PREFACE.

The absolute necessity of forcing this dispute to a final issue must be ray excuse for this contribution. A most careful inquiry, continued for a term of nearly three years, shows that the losses from swine-plague alone, in Nebraska, have never been less than/our millions of dollars annually, a sum almost equal to the biennial appropriations of the legislature of this state for all purposes. I wish it further to be known, distinctly, that this quot; Board of In-

^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;quiry,quot; commissioned to decide upon the points in dispute

and arrive at the truth by independent investigations, is primarily my own work. Through the untiring energy and influence of our lamentably ill representative, Hon. James Laird, and at my instigation, the quot; Agricultural Committeequot; of the House of Representatives recommended and Congress appropriated thirty thousand dollars for the investigation and settlement of these questions. In

rnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; my report, and by open letters, I demanded that such an

quot; Inquiryquot; be made, but the matter received no attention from the Agricultural Department at Washington until I

*,gt;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; forced the question upon it by an appeal to the National

Swine Breeders, at their meeting in Chicago, Nov., 1888,

*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; when the Agricultural Department had to either do its

6nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; PREFACE.

duty or acknowledge what is still and ever was a fact, the utter erroneousness of the work ofquot; the Bureau of Animal Industry upon swine-plague. Let he who dares say this is a quot; personal fight.quot; I deny it! It is simply the fulfillment of my obligations to my profession and the live stock interests of my country', and my race in all countries, whose true and devoted servant I am endeavoring to be.

THE AUTHOR.

Lincoln, Neb., Feb. J, 1889,

SALMONSWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA1887-8.

V *

The latest report of the Department of Agriculture bears the date of 1887, but was issued sometime in the spring of 1888. In March of that year we have the last public utterance of Mr. Salmon upon swine-plague, in an address before the U. S. Veterinary Association at Baltimore, except a very erudite and characteristic effusion published in Coleman's organ, The Hm-al World, in answer to Mr. Seiler, sometime last fall. I had been in hopes that some of the numerous agricultural and live stock editors would be at least as partial to Mr. Salmon's latest as they have been to my own report, but it seems they are nearly all too well under the control of the quot;Bureaucraticquot; whip, or else too cowardly, to undertake the task. Something should be also expected from the editors of the medical press, as this work at present represents almost the only pathological research carried on under the auspices of the government of the United States, and hence should be of the greatest importance to all interested in the relation of modern laboratory methods to hygienic questions, but these erudite old fogies and monuments of conceited respectability have been as silent as the tomb. The question which comes to mind is, are those Avho should be men of independent character, from their i^esponsibilities, a band of cowards or not? Not being a coward, and fearing no power this side of the grave, or beyond it, [ propose

8nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWIKK-PI-AGUK AND HOG-CHOLERA

to enter once more upon this disagreeable task. It is all the more necessary as the lately appointed Commission of Specialists to investigate our porcine pest has also to investigate the printed records of the work done, which to do it justice requires an intimate acquaintance with the literature of the swine-plagues of the world, particularly that of America, which the time at their disposal and other duties may prevent their obtaining in the critical manner necessary to an exact determination of the questions in dispute between myself and the Agricultural Department at Washington. In fact, I will at once state, that in one sense no independent investigation of swine-plague was, or is, necessary to settle those questions, for an honest comparison of Mr. Salmon's former reports and the statements in my own, with this last of Mr. Salmon's (1887), must surely convince any unprejudiced person that he lias entirely given up his position of 1886, viz., that there are, o?^- were, two independent porcine pests in this country, caused by two distinct germs, each of which is, or was, characterized by its distinct and pathognomonic lesions. I say he has given up those points entirely, and in this review I intend to fully demonstrate that point, as well as to show that his claims of discovering the germ of swine-plague are groundless.

In order to be clear, it is necessary to make plain Mr. Salmon's position in 1886, but to do so we will quote a sentence from the opening passage of his report of 1887, when he says:

quot;At the same time the bacteriological examination reaffirmed the constant presence of the bacterium described thi-ee yean ago in genuine hog-cholera and its causal relation to this disease.quot; p. 481.

In a similar passage in the report of 1886, he said :

CRITICAXI/y COXsriJEKEXgt;.

quot; Using the name hog-cholera for the disease described in the last report (1885) as swine-plague.quot; p. 481.

Now, let us be just. 1st, Mr. Salmon says, in 1887: quot; The bacterium described three years ago.quot; How could that be, when in 1886 he refers us to quot;the last report,quot; 1885?

In the interest of clearness it may be well to verify what Mr. Salmon said in that report of 1885. It is very interesting and conclusive, as the reader of his more recent reports will at once see. Under the heading

quot; conclusions quot; he says:

quot; The preceding investigations definitely settle (that is positive, 'definitely settle'!) certain controverted points concerning the'etiology of swine plague (not hog-cholera!) which may be briefly summarized.

quot; 1. Swine-plague (not hog-cholera !) is caused by a specific microbe multiplving in the body of the diseased animal.quot; p. 229.

The character of Mr. Salmon's definite settlement of quot;certain controverted pointsquot; has been sufficiently shown above, for in 1886 he indefinitely unsettled the question again in a most striking manner.

The next step is to endeavor to discover what he considers to be characteristic of hog cholera.

In his report of 1886 he says :

quot;We have invariably found severe intestinal lesions in hog-cholera producing ulceration,quot; etc. p. 682.

Reader, Mr. Salmon says quot;invariably found.quot; Should you desire to see how his assertions must quot; invariably quot; be taken cum grano sails, you may turn to page 614 ofquot; that same report, autopsy quot; No. 348,quot; wiiere you will miss quot; ulceration,quot; page 617, quot; Nos. 324 and 325,quot; quot; but

 #

*ft

ni$

* #9830;

10nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINK-PI.AGUK AND HOG-CHOI^ERA

no ulceration in large intestine.quot; Page 632 gives another in which quot; the animal died before the ulceration had begun,quot; and Mr. Salmon tells us, this swine-plague of 1885 was his hog-cholera of subsequent years. The reader has only to turn to that report to see how quot; invariably quot; Mr. Salmon makes inconsistent statements, by looking over the records of autopsies there given. One single exception is sufficient to knock an quot; invariablequot; argument out, and enough tan be found to crush it entirely out of sight.

Now as to Mr. Salmon's swine-plague, what is that? His headings should tell us :

quot; Preliminary investigations concerning infectious pneumonia.quot; (Swine-plague) 1880, p. 659.

quot; Further investigations on the etiology of infectious pneumonia in swine.quot; (Swine-plague), p. 491, 1887.

Again he says :

quot; Swine-plague is a disease in which the principal lesions are found in the lungs; in hog-cholera they are in the intestines. We have here two diseases, clearly defined, produced by entirely different organisms.quot;

quot; But they are not always uncomplicated, since we occasionally find both of them in the same herd and at the same time.quot; Journal of Comp. Med., 1888, pp. 140, 143, 144.

Of my own assertions Salmon said, in the address from which the last quotations are taken, March, 1888 :

quot; There is an idea among some investigators that the lung lesions of infectious pneumonia or swine-plague and the bowel lesions ofquot; hog-cholera are produced by the same bacteria.quot;

Here, then, we have Mr. Salmon's views as stated by himself, especially as to my own assertions, which, I desire

^ *

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;11

to state as dogmatically as man can speak, are absolutely correct, and that neither the U. S. Swine-Plague Commission, Mr. Salmon, or the Powers above or below can upset them. Again I assert that before I am done I will show that Mr. Salmon himself gives experimental evidence of the correctness of my assertions and entirely deserts his position in 1886, and even that taken in later or his latest publications.

In the report of 1887 Mr. Salmon treats his hog-cholera in a very step-mother fashion, giving most of his attention to his swine-plague, which becomes so complicated that one is not surprised it should demand all the erudition given to it. Before turning to that, however, I wish to call attention to a very queer psychosis of Mr. Salmon's, mentioned on page 482.

A lot of swine died of hog cholera, at least Mr. Salmon says so, but he also says, quot; in most of them the feeding had induced a cirrhosis of the liver.quot;

Mr. Salmon, will you please turn to your last report, 1886, where you say of swine-plague that one of the specific actions of its peculiar germ is, that quot; Large doses cause acute sclerosis of the liver.quot; Summary, p. 675. Again, quot; There was moreover a partial cirrhosis of the liver in most of the animals examined, which we have never encountered in hog cholera.quot; p. 661. From 1878 to 1886, he had never seen quot;cirrhosis of the liver,quot; when it suddenly becomes specific to his swine-plague, which, still more wonderfully, should be an quot;infectious pneumonia,quot; but when Mr. Salmon tries to show it by experiment, the only constant lesion is reported to be quot;cirrhosis of the liver.quot; See page 670, 1886.

