
 than I desired, and to thus take risks of failures otherwise unneces- 
 sary, though at the same time new confirmation of my conclusions as 
 to the causes of partial or complete failure have been accumulated- 
 Let me say again, that I have not yet been able to establish the safe 
 maximal dose to prevent and not injure for little pigs under a month 
 old, but we are approaching it. 
 
 In connection with the loss of the preventive power in other gen- 
 erations than the first, and proportionally, I have one very instruct- 
 ive failure made with the fourth generation of the most reliable virus 
 sent out last fall in the first generation. This case did not come to 
 Mr. Rusk's knowledge, the owner writing that " he did not answer 
 Mr. Rusk's questions, knowing the use that would be made of them." 
 This was the only total failure made in the inoculations of 1891, and 
 was in the hogs of Mr. W. S. Brown, Fairmont, Neb. The fourth 
 generation was sent to Mr. Brown because we had no other at the 
 time, and it was absolutely impossible to get a hog sent to us that had 
 not been sick too long to use, though we condemned six before the 
 natural disease broke out' in Mr. Brown's hogs. Mr. Brown inocu- 
 lated 109 head September 18, 1891, and writes, "I return the instru- 
 ments. Cholera is on all sides of me and the probability is that it will 
 be a failure. I have a number of hogs and shoats already sick with what 
 I call the measles; some have been that way for two weeks." As the 
 first generation of the culture proved to be absolutely reliable, even 
 in cases where farmers purposely exposed their hogs, this failure of 
 the fourth generation is of inestimable value as confirming the now 
 known fact that the virus completely loses its protective power in a 
 fourth generation of weekly transfers from the original. 
 
 My reports not having come in, and having therefore not had the 
 opportunity of making these invaluable comparisons, and it havino- been 
 hinted by the Washington authorities that I knew the weather was 
 
244 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 getting unsuitable for inoculation ■ on account of its coldness, and hence 
 did my best to delay the work at Ottawa, all of which is untrue, I 
 determined to try the effects of cold weather on inoculated hogs, and 
 thereby unintentionally obtained two valuable results in one. I 
 have said that virus cannot be relied on when taken from an inocu- 
 lated hog that succumbs to the disease later on, and that I did not 
 know this until I had had time to compare the results of my work. I 
 have referred to the virus made from the inoculated farm hogs with 
 the Diller virus, which I knew would not protect, and that succumbed 
 to natural infection. That case was not clear enough, because the state 
 farm pigs come down with the natural disease about two weeks after 
 inoculation, so I determined to try it over again with an inoculated 
 animal in which all the effects of the inoculation has unquestionably 
 passed away and with a virus that had unquestionably given protec- 
 tion to the older hogs of the same herd. It has also been mentioned 
 that it is still a matter of delicate experiment to fix the maximal 
 amount of a single dose for quite young pigs that will prevent and 
 still not injure or cause serious disease. 
 
 Desiring to see further and more decidedly whether my suspicion 
 was well founded that virus from an inoculated hog that had entirely 
 gotteu over the inoculation, and in which there was no possibility of 
 the inoculated germs being present, and also to try the effects of cold 
 weather, and having demands for virus, I sent for a pig'inoculated in 
 September, 1891, in which disease appeared in January, 1892, and 
 the following herds were inoculated January 8, 1892: 
 J. E. Brown, Wyoming, Neb., (65 four months old, 23 one year 
 
 old) 88 
 
 A. R. Keim, Falls City, Neb., (five months old) 29 
 
 D. A. Baker, Ashland, Neb., (average nine months old) 110 
 
 J. E. Roe, Jansen, Neb., (two months old) 137 
 
 S. L. Furlong, Rock Bluff; Neb., (five months old) 40 
 
 John Morgan, Lincoln, Neb., (two mouths old) 17 
 
 Spencer Day, North Bend, Neb., (four months old) 17 
 
 Fred Schraeder, Lawrence, Neb., (seven months old) 105 
 
 J. I. Boyer, Denver, Col., (two months old) 50 
 
 526 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 245 
 
 For ten days immediately following the inoculation the thermome- 
 ter ranged from 20° to 30° below zero. Now, here is a case for the 
 government to claim that the inoculation did some damage, for it is 
 exactly similar to the celebrated Surprise case. 
 
 Mr. Brown, of Wyoming, writes, "the pigs were mostly in fine 
 condition when inoculated, and were in good quarters, yet they would 
 pile up and the mortality was 50 per cent in the small pigs and 25 per 
 cent in the large hogs. I would say that, in my opinion, the deaths 
 were occasioned entirely by suffocation caused by the piling up." 
 
 Mr. J. E. Roe lost six of his 137 two months old pigs from piling 
 up, otherwise not one of the 526 ever showed any injury. 
 
 Now the question is, was it the " piling up" or the inoculation 
 which caused the disease in Mr. Brown's, for they came down sick 
 immediately after being inoculated. As none of the othews were af- 
 fected at all under exactly similar conditions, and as the disease was 
 very prevalent in Mr. Brown's vicinity at the time, it seems to me 
 nothing but rational judgment to assume that they were in the process 
 of natural infection when inoculated, though the "piling up" in the 
 extreme cold weather may have increased the mortality. 
 
 A loss of six two-months-old pigs in such a large herd as Mr. Roe's 
 under such extremely cold conditions is a very small loss and shows 
 unusually good care. How can we explain the absolute exemption of 
 the others from any symptoms of illness under the same conditions? 
 I think that settles the fact that hogs can be inoculated safely in 
 extreme cold weather, though I don't advise it, as freezing seems to 
 entirely nullify the power of the germs to produce this protective 
 principle, though whatever virulence there may be in a culture is un- 
 affected. The cold weather problem was quickly settled so far as 
 producing an ill effect itself in inoculated hogs, but the value of the 
 virus from a hog that had succumbed to natural disease months 
 after inoculation could not be settled so quickly, and only the other 
 day Mr. Roe wrote me that what I expected might be the case was in 
 reality a fact; his pigs did not stand at all. So here is the necessary 
 proof. Never use a hog that has been inoculated and later on suc- 
 cumbs to natural infection to obtain virus from. The cause of this 
 must be sought in the hog and some effect on the natural germs ; that 
 is, exerted on them by the previous inoculation in hogs that directly 
 acquire the disease that have not been inoculated. 
 
246 
 
 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 So 
 * a 
 
 g-d 
 
 |5 
 
 ■a 5 
 .SP9 
 
 *Sh 
 
 O 0> 
 
 o Sit 
 
 ft SO 
 
 a S 
 
 V CO 
 
 -d 
 o> 
 
 2"3 
 
 5 ° 
 
 
 3 bo 
 
 O O 
 
 Ȥ 
 .a .a 
 
 b S .2 
 3ta'.S 
 
 3 o3 oj t3 
 
 1 .-81115 
 
 d f 3 * «= t, .3 0) 
 
 Jsg^g 
 
 g P<-H .. a) oj'd 
 g,o« a ° ^ n 
 
 tfl 
 
 60 O 
 
 to' 3 
 
 T3 0) 
 
 "- 1 ® ,G £ ,3 "3 
 O .§S|^" 
 
 5 fl3?3°§ 
 
 57 ■*-» ? t- C <U (V, 
 
 £ 2 « * s a | 
 
 rH >« (S t» tO_ g 
 
 3 .2 -2 fltJi 
 .3 lls^S-g 
 
 "J MS g 05 O 
 
 ojfl c.!Sfi 
 
 o °s-a c.-,- 
 
 30fl g $-2 W> m JS-S 
 03 $ o fe,3 OS -3 OS OS tn 
 3 o 33-3 oJ o> 
 
 M 2 to Q 2 ^rr-l t>> 
 
 0J.3 2 g,g a O-g o3 
 
 te cS o3 OS o> . ' 
 
 £ lfT j„ : _ o> ^ 03 ^ o> 
 
 S'S^^Sfl 03-5-3 
 
 •^g££| t 3fl5-3.2- 
 
 0; 03 03 03-- .' ■"•«'? 5 
 
 hlalMg 03.2 £ 
 
 /-s03c3c3Mb» _ aj" cci 03 . 
 
 .3 «> ojjd o-^ 5,3 o> 03 
 .Sfo 00 3 k ;3 oSoo 
 «>,a.3.c- rt o* s*ja.q 
 
 
 a 1 
 
 ^5 
 
 3 s 
 
 3 * 
 3 >> 
 
 3 H 
 
 a & 
 
 03 ?, 
 
 ga 
 ®5 
 
 ai 3 
 
 ^2 
 
 2 a 
 
 a a-?' - r-3 
 
 <2-i2 
 
 03 =3 
 w O 
 
 3 m 
 03 >. 
 
 ^B 
 Xl'S 
 03« 
 
 |o 
 
 • 5 
 
 3 a 
 S-2 
 ^J 
 
 og 
 
 io 
 
 "3 -2 3. P-S2 -» 
 
 p<j« j S£io 
 
 0J44 
 
 &0-£ Xt 
 
 * ^ ^ 
 
 ® 2-9 
 
 3a.§ 
 la-2 
 
 t> 03 o> 
 
 CO^ OS 
 
 3 a . 
 
 §15 
 
 ™ 3 jo 
 d) co 3 
 
 a -a .2 
 
 o> a S 
 
 - 3 0% 
 
 ■> o M o 
 
 fa p 
 
 a 
 
 
 Eh 
 
 5) 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $H 
 
 
 c: 
 
 03 
 
 c3 
 
 Tl 
 
 03 
 
 w 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 o ? 
 
 ag 3 
 
 to 3 
 
 .a.-fi'S 
 
 a 3-* o 
 o o « o 
 
 !z;zco.a 
 
 0) <1) d) J 03 CBS) 
 3D > g 3 3 3 
 O O 0) 1 " OOO 
 
 4) 0) 
 3 3 
 o o 
 
 0) CD 
 3 3 
 O O 
 
 fc ^ 
 
 00 m coi>3i 
 10 »o co t>»ir^oo 
 
 tOO MiH OJ 
 
 ^a r ^ 
 
 03 O . 
 
 1-51-51-5 
 
 
 
 j J J 
 
 
 >, 
 
 -S 22 
 
 >, 
 
 
 «-5 s 
 
 
 
 -° 3-a 
 
 
 
 a a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 &j > > 
 
 K 
 
 w 
 
 . 03 03 
 
 
 . 3 3 
 
 <^ 
 
 fa 
 
 fitSO 
 
 o a 
 
 a)i-5 
 
 O 
 
 P 
 
 ^p 
 
 fa * 
 
 
 i_;pq 
 
 oj ^ 
 
 ,28 
 
 So 
 . o 
 
 1-5 1-S 
 
 ^ fa 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 247 
 
 S3 3 > S 
 5 a CP M 
 
 3 £ -3 
 
 .SP - S>a® 
 
 B<co ^ 
 ® S- ^ 
 3 ? 3 2 
 
 w* j3 d 
 
 O t. »5"- 
 eu« 3 o 
 
 o a 
 
 co a j ~ 
 
 ass 
 
 .5 «> £ a a 
 
 5fi2» a 
 
 cp a> cp ojj . o 
 
 a<p Sc'S, « ** 
 . j c a . 3 a 
 
 "a-aagSa 
 a ,a _^ a ^ w> aj 
 
 to "' m ' s » 
 
 mSai > ® ^ ° ^ -i 
 ■50^5 £ fe-o tp >>a 
 
 Q,a L w ■ 
 
 bifvd 1 "; 
 
 ,a 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 a Jj cs J 
 
 2 1 8 H 
 
 3 2 O S 
 
 ■° 3 .2 * 
 
 co" a ^ >> 
 
 a _ o s 
 
 •5 
 
 3 3-g 
 
 =fi TO " CD 
 
 ® 3-3.0 
 
 ®_ -rt 1^ ® ® ° 
 
 32 5® .'3=3 
 a 3 a>!a > a ^ •- 
 
 o ^ o u a ^ ™i„ 
 " " C « 1 § 
 
 5 3 cp-g 2«25 
 
 08 « a »53o 
 
 ™ 55 o 
 a o 
 
 W CP 
 
 3-3© 
 
 o a a 
 
 a 2 . 
 
 o ®-d 
 
 afSa^ 
 
 ^aaSaaa-a 3 
 
 1*1 I~.-i.Cl OJ — *- 03 « 
 
 co a> O £ cc "^ w ^J-, ''- , ^ £1 
 ■— <-=;«! O *2 W - n cl X3 w 
 
 n^'-fl n ^ ^ o W S m (c 
 
 .S55-S5S2*S2-a§ 
 
 „a ^t 3 H T! -CI 17 3 3 
 
 cp a 
 
 III 
 
 o o 
 
 6h o 
 
 3£ 
 
 jd ■"a 
 
 a" H °S'OSo 
 aSySgSa- 
 
 §3.a-a^g3o 
 
 ■SS'&S 3.3 1-8 
 
 o . 
 
 o ~ o "* ™ 1 
 
 , co a .a 03 gt! <p g co a 
 P.-a 3 o<>,<r 
 
 a Cfl os «t: <p 5 co -* a . 
 
 „p.s5 H s- >> -5^f^H^«a, 
 
 ■5^-0 - • DCS cp g •* 03 "'■a g a; 
 
 a «.s a.a s « a^o-xj h o2- 
 
 o * to "3 m 5 > 
 3 cp o gp M 
 . adiJ »•= 
 
 E.-a q o,5 . . . oj <B 
 
 ?r?i'Om t - io ^dac t - = 
 
 flogldMg.2.sIH a 
 
 *a- 2 g JiS-a»«*a^ ra 
 
 * j oa„ r a cpcpcps ph 
 •Scp.2a'§-a>.22.'2.2b{)^ 
 
 O ^ o J3 CD cp o> O " — p 
 l-l £ O 32 CO CO -3 Q 
 
 •s 4Jfl .a a •- j2 a 
 
 >o 2 & 
 i - -d - o 
 
 .2o-po 
 
 &^ 1 ^ 
 
 MO O 
 
 t-So^2.2 
 
 go- 
 en 
 
 3^ 
 
 ® o r 
 
 3 ° . 
 
 > o CP ^ , 
 
 s.a&s.sg.o'ga.So 
 
 S^^t^S®^ .^J3 
 
 g^c-sl-g-gjsa^g 
 
 HtiooSf ?*3 cp o a 
 
 CO ^H CO 
 
 !z! !z; S5 
 
 cp cp cp cp cp 
 
 a a a s c 
 00000 
 
 cam 
 
 
 
 
 CO© 
 
 03 
 
 ©CO 
 
 ©-<< 
 
 :o -« 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 (N 
 
 —1 to 
 
 CO-* 
 
 CO 
 
 ■** -^ TJH ^1 lO CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 os3 
 
 •6 a 
 
 >- « . -d a . 
 feW CJ o coco 
 
 ^2 
 
 ^4 - 
 
 .2 ^ 
 
 . c< 3 . 
 W 3 cji«s 
 
 oS - 
 
 PQ 2 
 
 43 J 
 
 M 3 ® 
 
 ■32dS -® 
 ® m a -^ ^3 &d 
 
 "£ . ®^JtJ • 
 
248 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 The government asserts that inoculation is a dangerous procedure, 
 that it not only kills and stunts the hog, but extends the disease. 
 Among other things our last year's work was especially directed to 
 show not only that it would not injure hogs, but that the farmers 
 could be trusted to inoculate their own hogs, and I am now trying, 
 and slowly succeeding in getting them to make their own virus if we 
 send them the bouillon. The foregoing table is a truthful statement 
 as to injury done the hogs and shows absolutely that not a case of loss 
 can be ascribed to inoculation. The numerous letters published show 
 that no one who has had experience thinks that inoculation ever in- 
 jured a hog, unless too closely confined. 
 
 The losses of Messrs. Dan, Dietericks, and Rotton have been fully 
 considered in another part of this paper, where it has been shown that 
 by no possible twisting of the evidence could they be attributed to in- 
 oculation. The work of the Agricultural Department has, however, 
 led men to attribute losses to inoculation in herds that were never in- 
 oculated and in counties where no inoculation has ever been done. 
 
 Whether or not the inoculation done by Mr. Cadwell at Ottawa 
 caused the disease in his hogs, or whether they caught the disease from 
 the government hogs, I can't positively say, though I believe neither to 
 have been so. To me it seems not only impossible, but that opinion is 
 supported, as has beeu shown, by the advice and experience of Mr. 
 Rusk's advisers. Nor can I say how those hogs caused the disease in 
 the others any more than the government in theirs, nor why it should 
 have in either, when it did, if they were properly isolated. For four 
 years now we have constantly had inoculated and uninoculated hogs 
 in the same building, the same man having charge of them, and not 
 once has disease appeared in our uninoculated stock. I purposely in- 
 oculated six one-month-old pigs with one-half cubic centimeter 
 (double the dose generally given) of a culture but three days old, 
 from such an outbreak as I desired to make virus from; they are 
 penned and not in an open lot with free range ; about the tenth day 
 several of them had a little diarrhea and were off their feed, and one 
 died the nineteenth day with scarcely any lesions present; and another 
 August 12, having both pulmonary and intestinal lesions; the others 
 came round all right in a few days and are doing as well as ever again. 
 Four uninoculated pigs in the same pen with them and subject to all 
 possible exposure have never lost a meal, which only confirms a long 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 249 
 
 list of similar attempts to confer the disease to uninoculated controls 
 by the hogs inoculated with a properly selected virus. Where, then, 
 is the danger? The danger lies in not following the instructions 
 given in every detail, for which we cannot be held responsible. As 
 to extending the disease, we use every precaution posssible, as can be 
 seen by the following directions: 
 
 Patho-Biological Laboratory, State University, 
 
 Corner 10th and K Streets, Lincoln, Neb. 
 
 Directions for Inoculation. 
 
 1st. No hogs or pigs should be inoculated except on premises on which 
 swine plague has prevailed in precious years. 
 
 2d. It is absolutely useless to inoculate swine when already diseased, 
 as inoculation of hogs, like vaccination of children against small-pox, 
 must be done before the disease attacks them. 
 
 3d. While the virus and necessary implements will be supplied to 
 any farmer or breeder in Nebraska free of charge, except that such 
 farmer or breeder must pay the express charges on the same from Lin- 
 coin, and for the return of the implements to Lincoln, still any person 
 who neglects to return said implements, will be shut off, and in future 
 shut off, from the privilege of obtaining virus from this laboratory. 
 
 4th. In the box sent will be found a flask containing the virus, 
 which must be used within the limit of time designated. Shake the 
 flask well before using. Pour out some of the contents into a clean 
 tea-cup or some convenient vessel. 
 
 5th. With each flask will be found a glass syringe with a cap on 
 the end. Unscrew the cap and fill the syringe with hot water and let 
 it stand a few moments, or fill it several times; then screw on one of 
 the accompanying needles and squirt out the water; then prove the 
 syringe by filling it through the needle, and after squirting the water 
 out, fill it with virus from the cup, and it is ready for use. After 
 using, wash out with hot water, unscrew needle and put the wire in 
 needle again, and screw the cap on the syringe. 
 
 6th. The Dose. — For pigs three to four weeks old, one-quarter 
 of a syringe; three to five months old, one-half syringe; old hogs, 
 one syringe, unless otherwise specially directed. Second inoculation 
 twenty days later, and double the quantity in each case. 
 
 7th. How to Handle The Hogs. — Young stock can best be 
 handled by lifting them by the hind legs and holding them between 
 the knees. Old stock should be laid on the side and strongly held. 
 Care must be taken not to use violence, and thus make lame the pigs. 
 This done, introduce the needle of the syringe through the thin skin of 
 the inside of the hind leg, and then push it until in, along under the 
 skin, and not downinto the flesh; then squirt in the indicated amount 
 
250 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 of virus, and let the hog go. One hundred can be easily done in an 
 hour, with the necessary help to catch and hold them. 
 
 8th. No change of food is necessary. Do not pen up inoculated 
 hogs. 
 
 9th. The stock cannot be considered to have been safely inoculated 
 until twenty days after the second inoculation. 
 
 10th. Return the box and implements as soon as possible after 
 using. 
 
 11th. Be sure and fill out the enclosed register. 
 
 Frank S. Billings, M. D., Director. 
 