The next passages I desire to call to the especial attention of the quot;Board of Inquiry.quot; It may be taken as a patho-

12nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOI,KKA

logical test question. Salmon says : quot;We must remember, however, that of these eight cases five were killed perhaps in the early stages of the disease.quot; p. 661, 1886.

Now it may be objected that Mr. Salmon used the word quot; cirrhosis,quot; for a wonder correctly, that is in the sense of yellowness, which is not the generally accepted manner of pathological observers. I should be only too happy to credit him with such surprising correctness. The quot;Board of Inquiryquot; to settle such questions are respectfully referred to page 669, report 1886, twenty-second line from the top, where our erudite bureaucrat tells us that he is just as ignorant as most pathological writers as to the true meaning of the word quot; cirrhosis,quot; and that he did mean the condition to which that name is generally given, conditions common to chronic alcoholism, for he^-says, quot;Liver very pale, bloodless, and very tough. The sclerosis general and the contraction of the connective tissues has made the caudal aspect very concave.quot; These conditions produced in a pig which died quot; one week after inoculation.quot;

I wish now to notice the experimental evidence given by Mr. Salmon, 1887, that quot;swine-plague is a disease in which the principal lesions are in the lungs,quot; but before doing so must call the reader's attention to a very remarkable passage in tin's report, 1887, in which we are told how we may prevent either disease and also how to find out which is which. It is this:

quot;There may be some difficulty in determining which disease has attacked a given herd, or whether both are not actually present. Very severe lung disease is now the only sign that is of any positive value in the detection of swine-plague, unless it be bacteriological testimony, which is the safest, but not at hand under most circumstances. When any doubt exists, the disease should be treated as hog-cholera.quot; p. 520, 1887.

quot;

CRITICALI.Y CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;13

Here again we have the value of lung lesions emphasized, and are told, which should be correct, that a bacteriological investigation quot; is the saiest.quot; #9830;

Again he says : quot; In all eases where the causation of such lesions is a matter of doubt, bacteriological investigation must now decide.quot; 1886, p. 682.

I am now going to show that quot; very severe intestinal lesionsquot; occur in Mr. Salmon's swine-plague, and also that his quot;bacteriological investigationsquot; have been of such a nature that they would be a disgrace to the veriest tyro. We will analyze his experiments in the order given, and for especial reasons will give them also an individual autopsy number. It will be remembered that we are studying swine-plague according to Salmon.

1Pig 406.

quot; Interlobular tissue of liver increased in quantity.quot; Lungs normal. quot; Ulcer at base of ileo-csecal valve, three others in the caecum.quot;

quot; This was without doubt a case of genuine hog-cholera.quot;

Remember quot; Bacteriological investigations must now decide,quot; yet quot; no cultures were made from the sjdecn of this animal, although this would have been very desirable in the light of future events.quot; How then could Salmon have said it quot; was without doubt a case of genuine hog-cholera?quot;

2.Pig 358.

quot; In order to determine more precisely the nature of the disease affecting No. 406, No. 358, from another lot, was fed with portions of the spleen and intestines of this animal.quot;

14 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

quot; Unfortunately the animal was placed in a pen which had been long infested with hog-cholera, but in which the animals iiad lately failed to take the disease.quot; (It will be shown by circumstantial evidence that this pig was, in all probability, put in the same pen in which No. 4Ü6 had just died.) Autopsy note: quot;Eight lung hypostatic,quot; quot; two old healing ulcers in caecum.quot; quot; Spleen cultures sterile.quot;

quot; In the same pen where No. 406 died of hog-cholera were Nos. 403, 404, 405.quot;

3.Pig 403.

quot;Died Feb. 16th. Hepatization in lungs. Mucosa deeply inflamed from caecum to anus; in colon and rectum covered with a continuous layer of exudate of a dirty yellow and probably diphtheritic. Slight superficial necrosis of the membrane.quot; If any one will read the whole of the original he will see that the language used in regard to the intestinal lesions is much more strong: than mrards those of the lungs. This then was a case demanding especial quot; bacteriological investigation,quot; butquot; unfortunately no bacteriological examination was made,quot; still Mr. Salmon has no hesitancy in saying that quot; this was without doubt a case of genuine swine-plague,quot; though penned with No. 406 which quot; was without a doubt a case of ocn-nine hog-cholera.quot; Of No. 404 I find no record, it .-was probably too much, but we shall see that No. 405 died of swine-plague, though put in the same pen with 406, and that the quot; severest lesions were confined to the lungs and large irvtestinesquot;

Respectfully referred to the quot; Board of Inquiryquot; !

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;15

4.Pig 402.

A very interesting case was presented by No. 402, which had been in the pen in which No. 406 died of hog cholera. The interesting facts are: quot;Lungs oedematous (what portions?), cephalic lobes eniphysematous, small region of ventral lopes hepatized. Mucosa of colon very dark and covered with isolated yellowish white masses from one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch in diameter.quot;

Here is a good one which is also especially recommended to the consideration of the quot; Board.quot; quot; In the first place the extensive hemorrhages throughout the body have left the organs almost bloodless.quot; I pronounce the above erroneous. quot; Bloodless organsquot; are the rule in all severe infectious diseases, unless it be the lungs when severe pnueraonia is not present. Paranchymatous swelling causes the quot; bloodlessness,quot; and no amount of hemorrhage ever seen in swine-plague ever had any influence on that condition. But again, the lungs could not have been very characteristic of swine-plague, for we read that quot;that the lungs were without doubt beginning to consolidate, and the very important question arose, 'Are the swine-plague bacteria, at times, the cause of such severe hemorrhagic lesions, as are represented there?' quot;

Now, as to that necessary quot; Bacteriological Examination?quot;

quot; Examination on cover glasses of the paranchyma of the various organs proved negative as regards microorganisms.

quot;Large number of cultures made.

quot;Two tubes of beef infusion from pleura] exudate, sterile. Two tubes of beef infusion from spleen 'gave' large bacilli. Two tubes of beef infusion from liver 'gave' the same bacilli, also a microbe resembling (!) the swine-plague bacteria very closely, and a streptococcus.quot;

16nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PI.AGUE AN1gt; HOG-CHOLERA

quot; Gelatine culture from heart's blood developed colonies of several kinds of bacteria.quot;

quot;Two gelatine tubes, containing a bit of spleen, 'gave' the same large bacilli in both tubes.quot;

quot;The lesions wore not due to the bacterium of hog-cholera, although resembling this disease.quot; (!) quot;Had the disease been hog-cholera the bacterium would have been revealed in several or all the cultures.quot;

Why will not the same argument do for the swine-plague, as we see that even the quot;microbe resembling the swine-plague bacteriaquot; was only found in two tubes, and then accompanied by a bacillus found in six tubes and even a quot;micrococcusquot; put in his bad I? WJjy not the quot;bacillusquot; under such circumstances?

But Salmon knows how to help himself out. He inoculated some rabbits and from them got pure cultures of the swine-plague germ, which is a fair procedure, but does not by any means explain where the quot;hog-choleraquot; microbe had been sleeping all this time, as we shall find that it most wonderfully springs into being to account for intestinal lesions in other hogs placed in the same accommodating pen which could equal Hermann in prestidigi-torial wonders.

5.Pig 377

Is doubtful. quot;On February 20th it was fed with portions of the spleen and large and small intestine of No. 402.quot; quot;March 23d it was killed in a dying condition.quot; But it-must have been a badly mixed case, such as I never saw, or expect to see, for quot; the jiost-raortem examination gave no clue as to the nature of the disease.quot; There are no indications of hog-cholera and quot;no specific lesions referable to swine-plague.quot;

It is but natural to expect that in such a case we

I k

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.

should find no reference to quot;bacteriological examinationsquot; of the organs, and that quot;two (!) liquid cultures from peritoneal fluid remained sterile.quot;

Respectfully submitted, should not the organs have been most diligently proven in just such a case?

And now we come to

6.Pig 405,

Which quot; was found dead, after several days of great weakness and diarrhoea,quot; and in which quot;the severed lesions were confined to the lungs and large intestines.quot;

It is respectfully submitted that as No. 405 was penned with No. 406, which iiog did die of hog-cholera, and that as the lesions in the intestines were equally, at least (see original), as severe as in tiie lungs, that this should be one of those wonderfully accommodating cases in which both diseases ami both germs were present, especially as Mr. Salmon says in another place. Pig No. 360:

quot;These lesions indicated a severe form of swine-plague. The intestinal ulcers pointed to the' existence of hog-cholera also.quot;

It is singular that in this case and not in 405, that quot;the bacteriological investigations demonstrated the presence of both micro-organisms, that ofquot; hog-cholera being in the spleen, and of quot;swine-plague in the lungs.quot; How accommodating!

I wish here to call especial attention to the fact that the notes of this (No. 405), as of many of these autopsies, give no reference to an examination of the organs of the animal, or to any cultures having been made from them for tiiat essential quot; bacteriological examination,quot; but quot;a rabbit and three micequot; were kind enough to die of quot;swine-plague,quot; after having been inoculated with quot;a bit of 2

18 SWINE-PLAGUE AXD HOG-CHOLERA

lung-.quot; The interesting query comes, why was not quot;a bitquot; of intestine or of the spleen also experimented with in order to show the quot;hog cholera microbequot;?

7.Pig 407.

It will be remembered tiiat JCo. 405 died of swine-plague. Of 407 the author says, quot;one of the most pro-nuuuced cases of tiiis disease died February 21 and was examined on the following day.quot;

Will tiie reader have the kindness to turn to page 50(5 of this same report, for a moment, where he may read: quot;Nos. 40quot;) and 407 were perhaps the most typical of the acute, uncomplicated form of this diseasequot;swine-plague.

Remember, quot;ifiost typical of the acute, uncomplicated form!quot;

Now what is that quot;formquot;?

Mr. Salmon has told us as late as March, 1888, that

quot; there is an idea among some investigators that the lung

.lamp;dons of infectious pneumonia, or swinc-playue, and the

bowel lesions of hog-cholera, are produced by the same

bacteria.quot; 1. c.

lie has told us in this very report quot;that the intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera only.quot; 1, c.

Hence, quot;the typical and uncomplicated form of this diseasequot; presented by Pigs 40ö and 407 should be quot;lung lesions.quot;

Were they?

Of 40;') Mr. Salmon has said:

quot;The severest lesions were confined to the lunffs and large intestines.quot;

Of 407 he writes:

quot;Mucosa of ctDcum and upper colon of a dirty blackish color. Besides the diffuse pigmentation the mucosa is

CPaTK'AMA' COXSIDKRED.

sprinkled with isolated or confluent masses, about one-eitjlith to one-fourth of an inch in diameter, ofquot; a dirty greyish-yellow color, loosely adherent to the membrane. When pulled away a slightly depressed surface is exposed. There are several ulcers in the caecum, with decided loss of substance.quot;

Admitting that quite extensive quot;lung lesionsquot; are subsequently described as having been present in this hog, still it is most respectfully submitted to any one with a srraiu of common sense whether Nos. 40quot;) and 407 were

quot;typicalquot; of the quot;uncomplicated form of the diseasequot;, when quot;intestinal ulcers point(ed) to the existence of hog-choleraquot;?

Will some one please tell us what the}- think of quot;some investigators' idea that the lung lesions of infectious pneumonia, or swine-plague, and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera are produced by the same bacteria,quot; when the objector to that statement tells us that quot;Nos. 40Ö and 407 were typical of the acute, uncomplicated form of swine-plague,quot; and yet described such lesions in the intestines as the above, and .still says they were unmixed, typical, and uncomplicated cases ?

On page Ö06 we may read the following:

quot;The introduction of hog-cholera (into the pen?B.) after the appearance of swine-plague was most likely due to the case first reported in those pages (Xo. 40lt;i).quot;

The first case of swine-plague reported by Mr. Salmon quot;in these pagesquot; as quot;without doubt a case of genuine swine-plague,quot; though '#9632; unfortunately no bacteriological examination was made,quot; and the accommodating rabbit forgot to put in'its appearance, was quot;No. 40.3,quot; which died February 16th, quot;and had beenquot; in the same pen with quot;Pig 40tj, male, 3 months old, died February 1st,quot; and

20nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

quot;was without doubt a case of genuine hog-eliolera,quot; though quot;no cultures were made, although this would have been very desirable in the light of future events.quot;

We think it quot;would,quot; but that quot;wouldquot; not reconcile the very quot;desirablequot; question how a hog dying February 1st could quot;introduce hog-choleraquot; into a pen, quot;after the appearance of swine-plague the first hog from which recorded quot;in these pagesquot; died February 16th, the second February 19th, No. 405 February 18th, and 407 February 21st.

No. 402 died February 19th, No. 405 February 18th. It is also somewhat singular that quot;in these pagesquot; the autopsy of No. 402 should precede that of No. 405, which died on the day previous.

But let us go on with No. 407, for we shall find it one of the most wonderful pieces of scientific (quot;miss quot;)exactness ever placed before the world.

I commend the study of these cases, 405 and especially 407, to Commissioner Coleman, and the whole Democratic administration.

Mr. Salmon tells us:

quot;Microscopic examination of the lung tissue in cover-glass preparations shows the presence of numerous bacteria with the polar stain.quot;

quot;Cover-glass preparations from the spleen and liver negative.quot; Hold ! quot; These results show that the specific microbe is not present in the internal organs, and can only be obtained from the diseased längs and pleura.quot;

The above statement is absurd. What are the lungs if not internal organs? But Mr. Salmon quot;inoculated a rabbit in the ear with a bit of lung,quot; quot;which died in four days,quot; and had quot; immense numbers of swine-plague bacteria in blood, spleen, and liver,quot; which are quot;internal organs,quot; according to Salmon.

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 21

What queer-acting genus Mr. Salmon does find I They

select the organs they inhabit according to the species, when Mr. S. wants them to, but not when any one else so desires. Let ns turn to the report of 188G, pp. ()60-661, for farcical amusement.

P/66Ü. quot;No. 6. Cover-glass preparations of the spleen negative. Two portions dropped into a tube of gelatine and agar-agar respectively ffave rise to culture*, which will be described later on.quot;

I call the attention of the quot;Board of Inquiryquot; to the above remarks, and to the following, where the spleen does a very wicked thing, for it ''misrepresentsquot; Mr. Salmon. Page 661, a little further down, you may read:

quot;One grew in both tubes which was more carefully examined, because it resembled the bacterium of hog-cholera very closely.quot;

Further down Mr. Salmon tells us how it did not resemble the quot;bacterium of hog-cholera.quot; On the next page Mr. Salmon tells us about the other bacterium which quot;was mixed with the motile bacterium just described.quot; This quot;motile bacteriumquot; is the true germ of swine-plague, and this other thing, this quot;mixed quot; creature, is one the quot;Board of Inquiryquot; will have to inquire about. This is that wonderful quot;cirrhosisquot; hepatis-producing curiosity, but not the germ of swine-plague, though claimed to be by Mr. Salmon, but, as has been shown, he brings quot;cirrhosisquot; hepatis into quot;hog-cholera,quot; and not swine-plague in 1887.

To return to pig ^N'o. 407 :

quot;Pure cultures of swine-plague bacteria in tubes of gelatine were obtained from the pleural exudate.quot;

(It should be remarked that Mr. Salmon does not describe or illustrate any germs in the report of 1887, but refers to former reports.)

22nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

quot;Two similar cultures from the liver contain, each, bacillus bntyricus. Blood from the heart free from bacteria.quot;

In this case inoculation of a rabbit and mouse gave quot;pure cultures of the swine-plague bacteria.quot;

8.Pig 408.

quot;From the same farm.quot;

To find out what pen quot;No. 408quot; was in, the reader must turn to page 499, where he will see that certain other hogs were quot;penned with Nos.408,409,410,quot;and then must turn back to page 497, where he will read that quot;another pig (No. 409) had been with Nos. 405 and 406 before Jan. 31,quot; and we have been told that No. 406 quot; was, without doubt, a case of genuine hog-cholera,quot; but though thus exposed to hog-cholera, we shall find that No. 408 was accommodating enough to die of quot;swine-plague,quot; or ^i-infectious pneumonia,quot; though quot;intestinal ulcers pointing to the existence of hog-cholera quot; also were mistakenly present; for Mr. Salmon tells us that quot;in the large intestine the mucosa of the ctecum was dark red, almost blackish, and covered with large, ragged ulcerations; theileo-csecal valve is almost completely surrounded by ulceration, the base of the ulcers being blackish, and the mucosa much puckered ; colon bright red, and covered with small ulcerations; base of the ulcers concealed by a creamy mass, border slightly thickened; in some places the ulcers number five or six to the square inch. Besides these small ulcers there are. several about one-half inch across, resembling the ragged ulceration in the caecum.quot;

Although pneumonia is reported to have been present, there were certainly quot;intestinal ulcersquot; enough to have quot;pointed to the existence of hog-cholera also.quot;

Microscopic examination of tissues negative!