 Restricting our work, as we peremptorily do, to the inoculation of 
 hogs only on farms where losses have occurred in previous years, 
 and where the disease is expected to appear at any moment, to which 
 must be added the almost universal fact, that farmers, even on such 
 farms, do not apply for virus to inoculate their hogs until the disease 
 is very near them and often not until they are suspicious of the con- 
 dition of their own herds, it is evident that, no matter who the party 
 may be supplying the virus, cases will occur in which infected 
 herds will be inoculated, and that the more inoculation is done the 
 more numerous will such cases be found. It is such cases as this that 
 Mr. Rusk asserts I have reported falsely about. He assumes, because 
 it suits him, that all such cases were caused by inoculation. He pos- 
 itively refuses to consider the fact that we may have even ten or more 
 herds of 1,000 or more hogs all inoculated with the same virus at 
 the same time, and every hog may not only be well but never ill since 
 inoculation, and yet he does assert that inoculation killed the hogs in 
 the one case. It matters not to me if half the herds in such a case 
 come down with the cholera within twenty days after inoculation, if 
 the other half, or even but one good-sized herd, inoculated as they were 
 at the same time, shows no sign of illness, I dare affirm, and know 
 every honest investigator will support me, that inoculation could not 
 possibly have injured the others. I simply say — it is impossible. 
 
 I am not one to "cry baby," but I do demand cold-blooded justice. 
 With Mr. Rusk and his aids I neither want nor shall I give quarter. 
 But I will be just and demand justice. This thing does not trouble 
 me except that it has stampeded the farmers so badly that, as can be 
 largely seen in the letters published by Mr. Rusk, men have asserted 
 that hogs which were never inoculated were killed thereby, and as no 
 correction of that statement is made in Bulletin No. 8, it is evident 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 251 
 
 that the secretary of agriculture absolutely has no desire or intention 
 of treating this matter justly. Again, if we inoculate eight or ten 
 bunches of hogs and one comes down a few days later with disease r 
 even though the owner writes us he is "sure they must have been 
 sick at the time, for all the other herds done the same day in my 
 vicinity are all well and don't seem to have lost a meal," yet he goes 
 to town and sees some men who have read Mr. Rusk's dissertations, 
 and the next thing Ave hear that we are the "biggest fraud on earth 
 and inoculation killed all my hogs." • 
 
 All I have to say to Mr. Rusk is, " to let the farmers alone and 
 treat them one-half as honestly as we do, and see if he cannot do 
 better and not try to undo for us our honest attempts to get at the 
 bottom of this problem. 
 
 Any one with common sense knows that inoculation cannot make an 
 already infected farm any more dangerous to the hogs on it, or to those 
 in the neighborhood, than it already is. Safety consists in the neigh- 
 bors keeping out of such an infected hog lot, and in the owner keeping 
 dogs and such things out of it. The question to that farmer is, how 
 can I raise hogs on my farm? That is all I care about. Take, for 
 example, the following letter from one of the largest cattle and hog 
 feeders in Nebraska: 
 
 Shelby, Neb., Jan. 12, 1892. 
 
 My Dear Doctor : I inoculated fifty hogs a year ago last fall and 
 only lost two that winter. I think inoculation the only thing that 
 will save them, and I shall inoculate in the future. I did not inocu- 
 late this fall and I lost nearly every hog I had. I have lost hogs from 
 cholera every year for the past eight years, except the one year I in- 
 oculated, all in the same feed yard, aud I have confidence enough in 
 it to inoculate from now on, as it seems to be the only reliable pre- 
 ventive. 
 
 Yours truly, Temple Reid. 
 
 There are thousands of just such cases in these western states. Now, 
 if Mr. Reid's experience in that one year can be repeated, and we have 
 several hundred exactly similar cases on record, is there not every 
 reason that such a farmer should take advantage of inoculation ? Is 
 there any sense or justice in Mr. Rusk's wolf-cry, "danger," if inocu- 
 lation is only done on such farms ? Mr. Rusk himself gives exactly 
 the same advice in his report of 1890, and does not even advise the 
 precaution we insist on, of limiting inoculation only to infected farms. 
 
252 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 He even recommends onr method (except in the sele2tion of the 
 hog to take virus from), though he claims and demonstrates his in- 
 vestigators have never successfully inoculated with any method they 
 have tried. He says: 
 
 The method of subcutaneous injections of culture liquids containing 
 hog cholera bacilli, while on the one hand fraught with the possible 
 danger of scattering diseased germs where they do not originally exist, 
 is nevertheless the simplest and cheapest method that can be devised for 
 the vaccination of animals; these qualities of simplicity and cheapness 
 are of vital importance in a question tvhich has only a commercial 
 aspect. (P. 111.) 
 
 Now, I beg to say that to recommend the very method, so far as 
 use is concerned, practiced here, regardless even of the one precaution 
 which we consider necessary to keep the disease restricted to farms 
 already infected, and then to decry that same method as dangerous 
 merely because it succeeds with us when done rightly, and fails with 
 his men because it never had been done as we do it and succeed, is the 
 height of inconsistency. 
 
 I wish to call the reader's attention to a most striking inconsistency 
 between a passage in the above quotation and Mr. Rusk's advice, that 
 swine plague is a contagious disease and can only be stamped out in 
 the same manner as is applied to contagious pleuro-pneumonia, in Mr. 
 Rusk's previously quoted letter to the National Stockman. In this 
 report of 1890, in the passage above quoted, he says : 
 
 That while the subcutaneous inoculation of culture liquids of the 
 hog cholera bacilli is on the one hand fraught with the possible dan- 
 ger of scattering disease germs ivhere they do not originally exist f 
 
 Where is that point? It must be the land. But by his own letter 
 of advice to the Stockman he insists that they only originally exist in 
 the hog. Now if they only originally exist in the hog there is not a 
 contagious disease germ on earth that is known to live for any length 
 of time when exposed to the elements by being scattered unprotected 
 on the surface of the soil. This knocks the "contagious" disease 
 argument at once in the head. 
 
 One more point and I am done with this part of this paper: Mr. 
 Rusk and his advisers assert that this work should not be done by the 
 farmers and cannot be safely entrusted to them. We say here, that if 
 it cannot be done that way it cannot be made practical. I say it can, 
 
A PUBLIC 1 SCANDAL. 253 
 
 and think it has been demonstrated that I am correct. I am bitterly 
 opposed to advocating anything unnecessary that will increase the 
 number of office holders and political ringsters at the disposal of party 
 leaders. I know that the most intelligent farmers in our communi- 
 ties, and they are at present the very ones taking hold of inoculation, 
 are fully as capable of being trusted with every detail of this work as 
 a small army of political veterinarians who, so far as swine plague goes, 
 know nothing about it in comparison to our intelligent swine breeders. 
 I can see only public danger in increasing the number of veterinary 
 parasites at the command of the politicians in the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment. The great question is to educate the people to do all they can for 
 themselves, and to carry on the government with the greatest possible econ- 
 omy by cutting down every unnecessary man in the public service. It 
 is to the interest of the politician to do just the contrary, for in an 
 army of such parasites lies his political power as a boss-heeier. 
 
 To the political boss, this country is a government of the people, by 
 jiolitical ring masters, for their own benefit, instead of a government of 
 the people, for the people, by the greatest intelligence among the people, 
 selected and elected by the people. 
 
 Knowing the people can be educated to inoculate their own hogs, 
 knowing they can do it successfully in time, and knowing that to put 
 it in the hands of an army of veterinary parasites would only un- 
 necessarily increase the tax burdens of the farmers, I have drawn up 
 the following instructions for them to study : 
 
 EVERY INTELLIGENT FARMER CAN PREPARE HIS OWN VIRUS AND 
 INOCULATE HIS OWN HOGS. 
 
 That is what I say. The government says quite the other thing. 
 In its latest attack on our endeavors to aid the swine dealers of the 
 country, but especially those of Nebraska, the government says it 
 does "not believe that inoculation could be safely trusted to the use 
 of the average farmer, or, for that matter, to the average veterina- 
 rian." 
 
 This statement is like the majority of those emanating from the 
 same source, absolutely without foundation and valueless, and is in 
 fact contradicted by the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in 
 his letter to the editor of the Iowa Homestead, where he says : 
 
 And in the report of the bureau for 1886, pages 60 to 70, the de- 
 
254 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 tails of the experiments are given so fully that any one who can 
 make a culture of germs can repeat the experiment for himself. 
 
 It is contradicted by the actual experience of hundreds of farmers 
 who have inoculated their own hogs and are still doing it, and have 
 never seen a single case of injury to their hogs. That statement is so 
 absurd that it needs no further consideration. I now intend to go fur- 
 ther than I ever have, as I am confident in the correctness of my state- 
 ments, and desire that the farmers of Nebraska shall learn to make 
 their own virus. In other words, I propose to supply them, as fast as 
 they can be instructed, with the uninoculated beef soup bouillon ready 
 for use and the platinum wire to inoculate the soup with. Having 
 these things and the syringe and needles on hand and following the 
 directions to be given (instruction will be given at the laboratory to 
 those who desire it) inoculation can be made a practical success, and 
 need never fail. The best proof of the value of a thing is its sim- 
 plicity. 
 
 "We will assume that Mr. Charles Walker (who knows all about it), 
 one of the best known farmers in Nebraska, has the vials of soup and 
 the wire in a glass rod on hand and desires to inoculate his own hogs. 
 What does Mr. Walker do ? 
 
 First — He looks around for outbreaks of swine plague and selects 
 the mildest one he can find, and above all things avoids one that is 
 killing a large number of hogs in the herd and doing it anywhere 
 from one to ten days. The greater the number of deaths in a herd, 
 and the shorter the period of illness, the more unsuitable is an outbreak 
 to obtain virus for inoculation from. Whereas the smaller the num- 
 ber of animals ill, the slower the course of the disease in such, the 
 better is such an outbreak suited to obtain virus from. 
 
 Second — From the last kind of an outbreak Mr. Walker selects a 
 pig or hog just taken ill, and not one that has been sick some time 
 {remember this: the animal to be taken must not have been sick long, 
 for the sooner after it is observed to be ill the virus is taken the more 
 reliable will it be; chronic cases are useless; no dead ones must be 
 used), and kills it by a rap on the head — not by bleeding. We must 
 keep all the blood in the animal. He lets the animal lie until cold, 
 and then takes a good knife and cuts open the skin from between 
 the jaws along the belly to the tail. He then cuts the skin away 
 from the body down both sides, but in the vicinity of the forelegs 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 255 
 
 cuts away the latter carefully, for if be cuts too deep down, where 
 they are attached to .the body, he will cut the large blood vessels 
 which enter the forelegs, and thus bleed the animal, which he does 
 not want to do. He then cuts the abdomen open in a straight 
 line from the posterior end of the breast bone to the hind legs, but is 
 careful not to cut the intestines. "With the abdomen or its contents he 
 has nothing further to do, but he must open it in order to open the 
 breast cavity, which he does by cutting across all the ribs and muscles 
 about two inches each side of the breast bone, which he then separates 
 from the diaphragm, a partition between the chest and abdomen, and 
 lifts off the breast bone and bends it back towards the head, thus ex- 
 posing the contents of the chest, but especially the heart. 
 
 Third — The heart has two main chambers, called ventricles. The 
 one, the left, has very thick, solid walls; the other, the right, has thin 
 and flabby walls. He twists the heart a little so as to bring this thin 
 side up. He then puts some absorbent cotton or a piece of sponge 
 into a tin box and fills it full of alcohol, which he now sets on fire. 
 Naturally, he must have his hog where the wind does not blow, and as 
 no blood need be let out, it can be done on the kitchen table. After 
 lighting his alcohol, Mr. Walker takes a cheap kitchen knife and 
 heats it hot in the flame and then burns over the outside surface of 
 the right side of the heart, the thin wall. Next he takes a small 
 knife, and this must have a thin blade, and heats that and then cuts 
 and burns a slit through the thin wall of the heart until the blood 
 flows out. 
 
 Fourth — How to inoculate the beef soup : It has been said that the 
 laboratory will supply farmers with this soup in flasks all ready for 
 use, and also with an inoculating wire and syringe. The inoculating 
 rod is made of a piece of platinum wire fastened into a glass rod. Mr. 
 Walker now passes this glass rod a few times through the alcohol 
 flame and heats the wire, in its end, red hot, then he lets it cool a mo- 
 ment and removing the cap from the flask, he loosens the glass stop- 
 ple; then he dips the point of the wire, which has a little loop in its 
 end, into the blood in the heart through the slit he has cut with a hot 
 knife, and quickly introduces the wire into the soup, putting the stopple 
 in at once. This he repeats three times, removing and replacing the 
 stopple each time. He now puts the glass cap on the flask and sets it 
 in the kitchen in a safe place for three or four days. Each flask con- 
 
256 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 tains soup enough for 100 grown hogs. The germs at once begin to 
 multiply, and soon the previously clear soup becomes clouded and 
 milky, if the germs are in it, which will occur in nearly every case. 
 At the end of three or four days it is ready for use and should be 
 used as soon as possible after that. 
 
 Fifth — Remember this : The first generation is the only reliable 
 virus. No other or older generation should be used. They are not 
 reliable. Again, the first generation should be used between the 
 fourth and seventh day after inoculating the soup from the heart's 
 blood of the sick hog, never earlier and never later. 
 
 As every sick hog but one that was used to make virus from was 
 selected and sent to me by farmers, it is evident that these men, at least, 
 have appreciated the one fact, and that is, to avoid danger and not 
 select a hog from a malignant outbreak as was said to be mistakenly 
 done at Ottawa, 111. The proof that they made no mistake in that 
 direction is to be seen in the results. The few cases in which farmers 
 made the mistake of inoculating sows and pigs at the same time must 
 not be counted as an example of the dangers of inoculation, because 
 it was thought unnecessary to print directions on that point. In each 
 of such cases it can be shown by the unabbreviated statistics at the 
 laboratory that several hundred hogs were inoculated in the same 
 locality, at the same time, and with the same virus, without a particle 
 of injury. These few mistakes on the part of farmers show that we 
 must add the following to our list of instructions: 
 
 SPECIAL CAUTION. 
 
 On no account inoculate either 'piggy sows or sows suckling pigs. 
 Don't inoculate sows and pigs at same time. Wean pigs first, unless 
 soivs have been inoculated, or had the disease and recovered, because 
 the sows may take up the germ passed off the pigs, and then it will get 
 into their milk, and, though not strong enough to injure the sows, may 
 kill the pigs, as they would then get an unlimited dose. Do not confine 
 inoculated animals. 
 
 What mistake have the farmers made that have sent in hogs? 
 Only one. Either through economical reasons, or not careful observa- 
 tion enough, or wrong information from the actual owner of the sick 
 hog, quite a large number have been sent in that have been ill too long 
 to be useful for virus. The shorter time a hog is sick the more reliable 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 257 
 
 the virus made from it ivill be, and the less the danger of other germs 
 being there ; though in most cases that would uot harm the virus. I 
 will assume all risks from the presence of the government swine plague 
 germ doing any injury if in the virus. 
 
 How can a farmer tell what hog not to use? 
 
 Cut the hog open as above described : if the lungs are badly diseased, 
 very solid, and attached to the ribs, throw it away ; if the lungs are 
 only slightly touched, make the virus from the heart's blood as directed; 
 then cut open the large gut and wash it, and if there are no blackish 
 looking ulcerations or hard tumors in it, go ahead and use the virus ; 
 if there are, condemn it and get another and fresher outbreak ; that hog 
 has been sick too long. 
 
 Any intelligent farmer can himself learn all this by cutting open 
 a few hogs, or all that desire will be cheerfully taught at the labora- 
 tory. 
 
 The above is every precaution that has been resorted to in the 
 laboratory ; that is, only such as the common every-day farmer must 
 and can use. ISTo laboratory methods have been used previous to 
 sending out the first generation of a virus. Then we have resorted to 
 such methods and rabbit tests in order to see just what the farmers 
 would have in virus made that way. In the majority of the cases 
 the virus has been pure ; in some one or two, harmless germs have 
 been mixed with that of swine plague in small numbers ; in two, the 
 government second plague germ was present, but as in those cases the 
 hogs are still alive and were never sick, its terrible dangers are mani- 
 fested : it will kill rabbits. The only trouble that has been had has 
 been to get sick hogs frequently enough, so that much against my de- 
 sire the second and third and in one case the fourth generation has 
 been used, a thing that will never be done again, especially during my 
 absence in Chicago. So far as inoculating the bouillon from the sick 
 hog at the laboratory is concerned, I purposely left it to my assistant, 
 who simply followed the instructions herein given and does not know as 
 much about swine diseases as many a farmer. The results are now 
 before the public, and they can judge. Further comment from me is 
 unnecessary. 
 
 17 
 
258 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 PURE CULTURES NOT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR PRACTICAL 
 
 INOCULATION. 
 
 The objection has been made that farmers will not have skill enough 
 to obtain pure cultures, and the inference made thereby that pure cult- 
 ures are absolutely necessary to successful results. The authors of 
 such assertions should know better even if they do not. All practical 
 and experimental experiences speak to the contrary. For instance, 
 admitting for the moment that farmers will not always obtain pure 
 cultures; admitting for our purpose that Mr. Cad well's inoculation did 
 cause the disease in the hogs at Ottawa, 111., by subcutaneous inocu- 
 lation as the government claims; admitting even, what we do not 
 know, that his cultures were pure; still, taking the government 
 statement to be correct, have we not conclusive evidence that a farmer' 
 ■can make a culture from sick hogs that will produce swine plague f 
 
 Although for the reasons previously given I do not and cannot 
 admit that Mr. Cadwell's inoculations was the cause of the fatal 
 disease in those Ottawa hogs, still, if the government is correct, we 
 have evidence that Mr. Cadwell knew what to do to obtain cultures 
 from a diseased hog and to inoculate and prove he had the specific 
 germ in his cultures. This is evidence enough that a farmer can be 
 taught to do the work, and we shall more fully demonstrate this in 
 future. On the other hand, an experience of over six years shows 
 that if the selection of the infected animal from which virus is taken 
 is carried out according to the simple directions so frequently given, 
 viz., the most recently infected hog in a very recent outbreak, and the 
 simple method of sterilization,which anybody can acquire in five min- 
 utes' instruction, carefully followed, that in nearly every case pure cult- 
 ures must result, for the simple reason that those destructive lesions 
 which give openings for the entrance of adventitious germs in the 
 blood have not had time to be developed. 
 
 Again, the very lesson and value of rabbit or small animal inoc- 
 ulation, and the use so commonly made of them to obtain a pure cult- 
 ure by the subcutaneous inoculation of mixed cultures, in order to 
 save time and trouble, is as well known to the opponents of farmer 
 inoculation as to myself. The small animals die ; the unwished-for 
 germs remain local at the point of inoculation, while the specific germs 
 find their way quickly into the blood and kill the animal, from which 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 259 
 
 ■we obtain them in pure cultures. The same thiug is as sure to take 
 place in the hog the farmer inoculates. 
 
 To be sure the "bug-a-boo," that the germ of the government's 
 second plague may be present, has been brought forward, in an en- 
 deavor to frighten the farmers against inoculation ; but if the govern- 
 ment's publications can be relied on, and this time they are confirmed 
 by our own observations, that that germ is simply a common organism, 
 not only in the air passages of swine, but other domestic animals, and 
 can only gain entrance to the blood after severe disturbances have 
 developed in the lungs, then, following implicitly our directions excludes 
 that possibility, which fact is confirmed by a very great number of rabbit 
 and pig tests with such blood, and also by means of that most exact of 
 ■all methods, plate cultures. Again, it has been demonstrated by a great 
 -number of inoculation and some feeding tests on hogs, here published, 
 that that government germ is by no means the specific, dangerous factor 
 it has been represented to be in order to alarm the farmers of the coun- 
 try, as is shown by the following : 
 
 In a late publication on swine diseases by Professor Welch, of 
 Johns Hopkins, he asserts that not a single undoubted epizootic out- 
 break of this second swine plague has yet been seen in this country. 
 
 And Salmon said, in his address before the National Swine Breeders' 
 Association, "then there is the germ in hog cholera, a disease widely 
 distributed, generally extremely fatal, and probably productive of the 
 greater part of the loss which falls upon the hog-raisers." 
 
 After such an admission, is it not self-evident that the government 
 is misrepresenting when it talks about a " widespread epidemic disease " 
 which it calls "swine plague"? 
 