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;23

quot;Cover-glass preparations of the alveolar exiulate contained cocci; of the spleen, no bacteria of any kind; (!) cultures from the surface of the pleura remained sterile; a liquid culture from the spleen contained three or four forms of bacteria. One of these was evidently the microbe found in former cases.quot;

quot;A second form, a motile bacillus, isolated from this culture, resembled the bacterium of hog-cholera in some features, differing from it in others. A rabbit inoculated subcutaneously with J ccm. liquid culture was killed in ten days; internal organs normal; no evidence of tliose lesions always following inoculation with hog-cholera bacteria.quot;

A rabbit was inoculated quot; March 8th, by pricking both ears with a lancetquot; infected with quot;alveolar exndate from the solidified lung tissue.quot;

quot; No result.quot;

quot;Another rabbit was inoculated with the same lung tissue a leeek Inter, which had meanwhile been kept in the refrigerator. (The pig No. 408 died March 5th. The postmortem examination was delayed forty-eight hours, the temperature being above the freezing point a part of the time.) A small bit of lung tissue was placed beneath the skin of the thigh.quot;

quot;It was killed a week later, though apparently weU. (!)

quot;A large cheesy mass of pus at the place of inoculation.quot;

quot;Internal organs norma(.^,,

quot; Two mice were inoculated March 8th by placing bits of lung tissue beneath the skin at the root of the tail_#quot; quot; Died March 13th and 14th.quot; quot; In heart's blood of both the characteristic bacteria, showing the polar stain very clearly, were found in large numbers.quot; quot;Cultures corroborated the microscopic examination.quot;

9Pig 409.

quot;Another pig had been with Xos. 405 and 4()G before Jan. 31.quot; quot;Died March 20th.quot; quot;Since Feb. 1st began to fail.quot;

24nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINK-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

Forty-eight days !

quot; In the blind end of the caecum, and in several of the sacular dilitations of the colon, mucous membrane super-fieially eroded, giving rise to circular, shallow ulcers, covered with a whitish deposit.quot;

quot; The lungs icere extensively Iiepatized.quot; Note that!

Microscopic examination of tissues:

quot;Cover-glass preparations of the diseased regions (of the lungs) of older date show pus corpuscles.quot;

quot; On one cover-glass was found a large colony of minute bacteria, resembling those of swine-plague.quot; Mark that!

quot; Cultures from the spleen and liver found to contain several kinds of bacteria.quot;

quot;Tube cultures from heart's blood remained perfectly free from bacterial growth.quot;

quot; From a cheesy mass in the lungs a large white rabbit was inoculated in both ears. On the eighth day it was found dead.quot; * * * quot;The lesions were those caused by the hog-cholera bacteria, and these microbes were found in large numbers in the spleen and liver.quot;

How about that rabbitquot;.' Ft must certainly have been mistaken, or the hog was all wrong. quot; The intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera,quot; but the only bacteria found in quot;cover-glass preparationsquot; was on quot;one (over-glass, a largo colony of minute bacteria resembling those of swine-plague,quot; and tiiis from quot; the lungs,quot; (which) wore quot; extensively Iiepatized.quot; Verily those quot; investigators (who think) that the lung lesions of infectious pneumonia (swine-plague) and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera are produced by the same bacteriaquot; arc most fully endorsed by Mr. Salmon.

What on earth do those quot;extensively hepatized lungsquot; point to, and what became ofthat quot;colony of minute bacteria resembling those of swine-plague,quot; though quot;no

Mft

CRITICALLY CONST DEKBD.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;25

groups of cocci resembling those of the swine-plague bacteria could be found in the few sections examinedquot; ? Prodigous prestidigitation that!

10.Pig 410.

quot; Another animal (No. 410) from the same farmquot; and in the same pen with all these others (except 377, which is doubtful all round) and this one seems to have been another innominata. quot;Stomach filled with a turbid liquid; membrane of fundus reddened and covered with tenacious mucous ; mucosa of large intestine of a deep red throughout, made up of crowded bright red spots.quot;

quot; No ulceration !quot;

quot;Lungs not collapsed; left hypostatic.quot; Both principal lobes cedematous (! ! ?) cephalic half of right lung 'nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;emphysematous.quot;

quot;Hepatization involves in the right lung, only the ex-. treme tip of cephalic lobe, one-half of the ventral lobes and the ventro-cephalic corner of the principal lobe ; in the left lung only a few lobules of the ventral lobe; the small median lobe is solidified along the border in several places.quot;

Considering that there was quot; no ulcerationquot; in the intestines, and such a dispersed amount of quot;hepatizationquot; and quot;solidifiedquot; substance in the lungs, this should be a paradigmatic case of swine-plague, when quot;intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera also?quot;

But the

quot;Bacterial investigations (were) negative.quot; raquo;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;One rabbit inoculated with a bit of lung tissue in

thigh remained well. Two mice inoculated \y\th lung tissue died on the following day. Cultures from the blood remained sterile. All but one culture from the spleen and

26nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINB-PIiAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

liver remained sterile. Tliis contained a bacillus growing in the bottom of tiie tube (Imtyricus).quot;

That was a queer kind ofquot; a quot; ensquot; all around. That rabbit and those mice were most unaccountably unaccommodating. Now for the quot; corn-cracker.quot;

Hold your breath !

11 and 12.Pigs 359 and 360.

quot; In order to ted the communicable character of this lung disease, two healthy pigs (Nos. 359, 360) were taken, I'eb. .28, to the farm and penned with Nos. JfiS, 4-09, 4-10. At this time two of these three were already diseased, and mnn-her 407 had already died in the same yard.quot;

It is now necessaiy to review the history of the pigs heretofore noticed, taking them in theorder given in the text:nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ,

No. 406 died in the same pen, of hog-cholera, Feb. 1.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 358nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; presumably of h. c. Feb. 20.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 403nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; of swine-plague, Feb. 16.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; * '

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 402 quot; quot; quot; quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Feb. 19.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 377 is doubtful all around.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 405 dieil in the same pen, of swine-plague, Feb. 18.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 407 quot; quot; quot; quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Feb. 21.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 408 quot; laquo; quot; quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Mar. 5.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 409nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; hog-cholera, Mar. 20.

quot;nbsp; nbsp; 410 quot; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; quot; nothing(V) Mar. 29.

Now here is a queer quot; miss,quot; call it what you will.

quot;On March 16, No. 408 had meanwhile succumbed,quot;' instead of quot; March 5th,quot; as stated on page 496, but what I desire to call attention to is the unpardonable character of this experimentation. Call it what else we may, it is imbecilic. An insult to common sense, unheard of in the annals of scientific experimentation.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 1

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;27

Ever since the issuance of his report of 1885, that is, since the fall of 1886, Mr. Salmon has proclaimed to the world that every one else in this country was wrong and he only infallible. In the Breeders' Gazette of Nov. 11, 1886, he said : quot;After a few years' experience in this class of investigations, he (Dr. B.) may learn, however, that he has made a mistake in jumping to the conclusion that this (the Detmers-Billings) is the only pathogenic (I should say specific, pollutions may be pathogenic in the animals and yet have nothing to do with swine-plague. B.) germ found in the diseases which have been, up to this time, classed together in this country as hog-cholera.quot;

Mr. Salmon has described seven different germs said to have been found by him in swine diseases in this country, and I for one give it up as to which of them is specific.

But amidst all this circumvolution and singular array of statements, for three years we have had one statement to which Mr. Salmon has adhered somewhat pertinaciously in opposition to equal stubbornness on my part in an opposite direction.

Though he gives evidence in one place, p. 674, 1886, pointing to three different germs and hence three diseases, and his assistant, Dr. Smith, is reported as having positively said the same thing in quot; a paper before the Agricultural and Natural History Societies of Cornell University,quot; where he spoke of quot;the three diseases which are commonly confounded under the term swine-plague, but which Dr. Smith has shown to be caused by three distinct germs,quot; Rural Neto Yorker, June, 1887, still Mr. Salmon has claimed two distinct diseases and two distinct germs, the nature of which and the lesions of which have been more or less distinctly set forth here and in my report.

Admitting, for the nonce, that Mr. Salmon is right, admitting his claim that he has at least both of these germs

28 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

isolated, that they both are specific and each causes a distinct disease, adniitting further his claim that botii of these diseases are contagious, then I appeal to all my confreres in tiie world, what kind of experimentation is that which Mr. Salmon has here detailed and which I have here noted in the most exact manner?

Under such circumstances should not any investigator be able to keep two such distinct quot; contagious quot; diseases apart, when one has pure cultures of their germs and claims to be able to produce them at will? How well founded that claim is has been shown and will be still better demonstrated.

The idea of quot; in order to test the communicable character of the lung disease,quot; or swiue-plague, putting healthy pigs into a pen infested with, and among hogs diseased with, another quot; contagious disease, hog-cholera.quot;

The idea is too absurd for words !

It would be as sensible quot; in order to test the communicable characterquot; of the measles to put healthy children in bod with others diseased with small-pox.

To the members of the quot; Board of Inquiry,quot; to the pathological investigators of the world, I say, I am willing to let the test of competency, of trustworthiness, of scientific ability, aye, of sanity, rest upon this point alone. Shame on the country, shame on the government, aye, total abnegation to Republicanism, if such must be the work issued from the one Public Laboratory of our country ; if such must be the character of the work by which original research in this country is to he judged. No monarchy on earth has ever heen so disgraced. quot;Crank quot; I may bo, but, by the Eternal, I am no such idiot as that.

But patience !

Let us go on! The results of this never-to-be-forgotten experiment are as wonderful as the method absurd.

* m

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;29

quot; No. 359 was found dead March 24.quot; Principal lesions :

quot;Mucosa of large intestine dark colored ; in caecum four or five large ulcers, one surrounding base of valve ; another about half an inch across, the necrotic center projected like a button ; in colon a large number of small ragged patches of a thin deposit which seems to be dead epithelium.quot;

quot;All but tlie dorsal region (of lungs) solidified.quot;

Other organs not mentioned to any extent.

I wish to call the especial attention of the quot; Board of Inquiryquot; to the detailed (?) character of these autopsies and all others, as examples of patho-anatomical ability.

quot; Microscopical examination reveals a large number of swine-plague bacteria in pleural exudate, immense numbers in lung tissue,quot; (but the specific microbe is not present in the quot; internal organsquot; and then quot;the intestinal lesions pointed to the existence of hog-cholera also.quot; Don't forget the last!) quot;The whitish plugs in the small air tubes contain a moderate number mingled with other forms. Sections of lung showed immense numbers of swine-plague bacteria; bacilli also present in small number.quot;

quot;The following cultures were made:

quot;Two beef infusion from pleural exudate; one swine-plague bacteria only; the other, in addition, a streptococcus.quot;

Sufficient! Tlie accomodating rabbits gave the desired quot;swine-plague bacteria.quot;

No. 360, in the same peculiar pen, found dead April 6th. quot;Abdomen distended. Superficial inguinal glands enlarged and congested; peritonitis; glands of meso-colon hemorrhagic; lungs collapsed ; quite red. No other lesions.quot; (!)

30nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWIXE-PI^AGUE AND HOG-CHOLEKA

quot; Tliis animal, therefore, had not contracted the diseasequot; (which quot;.') quot;as observed in those animals with which it had been penned.quot;

Why say that? No quot; bacteriological examinatiouquot; of any kind, and yet with sufficient lesions, and to Air. Salmon they should have been doubly interesting, a negative diagnosis is made in the most off-hand manner. Surely some of those seven germs ought to have been present and caused one of those quot;three diseases.quot;

Where was Assistant Smith at that time ?

13.Pig 378.

quot;Another animal, .'378, had been growing poor for nearly a month, and finally died, ALSO (!) affected toith extensive hepufization of the lungs.quot;

(Where had this animal been penned? As nothing is said, in the face of the circumstantial evidence we may be justified in assumingin that same accommodating pen which pf-oduced either disease to suit the desires of those interested.)

quot;No ulcerationquot; in intestines.

quot;Although forms resembling swine-plague bacteria were found un microscopical examination in the solidified portions quot; of the lungs, the rabbit was unaccommodating, for quot;it did not succumb.quot;

Sections of the lung tissue of the pig gave quot; streptococci,quot; quot;minute bacilli resembling tubercle bacilli very closely,quot; quot; stained according to Gramm ; quot; quot; cultures from heart's blood, spleen, and liver sterile.quot;

What was it ?

14.Pig 372. *

' No. 372 had been exposed in a pen affected with hog-cholera, to the lung disease.quot;

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 31

Mark ye ! quot; It had therefore been exposed to two different diseases.quot;

Where did the second come from quot; in a pen affected with hog-cholera quot;quot;.'

Shades of Hippocrates, where art thou ?

Look ! quot; Beginning sclerosis of the liver.quot; I!

Again! quot;No intestinal lesions.quot; Remember! quot;No intestinal lesions quot; which quot;pointed to the existence of hog-cholera quot; (see page 504). quot; Lungs : Right and left ventral lobes almost entirely solidified ; median ventral and cephalic border of right principal lobes solid.quot;

This must be certainly a quot;genuine case of swine-plague-infectious pneumonia.quot;

Alas for our hopes !

quot;In recent lesions, bacteria few in number; in caseous mass, immense numbers.quot;

quot; Nature not determinable.quot;

quot;Liquid cultures from blood and spleen contain, not swine-plague, but----------hog-cholera bacteria.quot; !!

Why no report of cultures of the quot; immense numbers of bacteria in the caseous massquot; from lungs, which would certainly have rendered their quot;nature determinablequot; ?

quot;Rabbit inoculated from culture of spleen died on (ith day ; in spleen and liver the injected bacteria present in large numbers.quot;

quot; Of two mice inoculated with lung tissue, one died the next day.quot;

quot; No examination made.quot;

What neglect!

quot; Unfortunately (very !) no rabbit was inoculated from the lung tissue.quot;

Yet, in the face of all this contradiction, and upon such an experiment, we have the diagnosis of quot; hog-cholera.quot;

m m

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

15.Pig 397.

This is a wonderful case, also.

quot; Pig Ko. 397 illustrates well the existence of two diseases in tlie same animal, the hog-cholera bacteria being obtained from the spleen, the swine-plague germs from the lungs.quot;

quot; This animal was fed with the hepatized lung of pig No. 378 on March 28th, and three days later with lung tissue from pig No. 359.quot;

Here is a pretty mess ! By referring to the notes of Pig 378, it will be seen that while it is said to have died, it did not die of anything, so far as specific disease is reported, while No. 359 is said to have died of swine-plague, though the quot; four or five large ulcers in the intestines quot; do not seem to have been accounted for. Must we then assume that 397 had also been placed in that wonderful pen? However, April 13th it died with quot;extensive disease of the lungs and large intestine.quot; quot; In liver the-connective tissue increased in quantity.quot; Unfortunately we cannot now tell which bacterium produced that, for, as said, in ]88() it was considered specifically due to the swme-plague organism, while in 1887 the quot;swill-feedingquot; quot;had induced a cirrhosis of the liver in most of them,quot; and,, according to the text, this lot of hogs had hog-cholera.

The reader should compare the report of tiiis pig with No. 359, in which the intestinal lesions are almost identical, and yet that was swine-plague, lleally, things are-getting dreadfully mixed.

No examination of the tissues of the hog for germs is reported, but quot; rabbits inoculated with bits of lung tissue were found dead within forty hours ; the bacteria of swine-plague present in spleen and liver in large numbers,quot; (why not in the lungsV), while quot;two mice inoculated from.

CRITICAIiLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 33

tlie spleen culture were dead on sixth laquo;lay, both ofquot; hog-cholera from the injected culture.quot;

Herman, Herman, hide thy diminished head!

16.Pig 396.

quot;No. 396 is another interesting ease of lung disease complicated with hog-cholera. This animal had been fed, Feb. 23d, with portions of the spleen and large intestine of 407.quot;

The previous was a queer ease, but this one quot;takes the deck.quot; Notwithstanding the wearisomeness of repetition, we must refer to page 496, and look up the iiistory of 407 once more. AVhilc it was strikingly interesting before, it will prove doubly so now. By a glance at the table of inoculations upon small animals, through which a diagnosis of the true disease of which No. 407 died was arrived at, we find it was quot; swine-plague.quot; Again, this was that case in which quot;pure cultures of swine-plague bacteria were obtained from the pleura! exndate,quot; and quot; microscopic examination of the lung tissue in cover-glass preparations shows the presence of numerous bacteria with the polar quot;stain.quot;

quot;Cover-glass preparations from spleen and liver negative.quot;

A careful study of Mr. Salmon's work will show that he considers tiiis almost an absolute criterion for the non-existence of his hog-cholera in a iiog, irrespective of the lesions, for any one can see that he has absolutely given up the point that quot; the intestinal ulcersquot; pointed quot;to the existence of hog-cholera also.quot;

Again, this 407 is the case where the lungs are not recognized as quot;internal organs,quot; and where it is positively said that quot;the specific microbe (of swine-plague) can only 3

34 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

be obtained from the diseased lungs and pleura,quot; though in the rabbit quot; inoculated in the ear with a bit of lung, immense numbers of swine-plague bacteria (wereB.) in the blood, spleen, and liver.quot;

Now let us turn over to page 502 and pig No. 39G once more, which was quot;/laquo;Z with 'portions of the spleen and intestines of 407.quot;

. The question arises, quot; What for?quot; when it has been distinctly asserted that quot;No. 407quot; died of quot;swine-plague,quot; and quot;cover-glass preparations of the spleen,quot; as well as cultures and animal experimental tests, were quot;negativequot; as regards hog-cholera?