 It is self-evident, from all the assertions made by the Agricultural 
 Department in its various publications for the past five years against 
 our work, that they are more afraid of the public becoming aware that 
 swine plague can be prevented jby inoculation, and thus completely 
 expose the futility of their own attempts in the same direction, than 
 anything else. Cowards and frauds are always more afraid of the 
 truth than all else in the world. That an impure cultivation can be 
 used sucessfuily as a preventive virus is proven by referring to a fre- 
 quently quoted passage from the report of 1883, that 
 
 M. Pasteur has recently confirmed our American investigations in 
 a very complete manner. He shows that the desire is produced by a 
 micrococcus, that it is non-recurrent, that the virus may be attenuated 
 
260 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 and protect from subsequent attacks, and he promises a vaccine by- 
 spring. 
 
 Now, it is a fact, which the readers of the objections of the govern- 
 ment, that a farmer cannot be trusted to make the virus because his 
 cultures may not be pure, should know, that 
 
 Pi rs t — 31. Pasteur did not study any swine plague or disease known 
 in this country, either in the past or present, but the rouget or erysipe- 
 las of hogs. 
 
 Second — That a micrococcus is not the cause of rouget. 
 
 Third — That M. Pasteur never knew what germ was the cause of that 
 disease, or that the real germ was in the very virus with which he did 
 produce immunity, though mixed up ivith a microccocus and some other 
 germs, as demonstrated by Schiltz in Berlin, 1885, in Pasteur's " Vac- 
 cine Contra Rouget." 
 
 Fourth — That Pasteur did keep his promise, which is more than the 
 Agricultural Department has done, and did produce immunity with a 
 virus containing mixed cultures. 
 
 Again, no one dare claim that the most reliable of all known 
 immunity-producing viruses, vaccina against small-pox, is or can be a 
 pure culture of the germs of that disease when collected on points, or in 
 any other way, from the vesicles in the skin of calves, or from the scabs 
 taken from the arms of vaccinated people. No one knows positively 
 what the specific germ of small-pox or vaccina really is, and yet it 
 must be in the above named material or there would be no disease and 
 no immunity produced. A fact worthy of attention which it has not 
 received is this, it is more than probable that were the virus used for 
 vaccination not an impure culture that scarification vaccination would be 
 absolutely nidi and void; for the reason that the germ of small-pox and 
 vaccina, self-evidently an anaerobic germ, does not require and even will 
 not develop in oxygen, and that the so-called adventitious germs pollut- 
 ing the virus and in the scab, consume the oxygen and thus produce the 
 necessary conditions in which the germ of vaccina only will develop and 
 produce the desired effect. I could produce very practical evidence in 
 favor of this hypothesis were I permitted to publish a series of exper- 
 iments with what is undoubtedly the germ of vaccina, the property of 
 an esteemed friend and colleague, who is unfortunately too ill at pres- 
 ent to publish his very valuable and interesting researches. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 261 
 
 It seems to me that the above remarks entirely answer the objec- 
 tions that intelligent farmers cannot be taught to make their own virus 
 and inoculate their own hogs. It seems to me an insult to the intel- 
 ligence of our hog-raisers to assume that a small army of veterinary 
 officeholders, with little or no experience in hog diseases and no better 
 capable of being instructed in the simple technique of obtaining cult- 
 ures from the heart's blood of diseased hogs, is necessary that the work 
 may be done well. From past experience I much prefer to trust the 
 reputation of inoculation to honest and fair-minded farmers who de- 
 sire success than to government veterinarians whose chief aim seems 
 to have been to do their utmost to make it a failure. 
 
 The following "open letter" to the chancellor of the State Univer- 
 sity appeared after this manuscript was first completed, but is here in- 
 serted so as to give the public all the documentary evidence possible. 
 Its character can be easily seen by the reader. It is a disgrace to its 
 author, an insult to the truth, and a deception attempted on the 
 farmer [Chancellor Canfield's letter should in courtesy have been pub- 
 lished also by Mr. Rusk]: 
 
 OPEN LETTER OF SECRETARY RUSK TO CHANCELLOR CANFIELD. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, 
 
 Washington, D. C, July 11. 
 To Mr. James H. Canjield, Chancellor of the State University, Lincoln 
 Neb. 
 
 Sir : Senator Paddock has just referred to me, for my views thereon, 
 certain statements made in your correspondence with him in regard to 
 Farmers' Bulletin No. 8, issued by this department, which statements 
 are coupled with the expressed desire on your part to know "whether 
 the head of the department has really given the matter any thought 
 at all." As you expressed your views in regard to this bulletin quite 
 fully in your letter to me of the 3d ultimo, in which you cover all the 
 points which have been brought to my attention in your correspond- 
 ence with the senator, and also all contained in the newspaper letter 
 of Mr. Charles H. Walker on the same subject [see p. 144], a copy of 
 of which you enclosed for his information, the whole subject can be 
 sufficiently considered by transmitting an answer to your letter to me 
 through the hands of Senator Paddock. 
 
 Your letter would have been answered sooner had you not stated 
 explicitly that you wished me to understand that it was not to be the 
 ground of lengthy or argumentative correspondence, and that you 
 would be satisfied to know that it was in my hands and receiving due 
 
262 A PUBLIC SCANDAL,. 
 
 consideration. As, in spite of this statement, you have not been satis- 
 fied to leave the matter in that condition, I shall now reply at such 
 length as seems desirable to demonstrate the misleading and inconsist- 
 ent position which you assume, and the untenable character of your 
 suggestions. 
 
 In your letter to me you complain because Bulletin No. 8 was not 
 submitted to you for revision before it was printed, and you criticise 
 the statements made in some of the letters from citizens of Nebraska 
 which were published in that document. Under any circumstances 
 your complaint might be considered as extraordinary, since it has 
 never been and is not now the custom for this department to submit 
 its reports or bulletins either to the officers of the state universities or 
 to those of the state experiment stations to be revised or modified in 
 advance of publication. I am not aware of any reason why this 
 should be expected. The reports of the Nebraska experiment station 
 certainly have not been sent to me for revision or modification, al- 
 though the relation of the experiment stations to this department 
 might readily suggest such a course, and some of the bulletins issued 
 from that station bear upon many pages the evidence of needed re- 
 vision. 
 
 So far from adopting such a friendly course, the publications issued 
 from your patho-biological laboratory are filled with the most glaring 
 misrepresentations of the valuable scientific work done by the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry, and apparently no effort has been spared to ex- 
 press disparagement in the coarsest and most offensive language. After 
 these assaults, inspired by jealousy and egotism, had been carried on 
 through the bulletins of your station and for the newspapers for years, 
 the director of the patho-biological laboratory assailed me personally 
 in similarly abusive language because I would neither turn over a 
 part of the bureau's appropriation for his use nor permit him to dic- 
 tate as to the manner in which the investigations of this department 
 should be conducted. Considering these facts, you need not be sur- 
 prised at my astonishment when you seriously propose that I submit 
 the bulletins of the Bureau of Animal Industry to be revised at your 
 station in advance of publication. If a more preposterous proposi- 
 tion was ever made to the department it has certainly not been brought 
 to my attention. I might have applied for information in regard to 
 the inoculations made in Nebraska as you intimate, but if the malig- 
 nant hostility shown toward this department by the person in charge 
 of your patho-biological laboratory had not prevented me from ap- 
 plying to that source, the unreliable character of the statements issued 
 by him would have been sufficient. Comparing his statements made 
 from time to time with letters received from the unbiased citizens of 
 Nebraska, I have no hesitation in saying that even if the latter were 
 made from memory they deserve the greater confidence. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 263 
 
 It must have been evident to you when your letter was prepared 
 that your criticisms of the bulletin in question did not touch any es- 
 sential part of it, nor did you point out any inaccuracies or errors in 
 the statements made by its author. The greater part of your com- 
 munication is devoted to proving that there were incorrect statements 
 in four of the letters published which were written by Nebraska 
 farmers. As there were about fifty-five letters printed, most of 
 which were written from memory, the writers must have been un- 
 usually accurate if there are only four of them in which you and Mr. 
 Walker can find statements to criticise. [A dangerous admission for 
 a government official to make. B.] 
 
 Where you both misrepresent and try to mislead your readers is in 
 the studious endeavor to convey the impression that the letters men- 
 tioned were used in drawing the deductions of the bulletin as to the 
 failure of inoculation. For this there can be no excuse, as the object 
 of publishing this correspondence is very plainly stated, namely, to 
 show that there had been many herds inoculated during 1888 and 
 1889, and that many losses from inoculation occurred during those 
 years, of which the public up to this time has had no information, 
 and to indicate that the sentiment among the farmers in the districts 
 where inoculation has been most thoroughly tested is overwhelmingly 
 against the practice. The first two conclusions cannot be contested, 
 and from the correspondence of the department I feel sure that the 
 last one is equally correct. It may suit the purposes of the half 
 dozen persons who are interested in sustaining inoculation to draw the 
 attention of farmers from the facts which prove it to be a humbug by 
 assuming such unbounded indignation over errors in a few letters 
 which could be excluded without affecting in the least the general 
 conclusions of the bulletin. But unless I am greatly mistaken as to 
 the intelligence of Nebraska farmers, this plan of throwing dust in 
 their eyes will not succeed. 
 
 What I fail to understand is, how you, an educated man, accus- 
 tomed to the examination and analysis of written and printed docu- 
 ments, could deliberately ignore the evidence of the failure of inocu- 
 lation as presented in the bulletin, and, selectiug this correspondence 
 for your text, ask me: "Is this the best evidence that can be secured 
 for the establishment or the overthrow of scientific experiments? Is 
 this a scientific method of investigation?" With the bulletin before 
 you, did you not know that the necessary evidence from scientific ex- 
 periments was contained in it? And if you did know it, what was 
 the object of asking such misleading questions. 
 
 Concerning your intimation that letters favorable to inoculation 
 were omitted from the bulletin, I have only to refer you to the letters 
 of such men as J. W. Coulter, D. P. Ashburn, S. C. Bassett, Hugh 
 Gibson, and Thomas Peifer, all of whom state that they are believers 
 
264 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 in inoculation, and whose letters appear in the bulletin [see Suppressed 
 Letters, p. 121]. There were a large number of letters, both for and 
 against the practice, which were omitted because they were written en- 
 tirely from a theoretical point of view, and made no reference to any 
 facts in support of the position taken, or for other equally good reasons. 
 
 One of these, signed by S. W. Perin, the foreman of your state farm, 
 was so evidently written with the intention to deceive the reader that it 
 was not given, and out of consideration for your state it was not exposed. 
 [See page 1 98.] Mr. Perin does not hesitate to make the positive asser- 
 tion that no hogs had been lost on the farm after inoculation, and yet 
 I feel sure you will not question the statement that in August of last 
 year forty-eight head of swine were inoculated on the state farm, 
 thirty-eight of which afterwards died from an outbreak of disease set 
 up by the inoculation, and that three out of four not inoculated con- 
 tracted the disease from the inoculated animals and also died. Can 
 you explain why this untruthful statement was made by the foreman 
 of your state farm? 
 
 You are quite right in your assumption that I am not willing to 
 let untruths or half truths appear on the record of the department 
 during my administration. Are you equally particular in regard to 
 the statements made from your patho-biological laboratory? If so, 
 how can you sustain the director in his assertions that inoculation has 
 been an unqualified success? Why do you ignore the main points in 
 Bulletin No. 8, which proves inoculation to be a failure and dangerous 
 to the stock interests of the country, and confine your criticisms to 
 details of correspondence which do not affect the general conclusions 
 a particle? 
 
 You admit that the inoculation of the Hess herd was a failure ; but 
 when you assert that " No one has ever denied that it was a failure," 
 you certainly are in error. Did not the director of your laboratory 
 assert before the National Swine Breeders' Association, November 14, 
 1888, that his assistants had inoculated 1,000 hogs in Nebraska, and 
 that there had been no failure? Did not the same person assert in 
 his first pamphlet on inoculation, published about a year later, that 
 over 1,000 hogs had been inoculated in Nebraska since 1886, with a 
 reported loss of but eleven out of the whole number? Did he not 
 say, over his own signature in the Omaha Bee under date of January 
 7, 1892, that "Every one who is acquainted with the true facts knows 
 that those herds reported as killed at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, were all 
 diseased at the time they were inoculated "? How do you harmonize 
 these different statements with each other, or with the letter of Mr. 
 Hess which states that the hogs were perfectly healthy when inocu- 
 lated, and only showed sickness eight or ten days afterward, or with 
 the explanation which you now desire me to make, to the effect that 
 the inoculation was a failure, but that "it was an early experiment, 
 and was to be weighed as such "? 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 265 
 
 It is these inconsistent and, in some cases, plainly untruthful state- 
 ments, which have emanated from the patho-biological laboratory, 
 which have caused me to lose all confidence in the work which is done 
 there, or the records which are kept of it. For this reason, if no 
 other, I should decline to have the bulletins of this department modi- 
 fied so as to agree with those records. 
 
 But these are by no means all the inconsistencies which I might 
 point out. I will only take the time to refer to one other. In the 
 letter in the Omaha Bee, already mentioned, it is stated: "This year 
 over 3,000 have been inoculated in Nebraska. * * * Of the 
 3,000 I do not know of one being injured by inoculation, though one 
 such case in sucking pigs is reported, and one failure in the same 
 herd," etc. At the time this was written the writer certainly 
 knew of the failure on the state farm, and within five weeks he pub- 
 lished a statement from his records admitting a loss of 198 head as 
 having occurred in herds which were healthy when inoculated. Does 
 it not occur to you that it might be well for you to experiment in re- 
 vising the statements made from your patho-biological laboratory 
 before yon undertake to edit the bulletins issued by this department? 
 
 Again, you are indignant because there is a "blank silence" in the 
 table on page 11 in regard to the experiments at Gibbon, although 
 any one can see from a summing up which follows the table that no 
 losses were counted against the herds located at that place. If you 
 were examining this subject impartially, why did you not call my at- 
 tention to the fact that the author of Bulletin No. 8 omitted to give 
 the numbers that were lost in Mr. Hinckley's herd? How does it 
 happen that in all of the efforts that have been made to elucidate the 
 question of inoculation and to enlighten this department you have 
 failed to quote your records in regard to this case? From a bill in- 
 troduced in the Nebraska legislature asking compensation, I learn 
 that Mr. Hinckley's loss was eighty head. This would make the total 
 loss 543, instead of 463 as given on page 11 of the bulletin — the per- 
 centage of loss being 53J instead of 45 J. In other words, the failure 
 was even more disastrous than was claimed in the bulletin. 
 
 Another example of generosity on the part of the author of Bulle- 
 tin No. 8 is seen in his summing up of the losses which followed the 
 inoculations made under the direction of your patho-biological labora- 
 tory during 1891. In this summing up (page 37) the herds which it 
 was claimed were affected before inoculation were excluded from the 
 calculation, but in a comparison of the loss among inoculated and unin- 
 oculated herds in the state, it is plain that no such exclusion should 
 have been made. Taking all the herds inoculated in 1891 from 
 which figures have so far been given, and I find the loss foots up 
 12J per cent, instead of 10 per cent, as given in Bulletin No. 8. In 
 addition to this, there are at least six or seven herds in which losses 
 
266 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 occurred from which the figures are not at hand. No one can con- 
 sider inoculation to have been a success from this showing, when 
 the losses among the inoculated herds of the state only reached 4 per 
 cent. In other words, the inoculation of 3,000 hogs in 1891, instead 
 of reducing the percentage of loss, increased it three-fold. 
 
 I have already written more than I intended, but in concluding 
 I would remind you again that the failure of inoculation was suffi- 
 ciently demonstrated in Bulletin No. 8 by incontestable evidence not 
 contained in any of the correspondence to which you and Mr. Walker 
 refer. This failure is demonstrated by the careful scientific tests made 
 by the Bureau of Animal Industry; by the inoculations made in Ne-' 
 braska in 1888, where over half of the animals operated upon after- 
 wards died of cholera; by the complete failure to introduce inoculation 
 as a private enterprise at Chicago; by the loss of half of the single 
 inoculated hogs tested in the Peoria distilleries [see p. 217]; by the 
 still more disastrous experience at Davenport [see p. 178]; by the 
 communication of disease to the experimental hogs inoculated at 
 Ottawa, 111. [see index], and by the Nebraska inoculations of 1891. 
 There can be no dispute about the facts in thesecases, and the attempts 
 to explain away these facts have only made the weakness of the case 
 more apparent. 
 
 If you considered it a duty to inform me at such length of the sup- 
 posed errors in detail contained in the letters published in Bulletin 
 No. 8, why do you not consider it a still more pressing duty to inform 
 the farmers of Nebraska and of the country of the misleading state- 
 ments which have been issued from the patho-biological laboratory in 
 regard to inoculation? They have been misinformed, not only in re- 
 gard to the details, but by broad statements, that inoculation was a 
 great success, although it was proved a miserable failure. Many who 
 have accepted these statements and acted upon them have lost their 
 hogs by so doing, and many others are liable to meet with similar 
 misfortunes from the same cause. In publicly sustaining your labo- 
 ratory, in praising its work, in endeavoring to show that this depart- 
 ment is wrong on this important question, you assume a very grave 
 responsibility for the results. 
 
 Hoping that this letter will relieve your mind of doubts as to 
 whether " the head of the department has really given the matter any 
 thought at all," I am very respectfully, J. M. Kusk. 
 
 HON. CHAS. H. WALKER, OF SURPRISE, NEB., ANSWERS MR. RUSK. 
 
 Hon. Jerry Rush, Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Dear Sir : I may owe you an apology for the part I have taken 
 in exposing the false witnesses introduced in your Bulletin No. 8, in 
 my letter to The Nebraska State Journal [see p. 144] to which you 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 267 
 
 refer in a recent open letter to Chancellor Canfield. I did not intend 
 to irritate you. I thought you would thank me for the information that 
 you had been grossly imposed upon. In my innocence I thought you 
 wanted the exact truth whether the testimony sustained your theory 
 or not. I cannot but regret that it appears that I was mistaken. 
 While it may make you a little impatient to have your attention called 
 to these false statements, the hog growers, who are specially interested 
 in this matter, are entitled to know the truth, let it come where it 
 will. 
 
 In presenting a different experience from the one you have enjoyed, 
 I do not mean to be disrespectful. I recognize your high position 
 and do not wish to disturb your sensitive nature at the same time 
 Without intention, no doubt, it does seem to me that you have not 
 done exactly square in this matter.. When you asked men (I mean 
 your department, of course) to give you their experience, and they 
 did it, it don't look right to suppress it and publish a different version 
 from others not in possession of the facts unless from hearsay, even if 
 it is more to your advantage in the discussion. It not only hurts the 
 feelings of the persons thus treated, but it misleads and deceives those 
 you are supposed to serve. As to the claim that mistakes have been 
 made : Whatever others may have said I have never contended to the 
 contrary. It is neither true nor wise to do so. Neither can I see how 
 any reasonable person could expect such a thing, but I am unwilling 
 that a matter of this importance shall suffer falsely or stand responsi- 
 ble for misfortunes arising from other causes. 
 
 You are exceedingly kind in excusing your witness because of a de- 
 fective memory. The loss of memory is a great affliction and while 
 you have excited my sympathy, it is still bothering me to under- 
 stand how a man can forget so peculiarly as to think another had 
 seventy-nine hogs inoculated and lost all but thirteen when he never 
 had a hog inoculated in the world; but I know there are wonderful 
 things transpiring in this eventful age. 
 
 You seem to think you have proven inoculation a failure by nega- 
 tive evidence. You think you have demonstrated by the failures you 
 have made and because of them you urge that others who have met 
 with success are deluded. 
 
 You do not seem to think that intelligent men that have spent their 
 lives in raising hogs, and have anxiously watched them as they have 
 lost them by the hundreds, are capable of passing on their own ex- 
 perience on this subject. With some of us, for years before we com- 
 menced the practice of inoculation, cholera was a regular visitor to our 
 herds, while since that time we have been free from the scourge. If 
 this is not the result of inoculation as you suggest, it is certainly a 
 very happy coincidence. You have told us how you have been able 
 to disprove the preventive powers of .inoculation; by following you in 
 
268 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 our treatment of our hogs we ought to meet with the same results, but 
 we have not. We have placed them in infected herds, the worst we 
 could find, aud have fed them on the viscera of hogs that had died 
 with the cholera, without communicating the disease. And we have 
 often repeated it. We have done it as honestly aud thoroughly as our 
 intelligence would permit from purely a selfish motive. We have not 
 thought it would pay to deceive ourselves, and inasmuch as there is 
 not a dollar in it if we were to deceive others, that motive, from a selfish 
 or any other standpoint, could not be attributed to us. For these rea- 
 sons we have tried not only to be honest with ourselves but to be as 
 thorough in our investigations as we could, and when we found by 
 experience we could put our infected pigs into infected herds, and feed 
 them on the dead carcasses of hogs that died with cholera we were sat- 
 isfied with the result. Experience extending over the last four years 
 has warranted us in this conclusion. 
 
 If you had been a great sufferer from this disease to the extent that 
 you had been kept poor by your losses would you think it a delusion 
 if, upon adopting a practice recommended as a preventive, it should 
 prove so in your experience? If it was a delusion would you not 
 cling to it? 
 
 You say inoculation failed at Peoria, but by implication you admit 
 that it did not fail with those that were twice inoculated. This is a 
 destructive admission to make for your theory unless you claim that 
 you have fathomed all the secrets controlling it, when you admit that 
 any protection is received from the practice you have admitted too 
 much — your case is lost. 
 
 If it can be done once it can be done again. 
 
 You say it was a failure at Davenport. You mean, if you wish to 
 state the facts, that hogs could not be inoculated in the pens at Dav- 
 enport without a great loss, for reasons that with experience became 
 obvious, but you do not mean to say that hogs that had beeu inocu- 
 lated took the cholera when exposed in these pens. If you do you 
 mean to state that which is not true. 
 
 The enterprise was not abandoned because inoculated hogs could 
 not be kept there, but because the operation could not be done success- 
 fully ; that is, without too great a mortality on account of the food. 
 This fact was thoroughly established with 200 inoculated taken there 
 from this state. 
 
 You say that the experience in Nebraska in 1888 demonstrated the 
 failure of inoculation, and I suppose you will continue to say so, no 
 matter how conclusively it is shown that what you are pleased to call 
 failures are simply the result of a natural outbreak of the disease that 
 was raging in the neighborhood at the time and attacked herds that 
 were not inoculated as well as those that were recently inoculated. 
 
 It would hardly seem necessary to contend with scientists that ua- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 269 
 
 ture has but one law to govern the action of a certain poison. Still 
 you claim to have found another. You have here a poison administered 
 to several herds taken from the same bottle, and you claim as a scien- 
 tist that while it did not even sicken one herd it killed 90 per cent of 
 the other. You have been repeatedly asked for a precedent to help 
 sustain your theory or any evidence to show that any poison is gov- 
 erned by two different laws that act haphazard or at pleasure, making 
 itself deadly in one herd and harmless in the other. You rely on your 
 table on page 11 of your bulletin to establish this. Mr. Sylvester's 
 hogs were known to be sick when they were inoculated and dying, Mr. 
 F. W. Luddon's hogs were never sick. Two other Luddon brothers 
 occupied the farm across the road, one of them had his hogs iuoculated 
 and a large per cent of them sickened and died. The other had his 
 quarantined in a pen and they were not inoculated, yet these also sick- 
 ened and died in the same ratio. If it was inoculation that killed 
 those that were inoculated what was it that killed those that were not, 
 and if inoculation was so fatal to the one herd, why did it not even 
 sicken the other Luddon's herd ? You may be able by only telling a 
 part of the story to convey the impression that inoculation was the cause 
 of this mortality; try it by telling the whole story and see how it will 
 work. 
 
 You claim a loss of 10 per cent of pigs inoculated. From that 
 showing is it not better to lose 10 per cent of your pigs when they 
 simply represent a sow's time for four or five months than to lose the 
 4 per cent you claim is the only loss of hogs not inoculated, with the 
 corn they have consumed thrown in? But you do not tell us that 
 men only inoculate that have places infected with cholera and then ask 
 us to give you credit for 10 per cent loss on those infected grounds, 
 but when you estimate the losses from cholera by natural infection 
 you estimate upon all the hogs in the country, a very small per cent 
 of which are kept on infected grounds, and yet you would have us be- 
 lieve you intend to be honest in your presentation. 
 
 Surprise, Neb. C. H. Walkee. 
 
KESUME. 
 
 Is the Secretary of Agriculture, Hon. J. M. Rusk, 
 Guilty of Treason to his Official Trust or Not? 
 
 (271) 
 
RESUME. 
 
 Id his letter to Senator Paddock Mr. Rusk tries to make a point 
 against me when he says, "He now turns to the people of Nebraska 
 and frantically calls on them to sustain him by writing to their con- 
 gressmen to ' stir them up/ he says, ' and let them know that they are 
 your representatives and not the subjects of Jerry Rusk or his depart- 
 ment." Such an accusation as that is supremely ridiculous regarding 
 a man of my character, who is continually challenging public opinion 
 on matters it unfortunately deems of far more importance to its spir- 
 itual welfare than the treasonable acts of the secretary of agriculture 
 and his advisers. 
 
 In another part of this work I have printed two letters from the 
 chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry begging for support from 
 the agricultural press. Though written coolly enough, they demon- 
 strate quite a "frantic" condition of the mind on the part of the de- 
 partment. It is well known that there is not and has not been one 
 single first-class agricultural paper in the west on the side of the de- 
 partment for some years, as it is also equally well known that bribery, 
 in the form of employment, has been given to about the only paper 
 which does support its opinions. These facts speak for themselves. 
 
 Has not the utter fallacy of every claim made by Mr. Rusk been 
 demonstrated time and again, and even now by the fact that not one 
 responsible western agricultural paper has ever noticed such appeals 
 for aid from these politicians, who are slowly drowning in the slough 
 of despond, filthy and corrupt with their own errors and misstatements? 
 The editors of these papers cannot afford to stultify themselves and 
 defy the intelligence of their readers, as the secretary of agriculture 
 and his advisers do. Where, in the last five years, can be found an 
 editorial supporting work which the chief of the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry claims to be "the careful and comprehensive researches" of 
 that department ? All over the west the farmers have accepted these 
 researches with that sullen indifference which characterizes the recep- 
 18 (273) 
 
274 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 tion of the fair promises of many of their deceiving employers by the 
 wage earners. I beg "frantically" for support in a position nothing 
 but duty to the state of Nebraska causes me to occupy ! 
 
 Mr. Rusk defies the verdict, not only of this state, but the great 
 agricultural press of the west, when he supports himself on the say of 
 one self-looking-out-for-employe, who has nothing he can show in his 
 fourteen years' work for his department against this common verdict, 
 that nothing of value has emanated from his researches by the intelli- 
 gent among the people and the scientific world. It is easy to deceive 
 one man when that man is so ignorant of the necessary details of the 
 work of his department as to be totally unfitted for the position. It 
 is a disgrace to the intelligence of the people, a threatening danger to 
 the cause of good government, to fill a position requiring that broad 
 education, that intensity of enthusiasm which will enable the occupant 
 to live, sleep, and eat in earnest and intelligent sympathy with the 
 varied interests of the American farmer with any man so ignorant 
 and incompetent that he can be so easily imposed on as the secretary 
 of agriculture has been, merely because such a man is a sort of addi- 
 tional wheel in the political machine, and has influence enough to add 
 an indefinite number of corrupt spokes to strengthen the machine in 
 its daily work of grinding out the chains of slavery for an indulgent 
 and easily imposed on people. Does the secretary of agriculture know 
 of any people so self-abnegating of all personal interest that they are 
 willing to hold a man in office at my salary and spend ten thousand a 
 year merely out of personal liking for him, or merely because he 
 "frantically" cries for aid in his dire distress? Human nature is not 
 built that way according to my experience. 
 
 While I have perhaps two friends in Nebraska, Mr. Gere, editor 
 of the State Journal, and Mr. Reed, of Western Resources, who would 
 deny themselves much to aid me were I in distress, men who love 
 me because in doing so there is something in me which stimulates 
 their own self-love (no man loves another, or woman either, save for 
 his own pleasure; no man is friendly to another save that it gives him 
 happiness ; no man hath greater love for another than that he gives 
 his life for him, because nothing else yields him so much happiness), 
 still the mass of people who desire my presence in Nebraska do it on 
 the same principle, for self in another form, because my researches 
 have not only done them some good, but promise to do more, without 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 275 
 
 one word from me in their support Mr. Rusk denies to these men 
 the attribute of common intelligence, that honesty to themselves which 
 enables them to judge of what is best for their own interests. Mr. 
 Husk refuses to listen to these men, but has an open ear for a man 
 who is absolutely without public confidence or support, no matter how 
 frantically he may plead for them. The secretary of agriculture 
 knows this to be so, but, because he thinks, or has been led to think, 
 that in some way my exposures of the rottenness of the researches of 
 the Bureau of Animal Industry encroach on his dignity, Mr. Rusk 
 refuses to listen to the verdict of the people, and publicly defies them. 
 "There are none so blind as those who wont see." There are none so 
 easily misled as those so ignorant as to be unable to appreciate the 
 truth when squarely presented to them. No greater danger threatens 
 us than the boldness with which politicians continually defy the in- 
 telligence of the people. As a nation we are a generation of slaves, 
 bowing meekly before the political juggernaut. Thankfully, portions 
 of the nation are waking to a necessity of manhood. The "people's 
 movement," in its various forms of farmers' alliance and labor or- 
 ganizations, is the most promising sign of the times. 
 
 LET US SUM UP THE EVIDENCE AND SEE WHETHER THE SECRE- 
 TARY OF AGRICULTURE IS GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY OF TREA- 
 SON TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIS HIGH OFFICE? 
 
 As admitted by Mr. Rusk in his letter to Senator Paddock when he 
 entered upon the duties as secretary of agriculture, he soon found that 
 a strong dispute existed as to the results published in the reports of 
 that department and my own, and that his predecessor had appointed 
 a " Board of Inquiry " of "eminent scientists" to investigate that 
 matter. 
 
 In May, 1889, one of that board, Dr. Bolton, sent in a report signed 
 by himself, which fact of itself, is evidence enough that he did not 
 fully agree with what he must have known was to be the findings of 
 the other members of that board, and that he would not trust them, or 
 else he would have handed his report to them, to be handed with theirs 
 by his colleagues on the board to the secretary of agriculture. This 
 report of Dr. Bolton did not conform with that of the two other 
 "eminent scientists," who handed in their report August 1, 1889, as 
 shown, not by words of mine, but by the verdict of the agricultural 
 
276 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 press and some of the most "eminent seientists" in the true sense, 
 among the investigators of the world. It is self-evident that the 
 secretary of agriculture must then have had the two reports in his 
 hands August 1, 1889. What explanation then can he give the people 
 of this country, whose servant he is, for " a public office is or should 
 be a public trust," for authorizing the publication of the second report 
 received August 1, 1889, and withholding the first report received 
 May, 1889, until some time afterwards? Is it not self-evident that 
 the secretary of agriculture gave his consent to this infamous proced- 
 ure in order to do me personal injury, and to deceive the press and 
 farmers of the country? What is that but treason? Can there be 
 any greater guilt on the part of a public officer? That it was con- 
 sidered to be a deception of the public by the editors of the agricult- 
 ural press has been demonstrated in the previous publication of their 
 editorials written at the time. In those editorials the editors of such 
 sterling papers as the Breeders' Gazette, the Farmers' Review, The 
 Homestead, and Western Resources, as well as others, asked the De- 
 partment of Agriculture to explain the self-evident contradictions 
 between the " fly sheet " majority report sent to them first and the 
 later published minority report of Dr. Bolton ? By entirely ignoring 
 those questions, by ignoring the universally appreciable fact that the 
 reports of that board of inquiry fell flat, does not Mr. Rusk admit his 
 guilt of malfeasance in his office, and of his willful attempt to deceive 
 the public? Is that being guilty of treason or not? 
 
 In his letter to Senator Paddock the secretary of agriculture betrays 
 a most intimate acquaintance with the various publications from my- 
 self, and necessarily with the editorials of Hon. Charles H. Gere, 
 also president of the board of regents at the time. In Bulletin No. 8 
 quotations are made from my Chicago "Pamphlet No. 3." In the 
 columns of the State Journal as well as in that pamphlet appeared 
 the following self-incriminating letter from one of the " eminent 
 scientists" of that "board of inquiry concerning swine diseases," 
 which the reader must pardon me for introducing again : 
 
 Under the heading, " The Report Was Fixed," the editor of The 
 Nebraska State Journal, and who is also president of the board of 
 regents of the State University, published the following in a late issue: 
 
 "The suggestions made by The Journal after the report of the 
 swine disease commission was published last summer, that some undue 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 277 
 
 influence was exercised on the members thereof to induce them to 
 suppress all that they had really found out by their protracted inves- 
 tigation, is pretty well borne out by a letter addressed by a member of 
 the commission to Dr. Detmers, of Columbus, on the day before the 
 report was published. The letter was as follows: 
 
 "' Agricultural Experiment Station, 
 "' University of Illinois, 
 
 "' Champaign, III., August 13, 1889. 
 
 " ' My Dear Dr. Detmers : I suppose you have seen by the papers 
 that the report of tlie "board of inquiry concerning diseases of swine" 
 has been presented to the Washington authorities, and I suppose, too, 
 that you are disappointed at least in my signing the clause in respect 
 to your early work. Yet I know fully that you would not feel hard 
 if you knew what I did do and what I tried to do and failed. I could 
 not help knowing that the germ you worked with in 1878—80 was the 
 same as that now held by you to be the cause of the disease you call 
 swine plague. I knew this without examination this last winter. I 
 have not said you are not entitled to priority in this, neither has the 
 board. After a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to 
 say as an individual what I know and what should have been said in 
 this report. 
 
 " ' While I could not help doing what was done, I was far from 
 satisfied. 
 
 " 'As to there being two diseases with different germs we were all 
 agreed ; but not satisfied as to the commonness of occurrence of the 
 one called swine plague by the Washington folks. We found one 
 outbreak away from the east where it had only been found near 
 Washington and Baltimore. It is not probable that it is a prevalent 
 and serious malady, though it seems bad enough when once introduced 
 to a herd. The most that troubled me about it was whether or not it 
 was a peculiar variety of the common germ. But it has so many 
 points of difference and holds them so tenaciously in all process of 
 culture that it seems to me impossible to consider them as one thing 
 in any sense. This one new outbreak was in Kentucky.. I wanted 
 to go back and further study the disease there, but neither had oppor- 
 tunity or permission. Hoping to see you soon, I am faithfully yours, 
 
 "<T. J. BURRILL.' 
 "The language of the letter is positive proof that the commission 
 was making a certain sort of report under compulsion, and as the com- 
 mission was acting uuder the authority of congress and was paid by 
 an appropriation of $30,000 made by congress, The Journal calls for 
 a congressional investigation of that report which has cost the country 
 such a smart sum." 
 
 With the evidence that we have, that Mr. Rusk cannot help but 
 know of the above letter, aud that to any honest secretary of agricult- 
 
278 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 lire determined to do his duty, the letter of Mr. Burrill shows self- 
 evidently that he had not done as an honest man should, was it not 
 the duty of Mr. Rusk to ask of Mr. Burrill for that evidence which he 
 promises " after a little, when the time seems to be proper, I want to say 
 as an individual what I know, and what should have been said in this 
 report" t How much time does Mr. Rusk require to do his duty and 
 force a deceiving official to make explanations promised August 13,. 
 1889? 
 
 In the columns of the Nebraska State Journal, and also at different 
 times from me, appeared the following quotations ; the first from an 
 article by Dr. Frosch, assistant in Koch's laboratory in Berlin, who? 
 by Koch's orders, passed in review the literature of both sides of the 
 controversy in this country and then compared the results here by per- 
 sonal investigations and decided in favor of the Nebraska investiga- 
 tions ; the second, by another careful reviewer, who went over the 
 whole literature in most critical manner and published the results in 
 the Journal of Comparative Medicine. Dr. Frosch says : 
 
 The fact stands for me confirmed that in the five years that have 
 passed since the second plague was first announced not one single case 
 of an independent appearance of Salmon's swine plague has been re- 
 ported which can be said to be free from objections. 
 
 The mistaken conception of Salmon's place in the swine plague in- 
 vestigations must be laid to the fact that the publications, both on 
 swine plague and hog cholera, have his name and as such have been 
 quoted in the literature. 
 
 From the present publication of Smith's, however, which could not 
 be seen in reading the reports of the Bureau of Animal Industry, it 
 is evident that Salmon was not the discoverer of either the hog cholera 
 germ or that of the swine plague, so now we know the true condi- 
 tion of things in that regard. 
 
 The reviewer in the Journal of Comparative Medicine, says : 
 
 We have compared the extracts cited by Dr. Billings from the reports 
 of the Department of Agriculture, line by line and word for ivord ; we 
 have carefully examined the plates accompanying these reports to which 
 he refers, and we have also read the entire context from which he quotes,. 
 in order to avoid any possible bias which may follow from reading dis- 
 connected sentences. As a result we are enabled to say that all of Dr. 
 Billings , charges, sweeping and severe as they are, are true and just, 
 and ice cannot understand how the committee appointed to investigate 
 the special question involved could fail to make the same examination, to 
 arrive at the same result, and to publish that result in calm, judicious 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 279 
 
 language, not as a matter of justice to Dr. Billiugs, or of criticism of 
 Dr. Salmon, but as a positive duty to science. Regarded from this 
 point of view, the report of that committee is the most disappointing doc- 
 ument of the kind we have ever seen. This we may say without intimat- 
 ing, as Dr. Billings does, that its aidhors were under the control of the 
 " Bureaucratic Whip." 
 
 Mr. Rusk cannot claim ignorance of these things, and yet he passes 
 them by and utterly ignores them. Would such conduct not be con- 
 sidered treason to a public trust in an official in any other government 
 and by any other than the blindly indifferent American people? The 
 statistics and other evidence furnished by Mr. Rusk's correspondents 
 in "Bulletin No. 8," on Inoculation, have been given in this work, 
 and it has been conclusively demonstrated that u by the authority of 
 the secretary of agriculture" not only was self-evidently false testi- 
 mony given by his correspondents asserting losses by inoculation on 
 the part of men who never inoculated a hog, and in districts where no 
 inoculation has ever been done, and that some of this evidence is even 
 contradicted in the bulletin itself, where in the table given F. W. 
 Luddon is said to have lost "none/' and yet several correspondents 
 say he lost nearly all, and of the case of his brother Charles who never 
 inoculated a hog, and yet is said to have lost equally from its effects, 
 but beyond this it has positively been shown that many letters (we 
 have not published all we have) favorable to our work which were 
 written to Mr. Rusk must have been received and were purposely 
 suppressed in that bulletin. 
 
 For what is the secretary of agriculture appointed? Is it to lay 
 the whole unvarnished truth before the farmers of the country, or is 
 it to deceive them by the publications of absolute falsehoods, erro- 
 neous statements, and misleading testimony, and by withholding true 
 evidence from men whose repulation is beyond question ? Is Mr. 
 Rusk guilty of treason to the trust imposed on him, or not? 
 
 At Ottawa, 111., Mr. Rusk first told the farmers that he could 
 do nothing for them for lack of funds, but when he heard that we 
 were going to try to aid them in their distress he found abundant 
 means to send agents there to create distrust in our endeavors, and to 
 nullify their effects. Acting by his authority, these agents proposed 
 a test and that the farmers select a committee of referees in whose 
 hands the whole matter was to be left. Acting under his authority, 
 
280 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 instead of immediately leaving, as an honest disputant in such a ques- 
 tion should, after inoculating his bunch of hogs according to the 
 bureau method, and as Mr. Cadwell did, no matter how he did it, 
 Mr. Rusk's agent remained on the ground and took the whole matter 
 out of the hands of the referees, issuing reports at his pleasure, or 
 by command from Washington, and finally, I am informed, writing 
 the report which the contemptible committee of referees signed. It 
 matters nothing to the question which way the results went. I ask 
 is that an honorable and dignified course for an official in Mr. Rusk's 
 high position to sanction? Would any set of men in the ordinary 
 business of life so conduct themselves? Would any court of justice in 
 the world sanction such a procedure for a moment? Is not that one 
 of the highest punishable crimes, "tampering with the jury"? 
 