Where, then, could the hog-cholera have come from? Not from the spleen and intestines of 407, certain!v ! Nothing is positively said of the pen where No. 396 was confined, but we might as well fix this pen business up once for all, for we can find evidence which shows that all 'these pigs were confined in that same accommodatingly infested pen. Pig 396 quot;died April 18.quot; In a foot-note at the bottom of the page is the following : quot; The next case of swine-plague in this pen died June 29th, over two months after the death of 392,quot; the next one we have to consider. At the bottom of page 506 may be read, quot; The introduction of hog-cholera after the appearance of swine-plague was most likely due to the case first reported in these pages, No. 406,quot; which died of hog-cholera. How this quot;first casequot; can be made to answer for quot;the introduction of hog-cholera aftev the appearance of swine-plague,quot; I must leave to others to explain.

As Mr. Salmon's testimony must be taken as positively excluding the possibility of even quot;the spleen and intestines of 407quot; having caused the infection of 396 with hog-cholera, we must place that coincidence to the quot; pen,quot;

CKITICAXLY CONSIDERKI).nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;35

and even agaiiuit liis general statements conclude that the quot; spleen and intestines of 407 quot; must have caused swine-plague in 396, as 407 died of that disease alone, or else assume that the bacteria of hog-cholera were still there (in 407), but for some reason resting in quot; innocuous desuetude,quot; as they did not then manifest themselves. No. 396 did not at all differ from 407 in the lesions reported, for it also had quot; severe and extensive lesions of the lungs and lanje intestines.quot; For details see original.

But while these two pigs so closely resembled one another. No. 396 was by no means so accommodating in infecting smaller animals when inoculated from its tissues.

quot; Two rabbits and two mice inoculated in the oars with lung tissue without any result!

quot; Gelatine cultures from pleura sterile.

quot; A culture from the spleen contained several forms, one of which resembled the hog-cholera bacterium.quot;

(Cultures from the spleen of 407, negative!)

quot; After isolating this (from the spleen of 396) two mice were inoculated from a pure culture. Both died in seven days with lesions characteristic of this diseasequot;hog-cholera.

quot; The hog-cholera germs were therefore present in this animal.quot;

quot; The swine-plague genus were not isolated, perhaps (! !) because they were so few.quot;

quot; Whether the lung disease of this pig was contracted from the 'feeding must be determined from additional cases.quot;

That question Mr. Salmon says he determined the previous year.

Summary 1886, p. 675. quot;Microbe of Pneumonia.quot;

quot; Feeding cultures produce no effect whatever.'!

36nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-P1,AGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

How, then, where neither examination of tissues, cultures, or animal experimentation demonstrated anything resembling the micro-organism of swine-plague, could Mr. Salmon have the audacity tu say that quot; No. 396 is another interesting case of lung disease (swine-plagueB.) complicated with hog cholera.quot;

These eccentricities of Mr. Salmon as an experimental patho-bacteriologist increase as we proceed, as may be seen by referring to tiie next pig :

17.Pig 392.

quot;No. 392 died from swine-plague, with a few doubtful hog-oholera lesions and with hog-cholera bacteria in the spleen.'quot;

Find a name to express what kind of a statement that is from a scientific point of view ?

What value have Mr. Salmon's quot; hog-cholera bacteriaquot; after such an assertion as that ?

I iiave repeatedly said it was a quot; forgery.quot; Does that properly express it? Is my polemic justified or not, when an interest involving an annual loss of sect;20,000,000, not less than sect;4,000,000 of which falls on Nebraska, is at stake?

To go on. quot;The remainder of the exposed animals had no swine-plague lesions, but death was caused by acute hog-cholera.quot;

Note that!

quot;The history of this animal, 392, is instructive. Jan. 25, 1887, injected into eacii thigh about 2 ccms. from a beef infusion culture, one day old, of swine-plague bacteria, obtained from an Iowa outbreak.quot;

Quick transport, that!

quot;Animal fully recovered.quot;

raquo; 0

CRITICALLY CONSIDERKl).nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;37

quot;March 28, it was transferred with some others to a pen infected with swine-plague and with hog-cholera, as subsequent deaths show.quot;

How about quot; pig -lOli which died Feb. 1 and was without doubt a case of genuine hog-choleraquot; ?

Again. quot; The remainder of tiie exposed animals had no swine-plague lesions, but death was caused by acute hog-cholera.quot;

quot;The next case of swine-plague in this pen died June 29, over two months after tiie death of 392.quot; quot; Pig No. 390 placed in the infected pen March 22, with pigs which subsequently died of lung disease as well as hog-cholera.quot;

quot; No swine-plague lesions observable quot; in pig 390.

Kead and make you own comments ! Lesions in 392:

quot; Lungs seat of recent and extensive disease.quot; quot;Csecum and upper two-thirds of colon pigmented. In the latter, summits of about seven transverse ridges covered witii a thin sheet of necrosed tissue.quot;

quot; Cover-glass preparations from the various diseased lobes show numerous forms of bacteria, no one predom-inuting.

quot;Plate cultures from the lung tissue gave two forms, the bacteria of swine-plague and streptococci.quot;

quot; Two formsquot; ! Numerous forms quot; !

quot;llabbit inoculated from a mixed culture of these two forms died in four days.quot;

quot;Various cultures of internal organs of this animal contained the swine-plague bacteria only.quot;

quot;Of three cultures of the spleen of the pig only one becomes turbid. This contained hog-cholera bacteria only, as shown by the microscope and inoculation of mice.quot;

quot;This pig iiad therefore the bacteria of two diseases, the lung lesions belonging to oms, the various hemorrhagic lesions, eccliymoses, etc., to the other.quot;

38nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

This last clause, quot; hemorrhagic lesions,quot; is respectfully referred to the quot; Board of Inquiry,quot; as also the sentence, so often quoted from the next page, 504: quot; The intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog cholera also.quot;

Where were they in pig 392 ?

quot; In the majority of cases (of hog-cholera) lung lesions were entirely absent.quot; 1886, p. 664.

quot; There is an idea among some investigators that the lung lesions of swine-plague and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera are produced by the same germ.quot; Baltimore Address. I.e.

During March and April, a few animals placed in the infected pen, in which the virus of both diseases had been scattered, no longer took swine-plague ( quot; The next case of swine-plague in this pen died June 29 quot;), but succumbed to hog-cholera, as the following notes clearly indicate.

18.Pig 390.

quot; Pig 890 placed in an infected pen March 22 with pigs which subsequently died of lung disease as well as hog-cholera.quot;

How could that be when they quot;no longer took swine-plague quot; ?

quot;Died April 6th.quot;

quot; Spleen very large. Hog-cholera bacteria present.quot;

quot; Mucosa of large intestines studded with irregular

masses simulating ulcers. 3Iost of them seem to öe adherent J'ecdl masxeti.quot; ! ! ! ! quot;A tew removed, leave a slightly

depressed surface.quot;

Hardened sinners they must have been ! quot; No swine-plague lesions observable.quot;

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;39

Bacteria asleepquot;? Must have been, for the next pig but one that died had both diseases!

quot; Hog-cholera bacteria obtained in pure cultures from spleen.quot;

A new point in diagnosis !

quot; Irregular masses simulating ulcers, most of them seem (ing) to be adherent fecal massesquot; pathognomonic of hog-cholera.

Now we have really learned something!

19.Pig 386.

386 was transferred to the infected pen at the same time and died of hog-cholera April 15th.

20Pig 366.

quot; 366 is another instructive case in which two diseases were present. It had been put into a pen (the same) in which swine-plague had to all appearances died out two months ago (That settles it ! That shows how much Salmon knows of swine-plague ! Western hog-raisers, attention ! quot; Died out two months ago.quot; What practical hog-raiser does not know better than to do that thing. Behold the example they instruct you by at Washington!) but in which pigs were dying of hog-cholera at intervals of a few weeks.quot;

quot;In csecum and upper colon twelve to fifteen ulcers from one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch across.quot;

Lung lesions are described as severe, and then comes the following passage:

These {the lung) lesions indicated a severe form of swine-plague. The intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera also.quot;

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA.

That should certainly he sufficient to indicate Mr. Salmon's position on the two disease question, as distinguished by lesions. It is without equivocation. Then we have the often quoted assertion of quot;some investigatorsquot; thinking both due to the same bacterium, which need not be again repeated.

Let us look back.

No. 403. Swine-plague, quot; Large intestines empty, mucosa deeply inflamed from cseeum to anus,quot; etc.