 THE SECEETAEY OF AGEICULTUEE INTEEFEEES WITH THE CON- 
 STITUTIONAL EIGHTS OF PEIVATE CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 The misdemeanors on the part of secretary of agriculture, or those 
 having his sanction and authorization, previously considered, have been 
 largely in reference to the public, especially the farmers and swine 
 breeders of the west. I must now beg the indulgence of my readers 
 for drawing attention to an act which bears more directly on myself, 
 though fortunately for me its repetition in that " Farmers' Bulletin 
 No. 8 " renders it a matter of equal importance to the public. Had 
 it not been for this I should have passed it by, as not worthy of no- 
 tice. As has been repeatedly noticed, this Bulletin No. 8 bears on its 
 cover the words " published by the authority of the secretary of ag- 
 riculture." I now am going to call attention to the most disgraceful 
 statement in the whole bulletin, a statement which has no place what- 
 ever in that bulletin ; a statement ivhich has no connection with inocu- 
 lation as performed in Nebrasha ; a statement which lays the sec- 
 retary of agriculture open to prosecution in the courts of the land ; a 
 statement made only to mislead the public and to create a prejudice 
 against inoculation; a statement which, stronger than any other made 
 in that bulletin, shows its malicious and villainous character, and proves 
 beyond question that the Department of Agriculture knoivs that inocula- 
 tion has been successfully done; that it can be done, and that it is going 
 to be made successful, and that it ivill then kill its opponents and justify 
 the battle ivhich I have made not only for inoculation, because I know 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 281 
 
 it will succeed in the future infinitely better than in the past, but for jus- 
 tice and truth towards the farmers of the United States. Inoculation 
 will succeed, aud with it must come honesty in the public service as 
 represented by the Agricultural Department. Here is the statement: 
 
 THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF INOCULATION. 
 
 It is very apparent from the facts presented in this bulletin that 
 inoculation is a very dangerous operation, and that the protection from 
 it is, at best, uncertain, and in many cases entirely wanting. With 
 these incontestable conclusions in mind, we will give some figures on 
 the losses from swine disease and the cost of inoculation. Two years 
 ago the following statement was made: 
 
 According to the estimates of the statistical division there are about 
 50,300,000 hogs in the United States. The inoculation of these at 
 50 cents per head would cost $25,150,000. The total loss from dis- 
 ease during the year 1888 was 3,105,000 hogs, at an average value of 
 $5.79 each. Tins would make the total loss of swine from all dis- 
 eases $17,980,000. 
 
 In order to estimate the loss from hog cholera we must deduct from 
 this sum the losses from ordinary diseases, such as animal parasites, 
 exposure, overcrowding, and improper feeding, which are always act- 
 ing and do not produce epizootic diseases. Those losses were estimated 
 by the statistician of the department in 1886 to be about 4 per cent 
 of the total number of hogs, but as this may be considered rather a 
 large estimate we will, in our calculation, take 3 per cent as the aver- 
 age loss from such causes. This would amount in 1888 to 1,509,000 
 animals, valued at $8,737,000, and deducting from this the total loss 
 of swine we have remaining $9,243,000 as the losses from epizootic 
 swine diseases. In the present condition of our knowledge we must 
 admit that there are at least two entirely distinct epizootic diseases 
 of hogs, which have been referred to in the reports of this bureau 
 as hog cholera and swine plague. The exact proportion of the loss 
 caused by each of these diseases is at present unknown, but if Ave 
 admit for the purposes of this calculation that but one-third of the 
 loss is caused by swine plague we have remaining a loss of but 
 $6,163,000 for the year 1888, which can be attributed to hog cholera. 
 To prevent this disease by inoculation, as we have just seen, requires 
 the expenditure in cash of $25,150,000, or more than four times the 
 amount of the actual losses. In addition to this expenditure there 
 should be counted the time required by the farmer in handling the 
 hogs at the time of the operation and in giving them such precau- 
 tionary care and in practicing such disinfection as is required to make 
 this operation at all successful. 
 
 We should reach the same conclusion if, instead of estimating the 
 loss and expense for the whole of the United States, we should take a 
 
282 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 single hog-raisiug state, as for example, the state of Illinois. Accord- 
 ing to the statistician's estimate there are 5,275,000 hogs in Illinois, 
 and to protect these by inoculation would cost 12,637,000. In the 
 year 1888 the total losses of hogs in that state from all diseases was 
 about 316,500, with an averagevalue of $7.45 each, which would make 
 the loss for that year $2,359,925. Deduct a loss of 3 per cent of all 
 the hogs in the state as caused by ordinary diseases, and we find that 
 this would amount to 158,250 hogs, worth $1,178,962. Deducting 
 the losses caused by ordinary diseases from the total losses from all 
 diseases and we have $1,180,963 left to represent the loss from both 
 hog cholera and swine plague. Take from this one-third, to repre- 
 sent the loss from swine plague, and we have the remaining, as the 
 loss from hog cholera, about the sum of $800,000. To prevent this 
 loss by inoculation, as we have seen, would require $2,637,000, or 
 more than three times the sum to be saved. 
 
 In the above calculations we were considering inoculation when 
 practiced as a private enterprise, with a charge of 50 cents per head 
 for the operation. It has since been proposed that the virus and in- 
 struments should be supplied by the state experiment stations and 
 that the farmers should perform the operation themselves. This 
 would no doubt reduce the cost of inoculation to 25 cents a head for 
 the time and trouble involved in the operation, the expressage on the 
 instruments and virus, and the precautions necessary to prevent the 
 spread of the disease to other herds. To this we must now add the 
 loss following the operation when performed on healthy herds. This 
 we have just seen has been with 2,643 animals inoculated the last 
 year, and with every precaution that could be adopted, over 10 per 
 cent. If the hogs average $5 per head in value this would be an ad- 
 ditional expense of 50 cents per head for each inoculated animal. 
 
 What truth is there in this statement ? 
 
 It has been proposed that the virus and instruments should be 
 supplied by the state experiment stations and that the farmers should 
 perform the operation themselves. This would no doubt reduce the 
 cost of inoculation to L 25 cents a head for the time and trouble involved 
 in the operation and the expressage on instruments and virus and the 
 precautions necessary to prevent the spread of the disease to other herds. 
 
 We have nothing to do with other experiment stations, but here is 
 the cost to Nebraska farmers : 
 
 While the virus and necessary implements will be supplied to any 
 farmer or breeder in Nebraska free of charge, except that such farmer 
 or breeder must pay the express charges on the same from Lincoln, 
 and for the return of the implements to Lincoln, still any person who 
 neglects to return said implements will be shut off, and in future shut 
 of from the privilege of obtaining virus from this laboratory. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 283 
 
 Now, by what manner of figuring inoculation can be made to cost 
 "25 cents a head " under those conditions, unless limited to two hogs, 
 is more than I can see? We can send virus for 1,000 full grown 
 hogs anywhere in the state for 50 cents, expressage both ways, and for 
 $1.00 for 10,000, so the deceptive fallacy of such an argument is at 
 once apparent. As to expenses for the " precautions necessary to pre- 
 vent the spread of the disease to other herds," they do not exist, be- 
 cause, as we only inoculate herds already on dangerous ground, the 
 danger existed before the inoculation, which is the reason farmers in- 
 oculate, and as no precautions can be taken beforehand, other than 
 have been mentioned, t>f keeping the hogs on those grounds and all 
 other people and things off them even before inoculation, it cannot be 
 seen how the expense is increased an iota by inoculation. As to 
 losses, stunting, and dangers, our correspondents, whom Mr. Rusk also 
 received letters from, have shown none such exist with the virus sent 
 from here. 
 
 To whom then is that statement directed ? What cause was there 
 to print it in that bulletin ? It certainly has no relation to the work 
 done in Nebraska. Why then was it printed? If not printed to 
 convey a false impression, and as the last resort of desperate men to 
 preveut the successful spread of inoculation among the farmers of 
 the country by endeavoring to frighten them on account of the ex- 
 pense, then for what purpose was it printed? It cannot have been in- 
 tended for me now, for in no way possible can I make one cent, nor 
 do I endeavor to make a cent, even where I could, out of inoculation 
 in other states, or even by writing letters of advice to farmers in 
 other states. It can only be directed then at my late partner, Mr. 
 George A. Seaverns, of Chicago, a gentleman to whom the farmers of 
 this country owe an everlasting debt, for had it not been for him in- 
 oculation would have been a thing of the past now. It cannot even 
 be directed against Mr. Seaverns, for long ago he withdrew all ad- 
 vertisements and gave up inoculation because it was useless for him to 
 go on with his government doing all it could to injure him. Never- 
 theless, the secretary of agriculture should be financially and officially 
 responsible for the publication of such stuff as the above, for the reason 
 that it is the same malignant assault which he authorized to injure the 
 business of myself and Mr. Seaverns when we were together. In 
 Bulletin No. 8 it says that the endeavor to make a business out of in- 
 
284 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 oculation was a failure. How could it have been anything else with the 
 whole power of the Department of Agriculture opposing it with such 
 stuff as that? The first attack of that kind was made before the Na- 
 tional Swine Breeders' Association in Chicago, November, 1889, aud 
 published in the reports of that meeting and somewhat in the daily 
 press. The thing was repeated at the meeting of the Kansas State 
 Board of Agriculture a few months later, and published in its report; 
 and again in a special bulletin of the Department of Agriculture in 
 1890 sent broadcast over the country. 
 
 Notwithstanding the intrigues of the Department of Agriculture 
 had forced me to leave Nebraska in 1889, out of self-respect, the sec- 
 retary of agriculture still pursued me, as a private citizen, and did his 
 utmost to ruin me financially, utterly regardless of the effects on my 
 family, and his malignant interference caused Mr. Seaverns, an en- 
 tirely innocent man, and a quiet business citizen of the country, an 
 earnest republican too, at that, to lose some fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 Remember, reader, Mr. Rusk did not publish in any of these state- 
 ments that inoculation was a fraud as a fact, nor does he now; he did 
 not say then that it has not been successfully performed many times, nor 
 does he now; he simply told the farmers then, as he falsely intimates 
 to them now, that it is too expensive. Is that any of Mr. Rusk's busi- 
 ness? That is a question for the farmer alone to decide. We will 
 not discuss it. But suppose Mr. Seaverns had still continued it; sup- 
 pose he desires to resume it, does the constitution of the United States 
 give the secretary of agriculture a right to injure a citizen's business 
 by telling those likely to be his patrons, that what he offers them is too 
 expensive f Where do we live? Is this the land of Paine and Wash- 
 ington, Hancock and Adams, Jefferson and Randolph, established in 
 the hopes of making an ideally free people, or is it inquisitional Rus- 
 sia with its infamous czar ? Has not Mr. Rusk broken the constitu- 
 tion in letter and in spirit ? If so, then I declare the secretary of 
 agriculture to be the greatest traitor, the most maliguantly false offi- 
 cial that has ever disgraced this government since the fourth of July 
 was made gloriously immortal in the sublime words of the Declaration 
 of Independence. 
 
 Changing the wording, but in the spirit which animated Patrick 
 Henry, the American people of to-day should say, "give us justice or 
 give us death." In the same way, aud for the people of the United 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. . 285 
 
 States to consider, I would change a passage of Secretary Rusk's let- 
 ter to Senator Paddock to read : 
 
 If the people of the United States wish to continue this kind of a 
 secretary in such a conspicuous position, paying him $8,000 a year 
 and allowing him to spend the public funds to injure their live stock 
 interests, I suppose they have the power to do so, but they cannot ex- 
 pect to shift upon other parties the discredit and disgrace which the 
 misdoings and neglect of the Department of Agriculture bring on the 
 fair name of the country. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Causes Which Have Led to the Conditions 
 Here Portrayed in American Politics. 
 
 (287) 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 " When precedents fail to assist us toe must return to the first princi- 
 ples of things for information, and think as if we were the first man 
 that ever thought." 
 
 "Bach to the first plain truths of nature, friend, and begin anew." — 
 (Thomas Paine.) 
 
 In the foregoing pages have been chronicled a series of facts of the 
 most disgraceful character in connection with purity in the public serv- 
 ice of the government of the United States. Wherever we have an 
 effect we at once know that there must be some cause or causes behind 
 it. Nothing happens without cause. Among these causes have been 
 clearly demonstrated : 
 
 First — Erroneous work and false publication in the reports of the 
 Department of Agriculture having reference to the work of the Bu- 
 reau of Animal Industry. 
 
 Second — Cowardice, due to fear that such erroneous and false work 
 would find exposure. 
 
 Third — Jealousy. The evident desire to make the public think 
 that all the work on which it should depend in these lines emanated 
 from the National Agricultural Department. 
 
 Fourth — Failure to do anything after more than ten years' trial in 
 the public service. 
 
 Fifth — Fear of the effect of the Nebraska investigation on the 
 minds of the farmers in the coming election. 
 
 "A DEMOCRAT FROM DEMOCRAT VILLE." 
 
 Political persecution of a life-destroying character, while not of the 
 active guillotine type, is nevertheless a fact in this country. The right 
 of independent citizenship is denied to every person in the public serv- 
 ice by the party in power, unless the person holding such position is 
 the subservient tool of the temporary rulers. A spy system is kept 
 up in order to watch the movements and catch the words of minor 
 
 18 ( 289 ) 
 
290 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 public officials. Some of the higher need to be watched also by their 
 superiors. It is a well known fact that the delegates at Minneapolis 
 received numerous telegrams from Washington to "support Rusk for 
 first place if Harrison won't work" or words to that effect. There is 
 intrigue everywhere and honesty to one another is made painfully 
 pregnant by its absence. 
 
 The spy system which has been kept up on the work of this labo- 
 ratory, especially during the last year, notwithstanding the poverty of 
 Mr. Rusk's department, has been something unheard of, where every- 
 thing was open to the public. Only the other day a gentleman in 
 whom I should be able to trust implicity told me that he saw a letter 
 from the secretary of agriculture in which it said that he, the secretary 
 " had it from a stenographer who took down the words as spoken by 
 me that I said I was a " Democrat from Democratville" which is 
 about the only true accusation which has been made against me. It 
 is no new thing, the same charge was made before the investigating 
 committee of the Nebraska legislature of 1888-9. The same charge 
 was one of the causes of the "Bill for Remuneration" being put into 
 the legislature to demand pay for the hogs claimed to have been killed 
 by inoculation at Surprise, Neb., in 1888. Mr. Rusk refers to 
 that bill in his letter to Chancellor Canfield and endeavors to draw 
 support from it, that the hogs mentioned were indeed killed as he 
 claims. Mr. Rusk does not tell his readers that the legislature of 
 Nebraska, even though heated to a red-hot temperature, did not believe 
 that charge to be true; that it did not consider that bill even in com- 
 mittee, so far as the public knew of it; that it never was brought up 
 by the "investigating committee," though challenged to do so in the 
 following " open letter " published by me in the Lincoln Daily Call 
 of February 14, li 
 
 I see by the columns of the Call of last evening that certain 
 ignorant, demented, and unfortunate people, who have been led to 
 think that they lost certain hogs by means of inoculation through the 
 instigation of a small gang of political dead-beats who live on the 
 public pap, and a certain pole-cat whose offensive aroma still pollutes 
 the pure air of Nebraska, have presented a bill for remuneration for 
 their own ignorance and laziness. It is my desire to stir up this pool 
 of filth to its dregs, and now I hope every farmer in the legislature 
 will push "Hill's hog cholera bill" to an abrupt conclusion. The 
 remark that " they did permit him (me) at his (my) request to inocu- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 291 
 
 late their hogs," on the part of said owners, is an infernal lie. The 
 assertion that one single hog of the 614 inoculated at that time and 
 place, with the same material, died from the effects of inoculation, is 
 also an infernal lie, and the persons who have instigated this move 
 and those who have followed at their beck and call, and every one who 
 supports it, will be guilty of an attempt of as barefaced a robbery of 
 the public funds as was ever attempted, though small in amount. 
 
 These words were bold enough to have stirred up a hornet's nest of 
 action in a mad republican legislature, backed by a frantic governor, 
 had there been an iota of "sand" in the whole body. The trouble was 
 they knew full well that they did not have an iota of fact to stand on. 
 They knew that to act on that bill as desired would bring down on 
 them every intelligent farmer and breeder in the state. Though a 
 " democrat," the machine could not decapitate me. It cannot do it 
 now. My strongest supporters are all republicans. It is an encour- 
 aging sign of the "good times coming," to see the intelligent meu of 
 this state stamping the verdict of the machine to pieces and standing 
 lip for themselves. Does the secretary of agriculture assume that he 
 will do anything but increase the contempt and distrust which the 
 breeders of Nebraska already have for him when they read in his let- 
 ter to Mr. Canfield that " it may suit the purposes of the half dozen 
 persons who are interested in sustaining inoculation to draw the atten- 
 tion of the farmers from the facts which prove it to be a humbug, by 
 assuming such unbounded indignation over errors in a few letters 
 which could be excluded without affecting iu the least the general con- 
 clusions of the bulletin. But unless I am greatly mistaken as to the 
 intelligence of Nebraska farmers, this plan of throwing dust in their 
 eyes will not succeed"? 
 
 It will be noticed Mr. Rusk admits the "errors which could be 
 excluded," but were not. Why not? Certainly the secretary of ag- 
 riculture must have " lost his head." He cannot know the facts, not- 
 withstanding the diligence with which he claims to have read the 
 Nebraska papers. Will he kindly mention the "half dozen per- 
 sons " by name who have such direct and personal interest in inocu- 
 lation, that they desire to "humbug the farmers" ? 
 
 To be sure there are just six members in the Board of Regents of 
 the State University, but they have " washed their hands" of this 
 matter and do as requested by the breeders of the state. 
 
 Is it the State Board of Agriculture and county agricultural soci- 
 
292 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 eties of the state ; is it the Nebraska Improved Live Stock Breed- 
 ers' Association, composed of representive men directly interested in 
 breeding all kinds of stock; is it the Shorthorn Breeders', the Hereford 
 Breeders', the Draft Horse Breeders', the Trotting Horse Breeders', the 
 Swine Breeders', or the Nebraska Dairymen's Association, to whom 
 the secretary of agriculture refers as so low and despicable that they 
 support a man in position for some perfidious and personal purpose? 
 
 Let us go slowly in this matter ! 
 
 Something must be very rotten in Washington, or in Nebraska, 
 when the secretary of agriculture dares to assert so many of the most 
 responsible and respectable men of a state, every one of whom are 
 farmers, are humbugging their brother farmers for some personal rea- 
 son. No public official since our government was formed ever had 
 such barefaced audacity as to accuse such a representative body of 
 men as the members of the associations mentioned, of being either 
 idiots, capable of being easily fooled by such an extremely clever and 
 unprincipled fiend as the writer is asserted to be, or rascals capable of 
 fooling their co-citizens for personal reasons. 
 
 As in every other state in this union, the men who support and con- 
 trol this work in Nebraska not only represent the most intelligent 
 farmers in the community but the most public spirited. They have 
 formed themselves into the associations named not only for mutual 
 benefit, but because unitedly they can better develop the particular in- 
 terest named, which is of vast importance to the state. The great 
 majority of those men are republicans, but they never asked whether 
 I was a "democrat from Democratville" or not, because they all know, 
 and I know I dare assert it, that whatever my politics may be, that 
 above all I have been and am as true as the magnet to its pole to their 
 respective interests, the live stock of Nebraska, and that means as well 
 of the United States ? They know that it is none of their business 
 what my politics are. They know and I know that it is none of Mr. 
 Rusk's. They know and I know, and if Mr. Rusk does not know it, 
 the quicker he learns it the more creditable will it be to his intelligence, 
 that the only questions with which they have to do are : Is he com- 
 petent to do the work we entrust to him? Is he honestly devoted to 
 our interests? The secretary of agriculture denies both. He is but 
 one man, and a totally incompetent one at that. Not only does he 
 not know enough to judge, but so biased and unscrupulously dishon- 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 293 
 
 est is he that he refuses to see the truth and publish it when before 
 him; so dishonestly partisan is he, that he tramples the declaration of 
 independence under foot and sets the constitution at naught, because 
 the writer happens to be a " democrat from Democratville." 
 
 There is too much liberty in the United States. Liberty which 
 countenances abuse is the mother of anarchy, and yet it was for lib- 
 erty which our fathers fought. Liberty, untempered by intelligent 
 justice, is the entire cause of our social and political rottenness to-day. 
 Let us close with a short consideration of this subject. 
 
 "WHERE LIBERTY IS NOT THAT IS MY COUNTRY." 
 
 Such were the words of Thomas Paine to Benjamin Franklin. 
 Such was the spirit which animated uprising humanity at the end of 
 the last century. Such was the spirit which inspired the "rights of 
 man"; which filled the "crises" with that power that brought the 
 American revolution to a successful ending and made the French 
 revolution disgraceful by the imprisonment of the greatest defender 
 of human rights the world has ever known. Unlike the American, 
 the French revolution was a demand for liberty untempered by in- 
 telligent justice. The "liberty" then demanded was for self-govern- 
 ment. It was a revolution against monarchial oppression. The 
 spirit ruling in America was purer than in France. There was more 
 self-abnegation and greater public devotion. We had no Robespierre 
 to sully our country with bloody deeds of injustice. Public service 
 has never yet been honored with the devotion of such a body of men 
 as the "Fathers of the American Revolution" in any country. No 
 other country has ever been in the same condition America was then. 
 The strong men of the world, the liberty loving brains of humanity, 
 had gradually centralized on the virgin soil of the United States. 
 "Give us liberty or give us death" was their watchword. Their ac- 
 tion gave birth to a nation with the slogan cry of "liberty." They 
 little realized that nature knows no such thing as liberty. Nature is 
 one moving example of subjugation to law. The "spirit of '76" 
 was justified in demanding liberty from kingly rule. The spirit of 
 to-day demands justice to all in the application of the laws. The 
 sons are revolting against the unintentional liberty planted by their 
 fathers. 
 
 The liberty of '76 has led to the anarchy of the present century. 
 
294 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 The anarchists proper are not the dangerous element in society to-day. 
 They are the logical result of the spirit of 1776. The truly danger- 
 ous elements are the " survivors in the struggle for existence " ; the 
 successful ones who, having strength to assume liberty for themselves, 
 deny justice to every one else. The fathers failed in that "they did 
 not go back to nature and study first principles." Had they done so, 
 they would have seen that justice was greater than liberty; that rights 
 were of human origin, forced by the might of concentrated mass 
 power, concessions made necessary from those who had assumed the 
 liberty unto themselves to do as they pleased. Our government is 
 dangerously approaching a condition of anarchy. Our law-makers 
 have less respect for the constitution and the laws than the people, 
 whose servants they should be. Both the constitution and the laws 
 are trampled boldly underfoot. The rich individualist defies them in 
 his relations to the wage earners. The massed individualism of the 
 trades unions defies them in its despotism toward free labor. The 
 boss politician defies them in his attitude towards the servants of the 
 people in the public service. Parties defy them in demanding the 
 servile and unintelligent allegiance of the people. Crime finds its ex- 
 cuse and support in the defiance of the laws of the land by the very 
 authorities created by the people to execute justice. Justice is tram- 
 pled underfoot on all sides. Rule is based on precedents, rather 
 than an intelligent knowledge of first principles. Blackstone, the 
 British code, and Roman law are based too much on the precedents of 
 ignorance, and lack almost entirely in a foundation on natural princi- 
 ples. Law is too artificial to be just. We must " back to the first 
 principles of nature and begin again." Science was not sufficiently 
 developed to permit the fathers to do this. Kings were too prodig- 
 ous monsters in their eyes for them to see that the very liberty which 
 they demanded and thought they had established would lead to a dis- 
 respect of law and become a threatening danger to the country a hun- 
 dred years later. Little did they anticipate a nation of over sixty 
 millions of people, one-third at least almost unable to survive in the 
 turmoil of the busy social struggle which has come upon us. The 
 country was to be the " land of the free and the home of the brave," 
 but they did not reckon with the hordes of ignorant foreigners and 
 semi-intelligent children that would be developed, all uncomfortable, 
 all excited, and demanding that "liberty" so freely promised them 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 295 
 
 and yet which can never be until the human race learns so to breed, 
 itself that their kind will no longer be produced. The liberty which 
 the fathers fought for was possible. That which they transmitted to 
 their children is a rank impossibility. Only the extra-intelligent and 
 profoundly educated man can have that liberty. Only the man so 
 bred and educated that he is law unto himself; so just that he requires 
 no law between man and man, can be trusted with supreme freedom. 
 Such people are in the vast minority. Hence, the battle cry of to-day 
 and the future must be More education and 'prof ounder justice. 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY OF TO-DAY. 
 
 We read and hear of the "democracy of America." Where is it? 
 Is it to be found in the democratic party, with its Tammany machine, its 
 saloon " iuflooence," and-bold faced defiance of intelligent and think- 
 ing men? Is it to be found in the republican party, with its machine 
 and its bosses; its undemocratic protection tariff, which robs the many 
 for the benefit of the few ; in its narrow nationalism, which again 
 takes up the old cry of ignorant assumption, " America for Americans," 
 in place of the nobler principle " the world for humanity'"! No! the 
 ''democracy of America" is in the intelligent, the broadly educated, 
 the truly humane instead of the exorbitantly selfish among the peo- 
 ple, irrespective of party. The "democratic party," as such, with its 
 bold defiance of the true democracy, with its corruption and corrupt- 
 ing influences, with its despotic defiance of the " mugwump" whom it 
 sanctions because it cannot behead, is as false to every true democratic 
 principle as its great opponent. A democracy cannot be a party. 
 The sooner this lesson is learned the better. There can and must be 
 a national democracy representing one demand only — profound justice, 
 which should easily find one man pre-eminent above all others, as I 
 think Cleveland is, in that one general direction ; but there must also 
 be special interests, each democratic, demanding justice, yet willing to 
 deal justly, which should have their selected and special representa- 
 tives. 
 
 "Conservatism," so called, which is egotistical individualism, cannot 
 well form a party either, save in the same general way. Vested 
 capital should be represented only by those especially competent to un- 
 derstand the necessities of a special interest. People engaged in a com- 
 mon livelihood all have a common interest. We want interest repre- 
 
296 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 sentation instead of partyism ; communal-interest representation for 
 the various and diversified interests of the country ; minor democra- 
 cies; and a president representing the just principle of intelligent 
 justice of the great democracy of the country. In one sense the indi- 
 vidualism of citizens, towns, and states must be lost in the welfare of 
 the people as a whole ; while nationalism must be tempered by that 
 broad internationalism, with its world's congress, that armies and 
 navies, tariffs and fortresses may disappear, and "peace on earth and 
 good will to men," the result of even-tempered justice, may rule the 
 humanities. This is no idle dream. Every student of evolution sees 
 the inevitable coming of the social revolution which will make these 
 things possible. 
 
 THE LIBERTY OF THE PAST CENTURY IS THE GREATEST OBSTRUC- 
 TION TO THE ADVANCE OF JUSTICE IN THIS. 
 
 " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
 equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent 
 and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pur- 
 suit of happiness." 
 
 Such are the words of the " Declaration of Independence," or in 
 other words, " liberty and equal rights." The theoretic purpose of 
 the French revolution was expressed in tiie words, " Liberty, Equality, 
 Fraternity." 
 
 Many people are so constituted that for any one to question the 
 truth and correctness of either of the above expressions of the " spirit 
 of '76 " is considered sacrilege. Yet while from the spirit of a broad 
 and philanthrophic humanity they express beautiful sentiments, they 
 are both equally false to nature, and hence, have equally been and 
 still are one of the principal causes of the coming social "revolution." 
 It is to be hoped it will prove a peaceful evolution. 
 
 The well-known social conflict briefly referred to above, between 
 capitalists and wage-earners, between the agricultural classes and cap- 
 italists, and between organized and free labor, are the natural results 
 of this unrestricted freedom idea of the last century. Nowhere is it 
 more pregnant than in this country. This " free and natural-rights" 
 idea as naturally leads to the uttermost "go as you please" individu- 
 alism, with all possible disregard of others, as is possible under our 
 social conditions. The so-called capitalists represent the comfortable 
 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 297 
 
 survivors in this great social struggle for existence. The wage-earn- 
 ers aucl the agriculturalist as truly represent those having less ability, 
 who, under natural conditions, would live a desperate struggle and 
 miserably perish in the end, as they have a tendency to now. Only 
 by organizing and presenting a massed front to the superior abilities 
 of the capitalistic class are they enabled to hold their own;at all. Na- 
 ture is not an intelligence, and has no purpose. Things have resulted 
 from the action of fixed laws. They have not been created. 
 
 There is a tremendous word in what we call natural economy. It 
 is "can." Our fathers failed to recognize its importance, though 
 they practically applied it. Only those who have " inherent and in- 
 alienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," who 
 have the individual might, can force these things from nature. 
 Might is right in nature. There is no other. Those who cannot 
 force life and liberty from their surroundings certainly cannot find 
 happiness. Those born so weak that they cannot survive, certainly 
 cannot be said to have a created right to live. In nature it's all the 
 can of ability to do. No person of any education and unbiased mind 
 can deny the absolute truthfulness of that statement. Nature is one 
 ceaseless struggle, equilibrium frequently resulting through active 
 cataclysm. Thus far in the evolution of our race the social equi- 
 librium has only resulted irr the same way. The idea of liberty of 
 our fathers assumed a can which is not possible under natural or ex- 
 isting social conditions. All people are not born equal by any means, 
 so the natural result is that only those who have the might to can, 
 can attain to anything approaching happiness. Happiness, what 
 is it? We look into the dictionaries and they give us the very un- 
 philosophical definition, "a condition of contentment." A definition 
 which has not a self-evident reason is worse than none at all. Hap- 
 piness is indeed a condition, but it is not "a condition of contentment." 
 Such a condition, if of any possible degree of permanency, would soon 
 lead to the demoralization of the race. Contentment almost presup- 
 poses inaction, whereas life is action. Happiness is something induced. 
 It may be defined as that mental condition of the individal in which the 
 actor is so busied in some agreeable undertaking as to be unconscious 
 of self-existence. That definition is applicable to all sorts of condi- 
 tions of happiness, regardless of cause. The moment consciousness of 
 existence, without some definite action, occurs, the individual soon be- 
 
298 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 comes unhappy. The majority of people are not in that fortunately 
 equable social condition that they care to be conscious that they 
 really live. The margin between life and living is too narrow. Were 
 they all born "equal," all should be either equally happy or equally 
 miserable. The equality and fraternity of men may be an evolutional 
 phylogenetic fact ; that is, as to the primary origin of the race, but 
 there the simile ends. The inequality and want of fraternity makes 
 itself apparent with the development of the can of might in life's 
 struggle. It is because of the fact that not all who are born can live 
 on account of the unequal distribution of the might to live that we 
 have so much unhappiuess. 
 
 Man is, however, when normally developed and among civilized 
 people, a more or less highly intellectual result of forces which have 
 been at work for untold generations. He is conscious of his sur- 
 roundings and of his weakness and strength. Very few, however, 
 have the psychical attribute of logical reasoning. A great many 
 somehow believe that a " brotherhood of man " should exist, without 
 ever thinking that such a condition is a rank. impossibility, unless the 
 time comes when all men are actually born equal and with such super- 
 human intelligence as to be able to completely nullify the "struggle 
 for existence" by the artificial equilibrium of all conflicting social 
 forces. We are all not only children or our time, but of times more 
 or less immediately preceding it. As repeatedly said, the liberty and 
 equal rights idea of the last century is still poignant in this. The 
 veneration of the fathers has made it almost a sacred principle with 
 the majority. It failed, and fails in not recognizing that justice is a 
 greater principle. It failed in utterly neglecting to recognize the nat- 
 ural inequalities in man and the existence of that pregnant fact, the 
 "struggle for existence." The idea of fraternity is the result of an 
 entirely unintelligent and illogical attempt to ameliorate the painful- 
 ness of the struggle for those who have not the might to can. It is 
 based on a slowly passing superstition, the resull of ignorance. 
 Darwin had not pointed out the hard aud narrow road to truth in the 
 days of our fathers. The natural struggle for existence, with its in- 
 dividualistic survival of the fittest, and heartless but slow perishing of 
 those who have not the might to can, will and can only be equalized 
 when humanity has evolved to that millennial condition of superfine 
 intelligence, that sexual selection is so rigidly controlled that only 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 299 
 
 those are produced who equally have the might and can equally 
 survive in the conditions thus gradually developed. Not "fraternity," 
 but that degree of individual excellence which renders all charity un- 
 necessary is the tough road over which we must pass before all men 
 are created equal and can with equal ability pursue happiness. Man 
 alone can by the might of a sublime, profound, and mighty intelli- 
 gence create this desired social condition. Socialism is a science. 
 That is its mission. 
 
 Now, the result of the doctrine of freedom of equal rights has been 
 to make all men at once assume them as their " inalienable rights, " 
 irrespective of their ability to enforce them from their environments. 
 The fathers declared these rights to all men and unsuccessfully endeav- 
 ored to make them practicable in the, constitution. They were unsuc- 
 cessful because their attempts were in direct contradiction to natural 
 results. We cannot successfully contradict nature. They made 
 America the land of promises neither they nor their children, nor their 
 children's children, even to the ten-thousandth generation, can ever 
 fulfill so long as sexual selection takes its unnatural course. The dis- 
 contented of the world looked hopefully to America as the "promised 
 land," for has not "Uncle Sam land enough to give us all a farm"? 
 To be sure the land was here and is still here, but not all who ask for 
 it have the natural might that they can make it their own and keep 
 it. The unsatisfactory condition of the agricultural class is as natural 
 as nature itself. As a class they have not the might to can in the 
 same degree as those who have made themselves successful in the race 
 for life and become that popular bugbear, "capitalist." Those who 
 have the natural might can and generally do leave the farms for those 
 pursuits which call forth all their might, because thereby they know 
 they can live a more satisfactory existence. The farmers, in general, 
 represent those weaker ones who eke out a miserable existence on the 
 outskirts in the natural struggle for existence. Those among them 
 who have the might to can are not found in the popular uprising. It 
 is a hopeful sign for the future that the others have become aware of 
 the fact that something is wrong with them. The same is true with 
 the wage-earner. They both have taken the first natural step to 
 ameliorate their condition. They recognize their individual weak- 
 ness, and so are pooling their necessities. They are opposing the 
 might of mass-power in hope that they can thus overcome the force 
 
300 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 of the might of natural individualism. It is a wise move, if tem- 
 pered with just intelligence. The result in the end will come out all 
 right. They have not, however, learned the first lessou. They must 
 learn first that the weakness lies in themselves individually. The in- 
 equality is theirs. It is of nature. They were so created by their 
 parents and their parents' parents. They must educate themselves 
 not only to breed better, but only so many as they can so educate, 
 that in both breeding and education they are equal to the severity of 
 their environments. They can learn a valuable lesson by studying 
 the families of those who have the might to can and succeed in the 
 social struggle. 
 
 Let the poor farmer at home study the family of his rich brother in 
 the city. Let the unsuccessful laborer study the same of the other 
 fellow who "came over in the same ship" and who was then equally 
 poor except in that one winning attribute, the might to can. Self- 
 study is the first necessity in this great social problem. Self-study 
 will solve the problem of the low social condition of the masses. 
 Legislation, the heaven-hoped-for panacea of the masses, can do but 
 little for them. The solution of the social problem is not to be sought 
 in free silver, nor in free trade, nor land nationalization, as such, alone 
 or united, but in self -study, education, and in rendering the struggle for 
 existence an impossibility by breeding only those who have the might 
 to can without severe struggle. Self-made men never existed. They 
 are all born with the might to can, so that it is really no very bitter 
 task for them to succeed. The struggle for existence is really a 
 healthy stimulus. They are the "thoroughbreds" on the human race- 
 course. The others are the " duffers." It is time they recognized this 
 fact. It is time that they had intelligent responsibility enough to ex- 
 ercise sexual selection enough not to produce the same degree of 
 "duffers" in the next generation. This is the real hey to the social 
 problem. Intelligent sexual selection by man and woman, the fewest 
 possible number of children, and then educate, educate, educate, in the 
 same direction. 
 
 The real suiferers in the unequal social struggle are the ones most 
 heedless in their sexual relations and in the irrational production of 
 their own kind. They forget that "likes beget likes," not only in 
 form and species but characteristics also. The phenomenal "self- 
 made" accidents in such breeding only more shockingly prove the 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 301 
 
 rule. The more careful sexual selection and more intelligent limita- 
 tion of children, with the self-evident advantages of better education 
 also, is proving, that "like begets like," though not in a very marked 
 degree in those who have the might to can. 
 
 To return again, and finally, to the effect of the "liberty and equal 
 rights" idea of our fathers on our present civilization. No American 
 who has not traveled largely and at the same time made a close study 
 of the opinions of European people, high and low, can have any idea 
 what conceptions they have of conditions in this country. The high- 
 born (that is the fortunately born) generally have an idea that this 
 is a sort of lawless country; while the others have the same idea, 
 though in a different way. At home they think it is the laws alone 
 which keep them back, as the same class largely do here, while they 
 look on America as the " land of the free," where they can do 
 as they please and then think they must succeed. They do not stop 
 to think that American civilization is largely a product of the very 
 institutions and conditions which they are unable to combat in Europe. 
 They come to us and make the painful discovery that "things are worse 
 here than in the old country," simply because, though approximately 
 the same in fact, they are presented to them in changed or unaccus- 
 tomed forms. They look for the ideal "freedom" in the "promised 
 land," but find it not. Capitalistic employers are just as exacting in 
 buying labor in the cheapest market ; landlords demand all the rent 
 they can get; store-keepers want their money as punctually, and wives 
 have just as many children as they did in the old country. In no 
 way is the promise fulfilled. Those who have the might to can succeed, 
 as illustrated in hundreds of cases, while those who have not fall 
 even lower in the social scale than they would had they remained at 
 home in their more customary and and hence friendly environments. 
 They find that " liberty, equality, and fraternity" are myths, notwith- 
 standing the vast amount of charity and kindly feeling among us. 
 They find that the fathers, whose names they may have revered as 
 sort of superhuman men — and they were truly all they think they 
 were — promised more than they could give, when they solemnly de- 
 clared : 
 
 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
 equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent 
 and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness. 
 
502 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 On the contrary, they soon learn that such rights do not exist, that 
 rights can only come as forced concessions, the result of organized 
 mass- might. Hence our organizations, trade unions, farmers' alliances. 
 The lesson all must learn is, that equitable social conditions can only 
 result from the most intelligent study of all these questions from the 
 foundation of society up, from man's earliest beginning to the present; 
 that justice and justice only is all that is needed ; that there is no such 
 thing as equal creation, but that all can and should take an equal part 
 in intelligently balancing apparently opposing forces, all of which, 
 however, have a common and closely interlacing interest; for each 
 citizen in the nation is but a part of the whole machine, as well as 
 does each interest bear most closely on every other interest in the pros- 
 perity of the general interest. Seek, then, justice intelligently. Try 
 to realize that "liberty, equality, and fraternity" are impossible ideal 
 conditions buried in the fond hopes of a past century. Let the "dead 
 past bury its dead." Let us adjust ourselves to the actual conditions 
 of a living present. 
 
 THE SPIEIT OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. 
 
 The time has come for a change. The rumbling of the wheels of 
 justice can be distinctly heard in many lands. Thomas Paine found, 
 to his bitter sorrow, that, after having done more for the cause of 
 humanity than any man who has ever lived, after having suffered 
 imprisonment for the sacred cause for ten weary months in a French 
 prison, escaping death on the "altar of liberty" by the accidental 
 closing of the door of his cell, that, on turning once again to that land 
 where the "tree of liberty" had been so gloriously planted, the tree 
 was barren of fruit, and even for the great son of liberty there was 
 nothing left but neglect and persecution for his declining years. Thus 
 it was with Garrison, Parker, Phillips, and Sumner, later prophets in 
 the same field. Thus it is to-day, because it has not been understood 
 that liberty is not consistent with justice. Liberty and individualism 
 are one and the same thing. Their principle is of the "go-as-you- 
 please kind," utterly regardless of the welfare of others. Liberty is 
 the might of power untempered by the mitigating influence of nobler 
 justice. 
 