No. 402. Swine-plague, quot; Mucosa of colon very dark and covered with isolated yellowish white masses from one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch in diameter.quot;

No. 405. Swine-plague, quot; Severest lesions confined to lungs and large intestines; mucous membrane dark red and covered more or less entirely with a continuous layer of exudate.quot;

No. 407. Swine-plague, quot;Mucosa sprinkled with isolated or confluent masses about £ to J of an inch in diameter of a dirty yellowish-grey color; several ulcers in caecum; mucous glands at base of valve converted into an ulcerated mass.quot;

No. 408. Swine-plague, quot;In large intestine, mucosa of csecum covered with large ragged ulcerations; ileo-caecal valve almost completely surrounded by ulcerations; colon covered with small ulcerations,quot; etc.

No. 3Ö9. Swine-plague, quot;In caecum four or five large ulcers, one surrounding base of valve; another about half an inch across; in colon a large number of small ragged patches.quot;

No. 392. I log-cholera, no actual u/ceration reported. The above includes the autopsies of every pig which Mr. Salmon reports, in this series of experiments, as having died of uncomplicated swine-plague, and one of hog-cholera,

laquo; laquo;

*.'

laquo; raquo;

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;41

in which the lung lesions were marked and the intestines very slightly complicated.

I am not a very rabid bacteriologist, and against the entire Bacteriological School am willing to enter the lists and to defend the position, that while bacteriological knowledge and experimentation is absolutely necessary to a complete understanding of certain diseases, and to differential diagnosis before we completely understand the processes, essential and secondary, still I do say, and will say to the bitter end, that when any one thoroughly understands a given disease, that he should so know the bacterial agents, specific to it, by their pathological fruits, as not to have to recur daily and hourly to a microscope and animal experimentation in order to make a diagnosis. If that be necessary, then we might as well quit being students at once and become mere technical mechanics. If such be the case, eyes and fingers are everything, and the powers of re-fiection, the ability to study and conclude logically, insignificant tools.

From the results quoted from Mr. Salmon's report of lcS87, I then claim that he has given up every point which he has maintained against myself, as well as the great experience of Dr. Dctmers, and also the studies and observations of all English observers, and the results, so far as published, of continental investigators who have actually studied the genuine swine-plague.

In the face of what has been already shown, in the face of all his assertions in his reports of 1880, 1887, and in other places in 1888, in the face of his insinuation that I am an idiot and will soon quot;hang myself,quot; still against ail this, Mr. Salmon says, towards the last of this report:

quot;Intestinal Lesions: In severe types of this disease (his swine-plague) there are many extensive lesions of the

*.'

laquo;% 

42nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

large intestines. These on superficial examination resemble those of hog-cholera so much that this similarity alone may have prevented the separation of these two diseases by pathologistraquo; who have studied them very carefully.quot; p. 516.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;.

If any competent person will take the pains to look over the autopsy notes recorded by Mr. Salmon in his various reports, and will then say tiiat they display the ability even of a tyro in pathological anatomy, I am perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Salmon continues:

quot;Although the lesions seemed at first sight different from the ulcerations in hog-cholera, yet it was only after the futile search for the specific bacterium in this disease (S. P.) in the spleen that we ventured to consider them as something entirely different from the lesions produced by that disease.quot; H. C, p. 517.

AVith that 1 leave this side of the question. The reader who desires to see an ass try to laquo;jet through the eve of a needle is referred to the original. As to the spleen question, Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

shall have something to say further on, but can safely leave the establishment of the fact that the one germ of swine-plague is found in that organ, as well as tlie very simple question of the place ofquot; the intestinal lesions in this disease, to my confreres in tlie world, and tlie exceptionally eminent pathologist now busied on the quot;Board of Inquiry,quot; and his equally eminent colleague, Prof. Welch-of Johns Hopkins, who is also studying this most interest, ing of all diseases.

We must now return to our experimental animals which certainly are recorded as dying of something. The special serial number 1 have prefixed had reached twenty; twonbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;* H*

more, Nos. 414 and 41G, died, each of hog-cholera, making the total number of twenty-two, which fact needs to be borne in mind.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;#9632;* raquo;

CRITICALLY COXSIDEUED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;43

Mr. Salmon concludes that part of his report as follows:

quot; We know too little of this diseaseswine-plagueto offer anything but opinions concerning its origin and com-municability. The source of lung disease in the first animal (No. 366) is likewise very puzzling, when we consider that a number of animals had died of hog-cholera without any sign of lung disease.quot; p. 505, 1887.

One's patience almost gives out! What on earth is this man driving at? Here it is again, quot;lung diseasequot; swine-plague, hog-cholera quot; no lung disease,quot; when he has scarcely recorded a fact supporting any such position.

Again, what are we to make out of such a statement as quot;the source of the lung disease in the first animal (No. 366) is very puzzling,quot; etc., when \vc have been told that quot;as late as June 4, 1887, it was transferred to the pen above mentioned,quot; and also that quot;No. 403 died Feb. 16, in the same pen, and was without doubt a case of genuine swine-plague?quot;

It is too much to ask of a long suffering public. As can be seen, the whole number of animals reported by Mr. Salmon was 22.

quot;Brief summary of liicts obtained from this epizootic.quot; p. 505.

quot; In the fifteen animals which died there was extensive disease of the lungs.quot;

(Reader, the author says quot;in the fifteen,quot; not in fifteen of the. Some discrepancy exists between 15 and 22, and then the passage continues, quot;excepting in the first (No. 406) which was very likely a ease of hog-cholera.quot;)

How does quot;very likely a case of hog-choleraquot; compare with quot;this was without doubt a case of genuine hog-chol-* \*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; era.quot; p. 492.

quot;As regards the bacteriological examination, the first cuise (No. 406) was not examined.quot; p. 506.

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

An exact examination of the text will show that there was no microscopical examination of the tissues of pigs No. 406, 358, 403, 377, 405, 397, and 386; from some of these cultures were made, some of which were sterile, others uncertain, and from others the accommodating rabbits and mice were inoculated, which seem to have died quot; to order,quot; utterly regardless of the author's previous or present assertions, and equally reckless as to the effect their untimely demise might have upon the minds of quot;some investigators.quot;

quot;Of the remaining fourteen (406 was the 15th) nine contained swine-plague bacteria.quot;

According to the text 403, 402,405, 407, 408, 359, 397, 396, 392, and 366 (ten) contained swine-plague bacteria, mixed or unmixed, while 377, 378, 360, and 410 died from wellname it, and 406, 358, 409, 372, 390, 386, 414, and 416 are said to have died of uncomplicated hog-cholera. This must suffice. For some equally curious presto-encephalic gyrations the reader is respectfully referred to the original, where he can see what kind of a labyrinth an American Agricultural Report is.

 

Mit. SALMONS GERMS OF SWINE-PLAGUE.

This question is scarcely touched upon in Mr. Salmon's report of 1887, and I should not revert to it again were it not for a, to me, wholly unaccountable mistake which has been made in my own report upon this disease.

The editor of the Breeders' Gazette once inferred that I would not admit an error if J made one, but those who know me well will admit that if any error ever creeps into, or is made in my professional work, it is unintentional, and equally, that I am enough of a thoroughbred to admit it without any plausible excuses. The only one

CRITICALLY CONSIDEKBD.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;45

I have to offer in this case is, that I do not believe that any other investigators in this century have been so nagged,, obstructed, and at the same time so unreflectingly driven to quot;produce something,quot; or forced into doing things op- nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;posed to good judgment as I have been. When these

questions are definitely settled, which will be in a few months, I 'hope, it is my purpose to write a short autobiographical sketch of my endeavors to plant original research in preventive medicine in this country, and then some things which many now think unjustifiable will receive their full justification, and the reason why quot;a better manquot; has not been sent to Nebraska fully explained.

The relations of Mr. Salmon to the germ question in, swine-plague are as follows; he has described or illustrated different organisms, to-wit:

1.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;In the Agricultural Report of 1880 is pictured a strepto-gl i o-coccu s.

2.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;In that of 1884, a figure 8 micrococcus, an entirely different organism.

Of these, under the common name quot;raierococcus,quot; he has said, quot;the evidence furnished is all that should be necessary to decide a scientific question of this kind.quot;

3.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;The quot;new microbe of swine-plague,quot; 1885, which had no polar staining, as does the bacterium of rabbit septicaemia, but presents a delicate border of uniform width around the entire circumference of the oval.

This germ became that of quot; hog-eholeraquot; in later reports,, but is illustrated and at times described as having more or less polar staining. See report of 1886, and Journal of Comp. Med., April, 1888. This is the germ I pronounce-a forgery and as not existing in any natural swine disease in this country, holding exactly to the description and illustration as given in the report of 1885. The variation

SWINF.-IM.AGUK AND HOG-CHOLERA

therefrom, ami the approach to the true germ, can be seen in the illustration given in tiie report of 1886.