 Theodore Parker is credited with being the author of the expression 
 that a democracy is "a government of the people, for the people, by 
 
 . 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 303 
 
 the people." Parker, intelligent and logical as he was, did not see 
 that such a government as that could only end in disaster, robbing the 
 people of their liberties, simply because that ideal can only be attained 
 when a millennium of universal education and profound justice has 
 been reached. The true idea of a democracy should read " a govern- 
 ment of the people, for the people, by the selected intelligence among 
 the people." Americans are very apt to over-estimate the true value 
 of their government. This country has developed to its present phe- 
 nomenal condition more in spite of the government than through any 
 intelligent assistance it has received from it. We forget the wonderful 
 natural resources open to the energies of mau in almost every direction ; 
 a stimulus to the most intelligent and untiring endeavors, because of 
 the fruitful reward of labor. We forget that, until perhaps the last 
 thirty or forty years, the supposed liberty and these great natural 
 resources offered by this country attracted to its shores the most active 
 and energetic brains of Europe; the world conquerors, if I may use 
 the term. We forget that up to that time the country was large, the 
 population not over dense, and that to combat nature and win her 
 rewards called forth all the inventive energy of the people, because it 
 was largely every man for himself, and labor could not be had, so that 
 machinery had to be invented to overcome the difficulties. We forget 
 that while the conditions mentioned attracted the active and aggressive 
 brain of Europe in this practical direction of looking out for self, 
 that that still higher quality of the human mind which looks out for 
 for others, the scientific in every sense, has found little or no attraction 
 in the crudities and ceaseless struggle of American life. In this regard, 
 in developing men so bred and educated that they could only give 
 their lives to the study of all questions bearing directly on the welfare 
 of man as a whole [science], we have been and still are woefully behind 
 the civilization of the old world. 
 
 Only on questions related to human rights have we produced any 
 marked statesman, and then only twice in our history. In 1776 the 
 " rights of man," led off by Thomas Paine, became the slogan cry of 
 the country. It called out and developed a large number of the most 
 eminent leaders that the world has ever known. They did their ut- 
 most to establish the "rights of man" in the constitution, but, 
 strangely to say, neglected entirely to consider that the black man had 
 any "rights," which called forth again the great leaders of the anti- 
 
304 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 slavery movement, which culminated in the war of secession and the 
 sanctification of the rights of all men to a use of their natural facul- 
 ties untrammeled by legal interference, so long as the use of those facul- 
 ties was just regarding other men, in the blood of the nation. Then 
 came a standstill. Then a retrograde movement, which has been going 
 down, down, into the depths of the most demoralizing slavery the 
 world has yet seen — the willing subjection of a constitutionally free 
 people to the chains of political slavery. 
 
 The pool of political corruption is stagnant enough on its surface, 
 and foul with the stench of machine rottenness, but down deep the 
 people are still pure, awaiting only wise, studious, and determined 
 leaders to declare again the rights of man. May it be a peaceful dec- 
 laration and not darkened by the sad and bloody fields of all previ- 
 ous attempts in the same direction! It will take profound wisdom 
 and great patience to avoid bloodshed in the coming conflict. For 
 coming it is, more wide and diffusely extended than the first uprising 
 of humanity one hundred years since. 
 
 The "mistake of American democracy since the first few decades of 
 its establishment has been and still is that its representatives in the 
 government have only represented the average knowledge of the 
 people. I use the word " knowledge " purposely. There is a vast 
 difference between the intelligence and actual knowledge of a people. 
 It would be an insult to any people to assert that they were so unin- 
 telligent that they could not educate themselves to a higher and better 
 knowledge of things. It is not an insult to say to them that they are 
 not, as a people, sufficiently educated to govern themselves wisely and 
 successfully. The anarchaic conditions existing to-day between the 
 capitalists and the wage-earners, between trades unionism and free 
 labor, between the agricultural classes and capitalists, all go to show 
 that the election of men of the masses, representing the average 
 knowledge of the masses, renders our government almost imbecilically 
 impotent in its treatment of these questions. 
 
 Discouraging as it may appear, it is a fact that republican institu- 
 tions are the only ones in the history of the world which do not rec- 
 ognize the highest and strongest intellectual development as a neces- 
 sity to wise and safe government in all its departments. Only at the 
 two times which threatened seriously our national existence has the 
 real wisdom of the country been called into our legislative halls. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 305 
 
 The appearance of the black cloud of slavery on our national horizon 
 almost at the same moment with the final settlement of the revolution 
 called at first a few men, then more and more, until it culminated in 
 the war of secession. After the storm comes the calm of deceptive 
 peace on the surface of the treacherous seas, whether the blue ocean 
 or the deep sea of social discord. But be not deceived ! The seeth- 
 ing caldron of discordant forces still moves hither and thither beneath 
 the apparently calm surface. It is all quiet at Homestead now, 
 but what volcanic uneasiness there is hidden beneath the deceptive 
 peace. 
 
 Wisdom of the most profound type, education of the most broad 
 character, will be soon demanded to quell the coming storm and pre- 
 vent a revolution, not only here but in all Europe, such as the world 
 never saw. Safety lies in the selection of the wisest and most just 
 men in the land, not to represent parties as at present, but men rising 
 out of the varied and conflicting interests, thoroughly understanding 
 the needs of those interests, and equally well comprehending the 
 value and relation of each special interest to all other interests, to 
 adjust the political compass and navigate the " ship of state" safely 
 through the storms and between the shoals of danger in the great 
 social struggle now opening on us. It is a singular phenomenon in 
 the evolution of humanity to see the ship of state placed in the com- 
 mand of the semi-ignorance of the land rather than in that of its most 
 profound wisdom. 
 
 Science is the study of nature. Nature constantly works according 
 to fixed and unchangeable laws. There is such a thing as social sci- 
 ence, which includes political. It embraces the study of man in all 
 his relations to nature, which includes himself, not only as man of to- 
 day, but as man representing but a factor in the evolution of all species. 
 Have we a single statesmau so educated in our legislative halls to- 
 day? The best we have are lawyers, knowing little of other things, 
 but full of that abomination of all abominations, a fanatical respect 
 for human precedents. Our legislation is so superficial, so patch-work 
 like, as to be a disgrace to profound knowledge. 
 
 We hear of a " Jeffersonian democracy," which in its mistaken ad- 
 vocacy of individual liberty and state individualism cursed this coun- 
 try with a civil war, the effects of which are one of the prime factors 
 in hastening on the present conflict for the " rights of man." We are 
 20 
 
306 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 told to bow down in humble worship of "Jacksonian democracy," 
 which again cursed us with the demoralizing idea that "to the victor 
 belongs the spoils," that robs every public servaut of the people of his 
 constitutional rights to a free expression of his thoughts, and corre- 
 sponding action, in things political. No man in the history of this 
 country was ever more undemocratic than Jackson. No one man, not 
 even Jefferson Davis, ever promulgated such an accursed doctrine as 
 that which robs a man of his manhood and makes a mere slave of 
 him because he holds a public trust. No man ever sent so demoral- 
 izing a principle out among the people as Jackson, which makes every 
 dead-beat in the country, every truculent relation of a congressman, 
 or one of his henchmen, a ravenous and unscrupulous wolf, caring 
 nothing for the public welfare so long as he can place his carnivorous 
 fangs on the public purse and become a useful spoke in that dangerous 
 machine which grinds a free people, constitutionally, into a nation of 
 abject slaves, moving only at the bid of the sharp and unscrupulous 
 " boss of the ring." 
 
 What we need, and it is coming fast enough, is some great uprising 
 of the people in the cause of justice. Great necessities invariably call 
 forth the intellectual giants to meet them. The necessities of national 
 existence, which require the most profound study of every interest of 
 the people, have been more of a blessing in many ways to the nations 
 of Europe than the deceptive peacefulness of American civilization. 
 They have been the means of placing monarchial governments far 
 ahead of republican in their fitness to meet the coming storm. They 
 have necessitated calling the very best men in the nation into their 
 governing bodies. With all his eccentricities it is doubtful if we have 
 as wise and close a student of the great social questions facing us to- 
 day among our public men as William III of Germany. We need 
 this turmoil to make politics a science instead of a checker-board 
 among us. We need it to force our higher educational institutions to 
 do their duty and educate our youth to be fit citizens of a country 
 destined to be the battlefield in this war of social science. No one 
 need be alarmed as to the final result. Cataclysms may come, 
 but out of the turmoil and strife bright justice will spring forth. 
 
 The very fountain of all social science is not taught as a science 
 in any of our higher educational institutions, and I do not think 
 in any in the world. I mean biology applied to social conditions. 
 
A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 307 
 
 No people can expect to make a success of self-government until 
 they have learned where they came from, how the race has devel- 
 oped, and how they themselves have been produced. We are too 
 conceited. Theology has thus far been the ruin of the human race; 
 the greatest bar to progress. It will continue to be until it becomes 
 an historical curiosity of the dark ages. It has made man think he 
 was created an intelligent, developed, and moral being — a finished 
 machine. It has not yet been discovered that we are not a finished 
 machine. No engineer can run his machine unless he knows all 
 about its structure and the relation of part to part. We assume that 
 we are capable of self-government when not a man in a million 
 knows anything of the machine he is intellectually supposed to con- 
 trol. A republican government has its foundation in the assumption 
 that each individual knows enough to govern himself. The exception 
 is so gigantically rare that the rule that no one knows enough to do 
 this is almost a law. It will take bolder men, men of a higher type 
 than our educational guardians dare at present obtain, men of nerve 
 and intellectual courage in our highest colleges, before this desired end 
 can find its beginning. They must be men who know, men above 
 belief or creed. They must have the martyr spirit or they will be 
 useless. The time for such education is now. It only can save 
 us from the black dangers of social revolution which threaten us. 
 The ordinary instructor is but a poor manipulator of musty error. 
 He is too far back in the highest intellectual qualities to speak the 
 truth without fear or favor. Those useless branches, except to spe- 
 cialists, Greek and Latin, should be dropped and the social sciences 
 put in their place. Humanity will advance. Evolution is too plainly 
 marked in every tendency of the times to be denied. The only cause 
 for discouragement is the danger of revolution. 
 
 Only in republican nations do we see the fate of the people carelessly 
 entrusted to the representative ignorance and selfishness among the 
 people. When the people once learn that they must be represented by 
 the most profound wisdom, instead of the common-place, among them, 
 then the danger line will have been passed. 
 
 The various and varied invested interests of this country, as said 
 before, must each produce its special men capable of intelligently rep- 
 resenting each interest, but wise enough to know that every interest is 
 in some way dependent on every other interest for its success. The 
 
308 A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 
 
 same is true of the wage-earner. I have actually no sympathy with 
 organized labor, when I see it try to kill out all the manhood in man 
 by making him a mere machine and fixing the price of labor equal for 
 dolt and genius. I detest it when it says to me, " You must be one of 
 us or you must starve." No body of men has had, or ever will have, 
 wisdom enough to formulate a creed or principle broad enough to 
 meet the wants of a free and thinking man. On the other hand, the 
 wage-earners should unite and intelligently discuss their own interests; 
 they should unite as they now have, according to their respective 
 trades ; they should thus interestedly unite and declare themselves free 
 from the kings of party machines, as our forefathers did of all earthly 
 kings; they should break their bonds of slavery and become true 
 democrats; they should discover men in their midst, knowing their 
 wants, knowing their relations to other interests, including the vested 
 interests of the land, and elect such men to represent them. The 
 same is true of the agriculturists. A beginning has been made. Let 
 the good work continue. Such men as Powderly, Gompers, Arthur, 
 Henry George, and others should be in our congressional halls, and 
 even the deluded anarchist should have representation. Then the 
 sting of the serpent of danger will be removed. There is nothing 
 like " freedom of speech " to let off the accumulated steam in the rev- 
 olutionary social teapot. 
 
 This is what I meant when I said I was a "democrat from Demo- 
 cratville," to which the secretary of agriculture enters his objections. 
 It is rather amusing that one of the great Tammany leaders should 
 have once said to me, " It is such democrats as you are who are ruining 
 the future of the democratic party in this country." I am glad the 
 "boss" is so- well aware that there are enough of us to be dangerous 
 to the slave-making machine. As the poet said to Abraham Lincoln, 
 also a "democrat from Democratville," 
 
 " We are coming, coming, coming, 
 A hundred million more," 
 
 for 
 
 "From Greenland's icy mountains, 
 From India's coral strand, 
 The sons of earth are waking 
 To declare the just rights of man." 
 
 Paiho- Biological Laboratory, 
 
 State University of Nebraska, 
 Lincoln, August 1, 1892. 
 
INDEX 
 
 (309) 
 
INDEX. 
 
 "A better man to be sent to Nebraska" by the Agricultural Department, 20, 21 
 24, 25, 28. 
 
 A boiling down editorial bureau in Washington, 64. 
 
 A question for the Swine Plague Commission to answer, 68. 
 
 A government falsehood, 217. 
 
 Alliance between the state veterinarian of Nebraska and the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry, 29. 
 
 Allen, R. M., superintendent of the Standard Cattle Company, on value of Bulletin 
 No. 8, 240. 
 
 Ames, Neb., Failure of inoculation at, 241. 
 
 Answer to the letter of Secretary Eusk to Senator Paddock, 12. 
 
 An American reviewer on Report of Swine Plague Commission, 62. 
 
 Answer of editor of the Iowa Homestead to the chief of the Bureau of Animal In- 
 dustry, 76. 
 
 Anthrax a faculatative parasitic disease, 226. 
 
 Artificial mitigation unreliable, 179, 183, 210, 239. 
 
 Association of American Agricultural Colleges on the author, 38, 39. 
 
 Attack by the Agricultural Department on the Nebraska Experiment Station, 10, 
 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 38, 87, 106, 109. 
 
 Attack on Dr. Billings on his return to Nebraska in 1891, 87-109. 
 
 Authority, Danger in following, 179. 
 
 Axtell, Neb., Failures at, 1891, 241. 
 
 Baumgarten's Jchresbericht on Eeport of Swine Plague Commission, 57, 58. 
 Baynes, Jas., Letter of chief of Bureau of Animal Industry to, 87. 
 Bassett, Hon. S. C, on dangers of inoculation, 237. 
 Bessey, Prof. — 
 
 sees a micrococcus in swine plague material, 31, 36. 
 
 on the first attack on the author by the Agricultural Department, 21. 
 Billings, Dr. — 
 
 favors the Bureau of Animal Industry, 21, 22. 
 
 Open letters of, to Secretary Eusk, 11, 80, 81. 
 
 begins his studies in Europe, 14. 
 
 takes Newark, N. J., boys to Pasteur, 16. 
 
 pathologist to New York Polyclinic School of Medicine, 16. 
 
 aids Dr. Gerth to become state veterinarian in Nebraska, 17. 
 
 first call to Nebraska 1886, 18, 28. 
 
 conditions of accepting that call, 19. 
 
 kindly review of work of the Bureau of Animal Industry, 22, 28. 
 
 (311) 
 

 312 INDEX. 
 
 Billings, Dr. — Concluded. 
 
 recall to Nebraska 1891, 29, 42, 106. 
 
 declared a " public disgrace " by Secretary Rusk, 10, 38, 78, 97, 106, 118, 119. 
 
 editor of Journal of Comparative Medicine, 21. 
 
 president of Nebraska Live Stock Breeders' Association, 76, 145. 
 
 used bis money to publish his private documents, 78. 
 
 offers Secretary Eusk free use of bis laboratory, 79. 
 
 writes Secretary Rusk for material to study with, 80, 81. 
 
 Why he had no connection with the farce at Ottawa, 111., 1891, 110. 
 
 admits having made failures, 174. 
 
 Diligent study of government reports by, 180, 182. 
 
 defends the method of his laboratory, 207, 228. 
 
 accused of teaching the farmers a cheap method, 228. 
 
 demands cold-blooded justice, 250. 
 
 "A democrat from Democratville," 289. 
 Bolton, Dr.— 
 
 contradicts himself, 50, 63, 65, 69. 
 
 fails to find a second swine plague, 49, 63, 66, 70. 
 
 Report of, 42, 47, 50, 275. 
 
 Investigations of, in North Carolina, 48, 70. 
 Board of Inquiry — 
 
 Secretary Rusk on report of, 10, 39, 42, 43. 
 
 The report of, was "fixed," 10, 39, 42, 44, 47, 5 2, 57, 97. 
 
 Breeders' Gazette on the report of, 42, 43, 46, 68. 
 
 Farmers' 1 Review on the report of, 42, 64. 
 
 ^.n American reviewer on the report of, 62. 
 
 European reviewers on the report of, 57, 58. 
 
 Hon. C. H. Gere, on the report of, 45, 276. 
 
 Henry Wallace, on the report of, 76. 
 Bowhill, Dr. Thomas — Investigations in swine diseases, 99, 100. 
 Brauel discovers bacillus anthracis, 51. 
 
 Breeders 1 Gazette — Letter of chief of bureau regarding inoculations of state vet- 
 erinarian of Nebraska, 30, 32. 
 British authorities on contagious diseases, 187. 
 Bulletin — 
 
 North Carolina Experiment Station on swine diseases, 70. 
 
 No. 8 condemned by committee of swine breeders, 104. 
 
 No. 8 directs as to safe dose in inoculation, 114. 
 Burrill, Prof. T. J — 
 
 Report of Board of Inquiry, 42-53. 
 
 Letter to Dr. Detmers, 45, 50, 53, 277. 
 
 shows the report of the Board of Inquiry was fixed, 45, 50, 63. 
 
 Letter to Dr. Billings on success of inoculation in Nebraska hogs taken by 
 Board of Inquiry, 47, 195. 
 Bureau of Animal Industry a political organization, 303. 
 
 Canfield, Chancellor, 21, 199. 
 
 Secretary Rusk's letter to, 199. 
 
INDEX. 313 
 
 » 
 
 Cause of the trouble between Dr. Billings and the Department of Agriculture, 24, 28. 
 Chauveau demonstrates that virulence and protection are due to different germ 
 
 products, 219. 
 Clement, Dr. A. W., on two swine plagues, 71, 209. 
 Colman, Hou. N. J. — 
 
 writes to Dr. Gerth, 17. 
 
 Eelation of, to Board of Inquiry, 43. 
 Comparison of reports of Board of Inquiry, 66, 97. 
 
 Contradictory advice of government as to how to prepare virus, 182, 224. 
 Contagious disease, Swine plague not a, 187. 
 Confidence of breeders of Nebraska in Dr. Billings, 199. 
 Consistency a jewel unknown to the Agricultural Department, 224. 
 Cost of inoculation in Nebraska, 196. 
 
 Dawes, Gov. — 
 
 appoints Dr. Gerth state veterinarian, 17. 
 
 retains Dr. Gerth, 29. 
 Dales, J. S., treasurer of University, on use of funds, 78. 
 Danger in inoculation, 183, 194, 198, 202, 213, 214, 227, 236, 248, 250. 
 Danger to sucking pigs, 256. 
 Danger of the government's second plague, 212. 
 Davenport, la. — 
 
 Failure of inoculation at, 174, 177. 
 
 Success of inoculation at, 175, 248. 
 Definition — What is science? 229. 
 Detmers, Dr. — 
 
 Letter of Prof. Burrill to, 45. 
 
 first to discover the germ of swine plague, 22, 40, 50. 
 Directions — 
 
 for inoculation, 249. 
 
 for making virus, 253. 
 Discovery of the germ of swine plague by the government, 34, 36, 50, 68. 
 Distilleries, No failure of inoculation at, 217, 266. 
 
 Eminent-respectability, Definition of, 39. 
 
 Evidence showing report of Board of Inquiry was fixed, 44, 57. 
 
 Experiments with useless virus, 200, 213. 
 
 Experiment Station, Champaign, 111., of little use to farmers, 107. 
 
 Faculatative parasitic diseases, 187, 226. 
 
 Failure of inoculation in Nebraska 1891, 197, 240, 241. 
 
 False statement of the government as to the cost of inoculation. 280. 
 
 Farmers'' Review — 
 
 on reports of Board of Inquiry, 64, 276. 
 
 shows contradiction between the reports, 66. 
 
 calls for honesty in public officials, 67. 
 
 Letter of the chief of the bureau to, 77. 
 
314 INDEX. 
 
 Farmer Cadwell — 
 
 makes a culture and gives the government points, 109, 188. 
 
 implicitly follows the government's instructions, 114. 
 Farmers, Poor sticks of, at Ottawa, 111., 279. 
 
 Feeding the government's swine plague germ with the genuine swine plague or- 
 ganism harmless, 212. 
 Financial aspect of inoculation, 281. 
 Fooling the swine breeders, 64, 195. 
 Foolish tests made by the government, 194. 
 " Fanatic Appeals " of Dr. Billings, 106. 
 Frosch, Dr. — 
 
 on the claims of the chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry as an investi- 
 gator, 27, 61, 99, 100, 102, 278. 
 
 on the work of the government, 27, 36, 58, 61, 99. 
 
 shows the correctness of Nebraska work, 61, 101 
 
 Gabrielson, C. L. (of Iowa), on Nebraska investigations, 237. 
 Gerlach, 15, 16. 
 Gerth, Dr.— 
 - a student at Berlin, Germany, 16. 
 
 takes a trip to Nebraska, 17. 
 
 recommends Dr. Billings to Nebraska, 18. 
 
 resigns his position, 29. 
 
 pretended anger with the chief of the bureau, 30. 
 
 experiments with Pasteur's virus, 31, 36. 
 
 "inflooence" from Washington ou, 29. 
 Gero, Hon. C. H.— 
 
 shows that Dr. Billings was first attacked by the Department of Agricult- 
 ure, 20. 
 
 fixes Dr. Gerth's retention, 29. 
 
 on report of Board of Inquiry, 45, 276. 
 
 Letter of, to Farmers 1 Review, 141. 
 
 on hogs killed by inoculation, 141. 
 
 shows why Dr. Billings left Nebraska, 142. 
 Government — 
 
 intrigues to injure the business of private citizens, 178. 
 
 never tried a scientific method in inoculation, 182. 
 
 contradicts itself as to the best method, 182. 
 
 asserts mitigation to be unnecessary, 181, 228. 
 
 asserts mitigation to be necessary, 183, 228. 
 
 second swine plague of, not dangerous, 212. 
 
 says germs hard to find in chronic swine plague, 184. 
 
 says small-pox and cow-pox different diseases, 223. 
 
 says germs of one disease can protect against those of another, 224. 
 
 suppresses true testimony in favor of inoculation and publishes the false, 121, 
 151, 214, 235. 
 
 The malicious dishonesty of the, 240, 
 
INDEX. 315 
 
 Heiru, Dr., transfers srnall-pox to cow-pox by cattle transfers, 224. 
 
 Herold, Dr., of Newark, N. J.. 16. 
 
 Hess, Mr., Losses of, at Surprise, Neb., 187, 122, 264, 290. 
 
 Honest men in public office, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 51, 67, 73, 78, 82, 103, 107, 110, 112, 
 
 117, 140, 176, 188, 217, 240, 259, 277, 306. 
 How to obtain pure cultures in septic diseases, 186. 
 Hueppe on infectious diseases, 187. 
 Hueppe and Wood show virulence not related to protection, 221, 226. 
 
 Ingersoll, Prof., on experimental use of hogs at State Farm, 199. 
 Inoculation — 
 
 The Board of Inquiry confirms its, value, 47, 58, 66, 195. 
 
 Prof. Burrill on, in Nebraska hogs, 47, 195. 
 
 Government says any one can learn how to make virus by reading its reports, 
 
 74, 182. 
 Two contradictory letters on, from Iowa, 136. 
 promised by the government in 1883, 86, 181. 
 Letter of the chief of the bureau on, 87. 
 Government recommends Dr. Billings' method, 88, 252. 
 A farmer can make his own virus and inoculate his own hogs, 90, 95, 104, 109, 
 
 252, 258. 
 Government says the Nebraska method is the cheapest and the best, 88, 228, 
 
 252. 
 in Ohio, 90. 
 
 How to make the virus, 94, 104, 186, 195, 200, 203, 216, 227, 229, 256. 
 Absolutely pure cultures not necessary in, 94, 186, 258, 260. 
 endorsed by swine breeders, 104. 
 Government must take its own medicine, 117, 182. 
 
 No hogs killed or injured by, 122, 169, 180, 195, 197, 202, 216, 227,241, 249, 250. 
 Suppressed testimony in favor of, 121, 169, 176, 250. 
 Government's illogical conclusions, 140, 149. 
 "45J per cent" not killed by, at Surprise, Neb., 140, 144, 145. 
 Hon. C. H. Walker on the Surprise fiasco, 144. 
 C. F. AVeaver contradicts the government, 145. 
 London Live Stock Journal on, 164, 227. 
 Failures in, and their causes, 171, 243. 
 Why experiment stations do not attempt it, 173, 239. 
 Virus injured by feeding, 174. 
 
 The Walker and Sylvester hogs at Davenport, la., 176 177. 
 Causes of failures at Davenport, la., 177, 179, 196, £03, 213. 
 Why it was given up as a business, 178, 283. 
 Pasteur's mitigation not applicable to swine plague, 179. 
 Virulence in cultures not related to the protective power, 179, 180, 184. 
 Letters in. favor of, from — 
 
 W. M. Lowman, Hastings, Neb., 126. 
 
 T. L. Pfeiffer, Lincoln, 111., 127. 
 
 H. A. Lee, Kearney, Neb., 128. 
 
 L. H. Matson, Princeton. 111., 130. 
 
316 INDEX. 
 
 Inoculation — Letters in favor of, from — Concluded. 
 J. I. Boyer, Denver, Col., 131. 
 H. J. Pfeiffer, Lincoln, 111., 131. 
 
 C. A. Cantine, Quimby, la., 132. 
 
 J. H. Curyea, Greenwood, Neb., 134. 
 Lewis Bend, Leland, III., 134. 
 L. W. Fry, Defiance, la., 134. 
 
 E. HendersoD, Junction City, Kan., 134. 
 
 D. P. Ashburn, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 
 S. C. Bassett, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 
 Win. Welland, Gibbon, Neb., 139. 
 
 D. L. Sylvester, Surprise, Neb., 146. 
 
 F. D. Miller, Surprise, Neb., 146. 
 
 Dr. H. G. Leisering, Wayne, Neb., 161. 
 F. W. Woods, Lincoln, Neb., 154. 
 F. I. Foss, Crete, Neb., 155. 
 Matthew & Jenner, Loup City, Neb., 155. 
 A. P. Seymour, Unadilla, Neb., 156. 
 Wm. H. Diller, Diller, Neb., 153. 
 C. H. Crocker, Emerald, Neb., 158. 
 John Morgau, Lincoln, Neb., 159. 
 A. M. Caldwell, New Holland, 111., 159. 
 Speucer Day, North Bend, Neb., 161. 
 Letters against, from — 
 
 H. H. Hess, Surprise, Neb., 138, 147, 264. 
 
 E. J. Currier, 136. 
 John Eeddy, 139. 
 C. Dean, 139. 
 
 C. N. Ewalt, 140, 144. 
 
 E. T. Pliefke, 145. 
 
 Mr. Wright, 157. 
 
 John Campbell, 161. 
 
 W. C. Dietericks, 166, 240, 248. 
 
 Wm. Rotton, 167, 240, 248. 
 
 Henry Dan, 167, 240, 248. 
 
 S. M. Geyer, 168. 
 The killing by, at Surprise, Neb., in 1888, 75, 76, 92, 117, 137, 140, 143, 144. 
 As many losses in Iowa without as in Nebraska inoculated districts, 238. 
 Iowa Experiment Station dancing to Washington music, 238. 
 Government says virus must not be mitigated, 181. 
 Government practices mitigation, 182. 
 Dangers of, 183, 197, 2 33, 236, 238, 250. 
 
 at the State Farm, 1891, false report to the government, 197. 
 Virus not to be used, 200, 227, 256. 
 Don't pen inoculated pigs, 216. 
 
 The immunity a special product of the germs, 23, 224. 
 Dr. Billings accused of teaching a cheap method, 228. 
 Fallacy of exact laboratory method, 228. 
 
INDEX. 317 
 
 Inoculation — Concluded. 
 
 Nature's method the only method, 229, 231. 
 
 First generation of a culture only reliable, 229. 
 
 Nebraska method the foundation of all others, 231. 
 
 only done on infected farms, 232. 
 
 did not kill the hogs at Tonica, 111., 235. 
 
 R. C. Pointer's letter on that point, 20, 236, 233. 
 
 Failure in Mr. Brown's hogs, 243. 
 
 in cold weather, 244. 
 
 Table of, in Nebraska, 1891, 246. 
 
 Directions for, 249. 
 
 Why farmers should practice, 251. 
 
 Letter of Temple Reid on, 251. 
 
 Veterinarians not necessary, 253. 
 
 How Mr. Walker makes virus for, 254. 
 
 Dangers of, in sucking pigs, 256. 
 
 Government's false statement as to cost of, 282. 
 Iowa, losses from swine plague in 1891, 238. 
 
 Jeffries, Dr. — 
 
 on swine diseases, 49. 
 Conclusions of, 100. 
 
 Kitisato, Brieger, and Wassermanu on immunity, 223. 
 Klemperer on immunity, 225. 
 
 Koch's methods known to the bureau, 34, 60, 93, 103. 
 Koch's discovery of the " Komma " bacillus, 51. 
 
 Laird, Hon. James, on reply of commissioner of agriculture, 20. 
 Leisering, Prof., 15. 
 Letter of — 
 
 Secretary Rusk to Senator Paddock, 9, 79. 
 
 Dr. Gerth to Dr. Billings, 18. 
 
 Hon. C. H. Gere on the government's sending "a better man" in place of 
 Dr. Billings, 20. 
 
 Dr. Salmon to Dr. Billings, 23. 
 
 Prof. Burrill to Dr. Detmers, 45. 
 
 Prof. Burrill to Dr. Billings, 47. 
 
 Dr. Salmon to the editor of the Homestead, 73. 
 
 Editor of the Homestead to Dr. Salmon, 76. 
 
 Dr. Salmon to editor of Farmers' Review, 77. 
 
 J. S. Dales on use of the experiment station funds, 78. 
 
 Dr. Billings to Secretary Rusk, asking for material, 80, 81. 
 
 Dr. Salmon to editor of American Sioineherd, 87. 
 
 C. B. Michener, acting chief of bureau, to G. C. Cadwell, Utica, 111., 108. 
 
 Judge Eaton, Nebraska City, in favor of inoculation, 165. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Furnas, in favor of inoculation, 165. 
 
 Secretary Rusk to National Stockman, condemning inoculation, 188. 
 
318 INDEX. 
 
 Letter of — Concluded. 
 
 Secretary Rusk to Chancellor Canfield, same tenor, 198, 261. 
 
 R. C. Pointer, of Illinois, in favor of inoculation, 236, 237. 
 
 Temple Reid, in favor of inoculation, 251. 
 Loeffier and Schuetz discover the germ of ronget, 181. 
 Losses at Axtell, Neb., 241. 
 
 Mansfelde, Dr. von, an authority on virus, 225. 
 McFadyean reviews the government work, 72. 
 Michener, Dr. C. B.— 
 
 on sending a scientist to Nebraska, 89. 
 
 Letter to G. C. Cadwell, Utica, Illinois, 108. 
 Memory of Secretary Rusk's correspondents, 199. 
 Micrococcus the cause of swine plague, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34. 
 Move either sick or inoculated hogs, 215. 
 
 National laboratory bill killed by the Agricultural Department, 37. 
 Newark boys taken to Pasteur by Dr. Billings, 16. 
 Nebraska Farmer article, defending Dr. Gerth in, 26, 28, 31. 
 Nebraska Laboratory — 
 
 endorsed by swine breeders, 105. 
 
 aids the farmers &t Ottawa, 111., 108. 
 Nebraska inoculated hogs stand the test, 195. 
 Niles, Dr., on Dr. Billings' method, 239. 
 
 Obligatory parasitic diseases, 187. 
 Ottawa, 111.— 
 
 Inoculation at, Secretary Rusk's version, 12. 
 
 Secretary Rusk refuses to aid the farmers at, 108, 109, 244. 
 
 Farmers' Alliance at, 110, 113, 279. 
 
 Why Dr. Billings refused to go there, 110, 214, 244. 
 
 Why Secretary Rusk finally took hold at, 110. . 
 
 Secretary Rusk's perfidy at, 112, 116, 279. 
 
 Farmer Cadwell did not follow instructions, 113. 
 
 Farmer Cadwell did follow the government's advice, 114. 
 
 Farmer Cadwell, what killed his hogs, 116, 242, 248, 256, 258. 
 
 Paddock, Senator — 
 
 Secretary Rusk's letter to, 9. 
 
 Answer of Dr. Billings to above, 13. 
 Parsons, Dr. — 
 
 Dr. Billings asks Secretary Rusk to send to Nebraska, 11, 85, 89, 91, 95, 103. 
 
 special agent of Secretary Rusk at Beatrice, Neb., 176. v 
 
 Suppressed testimony of, 176. 
 
 Inoculation succeeds, 176. 
 Pasteur, 16, 27, 30, 87, 95, 179, 181, 207, 224, 259. 
 Pasteur's virus Contra rouget, 27, 28, 31, 87, 95, 179, 181, 224, 260. 
 Paine, Thomas, on research, 289. 
 
 
INDEX. 319 
 
 Peters, Dr.— 
 
 on the government's investigations, 98, 102. 
 
 exposes the rottenness of the bureau, 103. 
 People all fools, 113. 
 
 Perfidy of the government at Ottawa, 111., 112, 114, 244. 
 Petteukofer on contagion, 187. 
 
 Perin, Mr., superintendent of State Farm, told the truth, 198, 264. 
 Penned, Inoculated hogs should not be, 215. 
 Pointer, R. C, on success in inoculation, 236. 
 Politics at Ottawa, 111., 110. 
 Pollender discovers bacillus anthracis, 51. 
 Press, The dignity of the, 37. 
 Products of germs, 227. 
 Purposes of author's life, 14, 24, 25, 37, 39, 107, 117, 122, 176, 199, 308. 
 
 Rabbits, Value of, in experimentation, 93, 208, 210, 212, 257. 
 Reviews of the report of the Swine Plague Commission, 55, 62, 64, 68. 
 Rouge t, Virus contra, 27, 28, 30, 31, 95, 181, 224. 
 Roux on the products of germs, 225. 
 Rusk, Secretary — 
 
 Letter to Senator Paddock, 9, 43, 73, 79, 273. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of beginning the quarrel, 9-13, 19, 26, 28, 116. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of ignoring his reports, 42, 180, 183. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of asking for money, 10, 79. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of garbling extracts, 10, 97,199. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of being a disgrace to Nebraska, 10, 12, 38, 78, 1 IS, 264. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of discourteous language, 37. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of using public money, 10, 78. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of being untrustworthy, 9, 19, 250, 264. 
 
 accuses Dr. Billings of withholding facts, 197, 199, 264. 
 
 accuses Mr. Perin of withholding facts, 198, 264. 
 
 on the Board of Inquiry, 10, 41, 42, 43, 52, 112. 
 
 quotes the NebrasJca Farmer, 26, 28. 
 
 Is he traitor or not? 36, 73, 108, 109, 112, 160, 179, 195, 264, 271, 275, 278, 279, 
 284, 285, 290. . 
 
 The incompetency of, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 52, 73, 106, 115, 160, 179, 188, 198, 240, 
 264, 278, 284. 
 
 three reliable correspondents from Lincoln, 197, 198, 264. 
 
 uses public funds to injure the author, 79. 
 
 refuses aid to farmers at Ottawa, 111., 79, 108, 109. 
 
 Letter of Dr. Billings to, asking for a culture, 80. 
 
 Letter of Dr. Billings to, asking for material, 81. 
 
 Letter to Chancellor Canfield, 198, 199, 261. 
 
 does not like open letters, 85. 
 
 recommends Dr. Billings' method, 85, 252. 
 
 not secretary " by the grace of God," 97. 
 
 on the Ottawa, 111., farce, 107. 
 
 suppresses testimony, 121, 176, 217, 250, 264. 
 
320 INDEX. 
 
 Rusk, Secretary — Concluded. 
 
 reliability of the reports of, 144, 197, 250. 
 
 says "swine plague is contagious." 193. 
 
 says farmers can't be trusted, 188. 
 
 is contradicted by his " chief," 188. 
 
 prints a false and withholds a true statement, 198. 
 
 accuses Chancellor Canfield of misrepresenting, 263. 
 
 ignores the constitution, 280, 283. 
 
 an expensive luxury, 285. 
 
 admits errors in Bulletin No. 8, 291. 
 
 insults the breeders of Nebraska, 291. 
 
 Salmon, Dr. — 
 
 the first to attack Dr. Billings, 20. 
 
 writes a kindly letter to Dr. Billings, 23. 
 
 would " send a better man to Nebraska," 24, 25, 28. 
 
 denies being an investigator, 26, 33, 35, 52, 102. 
 
 and his micrococcus, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 87, 181. 
 
 criticises Dr. Gerth, 30, 31. 
 
 Chicago address of, 1885, 35. 
 
 a good judge of human nature, 25. 
 
 fools the secretary of agriculture, 14, 25, 26, 38, 41, 80, 87, 91, 97, 101, 10(5, 
 160, 189, 195. 
 
 doubts his own statements, 28, 50. 
 
 denies any great extension to the second swine plague, 50. 
 
 writes the Iowa Homestead for support, 73. 
 
 writes the Farmers 1 Review for support, 77. 
 
 says any one can make virus by studying his reports, 74. 
 
 promises prevention in 1883, 86, 111, 181, 152. 
 
 contradicts his promise, 182, 188. 
 
 attacks Dr. Billings on his return to Nebraska, 87, 106. 
 
 tells what is a safe dose in inoculation, 114, 181. 
 
 advises how to obtain cultures, 184. 
 
 Illogical conclusions of, 140, 149, 181. 
 
 says mitigation is unnecessary, 181, 228. 
 
 says mitigation is necessary, 182, 228. 
 
 admits his unnatural tests, 195. 
 Shakespeare, Dr. — 
 
 Report of, 42, 47, 195. 
 
 Absurd tests of immunity, 196. 
 Smith, Dr.— 
 
 Author and investigator, 26, 33, 27, 52, 61, 101. 
 
 Frosch's criticisms of, 59, 100, 102. 
 Suppressed testimony, 121, 151, 214. 
 Surprise, Neb. — Erroneous statements of Mr. Rusk's correspondents, 143, 144, 147, 
 
 264. 
 Swine plague — 
 
 A micrococcus the cause of, 24, 27, 28, 32, 84, 87, 101, 181. 
 
INDEX. 321 
 
 Swine plague — Concluded. 
 
 The new microbe of 1885, 33, 43. 
 
 Germ of, not yet demonstrated by bureau, 36, 59, 60, 61. 
 
 a non-recurrent disease, 28, 31, 86, 111, 181, 224, 227, 229, 259. 
 
 Not two in the country, 49, 50, 58, 61, 65, 71, 100, 102, 212, 259. 
 
 germ hard to find in chronic cases, 184. 
 
 germs lost in virulence in hogs, 184. 
 
 not a contagious disease, 186, 236, 252. 
 
 Origin of, 190, 226. 
 
 a faculatative parasitic disease, 226. 
 Sylvester's hogs a success at Davenport, la, 176-178. 
 
 Terre Haute, Ind., Test in distillery at, 217. 
 Three reliable correspondents of Mr. Eusk's, 198. 
 Tonica, 111., Hogs not killed by inoculation at, 235. 
 Tuberculosis not a non-recurrent disease, 224 
 
 Vaccination — 
 
 not a pure culture, 94, 260. 
 
 the best evidence that germs produce two products, 223. 
 
 successful because impure, 260. 
 Vaccina produced by transferring small-pox to cattle, 224, 225. 
 Value of movement in sick hogs, 215. 
 Virulence — 
 
 and protection two different products of germs, 179, 180, 205, 210, 219, 223. 
 
 lost in passing through pigs, 215. 
 Virchow, 15, 21. 
 
 Walker, Hon. C. H.~ 
 
 on testimony of Secretary Eusk's correspondents, 144, 261. 
 
 hogs a success at Davenport, la., 176, 178. 
 
 hogs at the distillery, Peoria, 111., 217. 
 
 makes his own virus, 254. 
 
 answers Secretary Eusk's letter to Chancellor Canfield, 266. 
 Wallace, Henry — 
 
 Letter to chief of bureau, 76. 
 Welsh, Prof, fails to find a second swine plague, 50, 71, 91, 209, 259. 
 Western Resources, Open letters to Secretary Eusk in, 85. 
 Wilson, Director, on swine plague in Iowa in 1891, 237.