4. The liose quot;Bacteriiun of hog-cholera in Nebraska,quot;

1886, pp. (i'22, 628, 629, of which Mr. Salmon says, quot;the identity of the two bacteria from Nebraska and the East was thus clearly establishedquot; (p. 627, and then himself (disestablishes his own assertions by giving the

DIFFERENTIAL CHARACTERS OF THE HOG-CHOLERA BACTERIUM PEOJI NEBRASKA.

quot;The bacterium, when stained on cover-glass preparations from the spleen and other viscera, closely resembles the one found in the disease prevalent in the East, so that it is impossible to distinguish them in this way. Both stain well in an aqueous solution of methyl-violet in from two to five minutes, and show a well-stained narrow periphery around a pale center. This may be due to the presence of a dense envelope obstructing the inward movement of the coloring matter. In the last report an opinion was expressed that it might suggest the presence of an endogenous spore, but that tiie other evidence did not seem to warrant such a view. The experiments of the present year have not changed these views. The illustrations given in the last report apply equally well to the microbe from Nebraska.quot;

quot;A few minor differences revealed in tiie various culture media indicated that the two microbes were not alike in every way, and brought up the very interesting question of the variation of species of bacteria and the influence of such variation on the severity of epidemics.quot;

quot;The first difference was observed in liquid cultures. Within twenty-four hours after inoculation from the spleen or blood the culture liquid became turbid, and upon its surface a complete membrane was present, in nearly every case. This whitish membrane is not homogeneous, but made up of patches of varying thickness, and when shaken, slowly settles to the bottom in lumps and flocculi. The microbe

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;47

of eastern outbreaks does not form a membrane within several days after inoculation, and then only when the tube remains perfectly quiet. It appears as a whitish ring attached to the glass, and is rarely found covering the entire surface. When a number of successive inoculations are

made a week apart the later cultures are quite apt to form membranes after a few days' standing. Thus one microbe forms a membrane very speedily; the other only occasionally, and then quite tardily.quot;

quot;In these liquid cultures both exhibit, during three or four days after inoculation, very active spontaneous movements. Sometimes masses of five to ten bacteria may be seen moving actively to and fro and at the same time revolving about themselves.quot;

quot; In the same culture liquid the microbe from Nebraska seemed to grow more vigorously, so that at the end of two or three days the liquid became turbid, and the deposit in the bottom of the tube was very abundant after one or two weeks.quot;

quot; Both fail to liquefy gelatine. A very slight but significant difference was observed in this medium also. It was found that when line cultures were made on plates of gelatine, in order to test the purity of liquid cultures, the microbe from Nebraska failed to develop, while the microbe from the East invariably grew as described in the preceding report. This observation was made so uniforndy with every culture that it became later a means of distinguishing the two forms when the cause of this behavior became known. Such lines, after a few days, appeared as an aggregation of mere points under a 1-inch objective, and did not enlarge, or else there was no indication of any growth whatever.quot;

quot; Later, another quantity of nutrient gelatine was prepared, which, on boiling, threw down a very fine precipitate, uniformly clouding the gelatine. A few drops of acetic acid added to it when liquefied by heat dissolved the * fnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;precipitate completely. It seemed probable that the pre-

cipitate was some alkaline phosphate or carbonate, and in fact the reaction with litmus paper was more alkaline

48nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

than with the gelatine previously used. In this medium the bacterium from Nebraska grew very well both on plates and in tubes, and the bacterium from the East grew much better than in the previous preparation of gelatine, thus showing that an alkaline medium is best for the bacterium of hog-cholera, and that the Nebraska variety is by far the more sensitive, and fails to multiply unless the reaction is fairly alkaline. On gelatine plates the colonies are somewhat darker and more coarsely granular when viewed by transmitted light than those which develop from the eastern variety.quot;

quot;On the surface of beef-infusion peptone agar agar made slightly alkaline with potassium carbonate both bacteria grow very vigorously when kept in the incubator at 95deg; to 100deg; F. On potato both grow as a dirty straw-colored layer at tlie ordinary temperature, so as not to be distinguishable.quot;

quot;From the comparative plate cultures and from potato cultures both bacteria, when inoculated into liquid media, showed the characteristic difference already mentioned. On the following day one culture would be covered with a membrane, the other not. In milk both multiply without producing any microscopic change.quot;

quot;This bacterium is likewise killed by a temperature of 58deg; C, as the following experiment shows: Five tubes containing sterile beef-infusion were inoculated from a liquid culture ten days old, obtained from a mouse. Four of these were placed in a water bath at a temperature of 58deg; C, and retained there for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty minutes respectively. These, with the check-tube, were placed in the incubator. Next morning the check-tube was turbid and the liquid caj)|)ed by the characteristic membrane consisting of the oval bacterium.quot;

The above shows that Mr Salmon did not look upon these bacteria as quot;identical quot; after all.

5. quot;Hog-cholera in Illinois caused by the same bacteriumquot; (as in Nebraska), p. 620, 1886.

A description of this germ is given on p. 661-2:

CRITICALLY COXSJDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;'49

quot;One grew in both tubes, which was more carefully ex-amineil, because it resembled the bacterium of hog-cholera very closely. In liquid media it is actively motile and simulates the form of a bacillus. When stained, however, each individual is resolved into a pair of ovals or very short rods with rouuded extremities. A deeply stained narrow border surrounds a comparatively pale body. There seems to be slightly more stained material at the two extremities than in the bacterium already fully described in the last report. It seems a trifle longer than the latter form, but on attempting to confirm this impression by measurement the dimensions were found practically the same. Sown on gelatine plates the colonies appear, within twenty-four hours and grow quite rapidly. The deep colonies are spherical, with smooth outline and homogeneous disc. The surface colonies appear as irregular patches, spreading very quickly, and, as a rule, growing far more vigorously than the deep colonies. In tubes containing nutrient gelatine the isolated colonies in the depth of the needle track may grow to the size of pins' heads. On the surface a flat, thin, pearly layer rapidly extends from the point of inoculation, and in from one to two weeks may have covered the entire surface. The margins arc irregularly scalloped and lobed, the entire layer often simulating the frost flowers on windows or lace work (Plate V., Fig. 2). On potato, a thick straw-colored shining layer of nearly smooth surface forms, which grow very vigorously and gradually covers the entire cut surface of the potato with a layer 2quot;quot;quot; thick. This growth is brighter in color and more abundant than appears in the potato culture of the bacterium of hog-cholera. Cultivated in liquids, such as beef infusion with 1 per cent peptone, the medium becomes very turbid within twenty-four hours. A thin pellicle appears, which soon becomes a thick membrane. A cream-colored deposit forms and accumulates to a considerable extent, while the liquid remains turbid. It will be re-gt; fnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;membered that the bacterium of hog cholera grows very

feebly in comparison.quot;

quot;No resistant spore state was found, for tubes exposed to 58deg; C. for fifteen minutes remained sterile; those ex-4

SWINE-PI-AGUB AND HOG-CHOLEIiA

posed ten minutes became turbid. The pale, unstained central portion of the bacterium simulates very strikingly the appearance of an endogenous spore, yet they all suc-cumb to the temperature of 58deg; C, as described. A peculiar property not common to the hog-cholera bacteria described is the coagulation of the casein of milk. If a tube of this liquid, sterilized by discontinuous boiling, be inoculated, it will be solidified within twenty-four hours. The coaguiuni, contracting later on, leaves a shallow stratum of watery liquid near the surface. The reaction is acid. Grown on gelatine a rather penetrating odor of decomposing flesh is given off. The bacterium of hog-cholera develops no odor whatever in cultures. This microbe, therefore, resembled the bacterium of hog-cholera very closely in its microscopic characters, but differed from it in some of its physiological properties. This illustrates how important cultivation experiments are in the determination of specific differences. That it was not the bacterium of hog-cholera was shown by an utter want of pathogenic properties when inoculated into mice and rabbits. Pigs were inoculated and fed; cultures were introduced per rectum without any effect whatever.quot;

If the Nebraska germ was identical with the swine-plague germ 1885, hog-cholera 1886, this Illinois one certainly offers very essential points of differentiation from either. In every point, but the asserted quot; utter want of pathogenic properties when inoculated into mice and rabbits,quot; the above description tallies sufficiently with my own observations, and those of Detmers, Cornil, and Rietsch, to show that we are all working with the same organism and same disease. My own conclusions have been lately verified by Prof. Welsh, by comparative studies made with original cultures sent to him by me, in connection with the organism he has himself found in outbreaks at Baltimore, Md.

I now come to the mistake I made in my report. I felt sure that this lt;gt;erm was the one which Mr. Salmon claimed

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;51

to be the cause of his quot; infectious pneumonia or swine-plague,quot; particularly as he had claimed its quot; identity quot; in the Breeders' Gazette, Nov. 11, '86, and also in his report of 188(), p. (J18, where he says:

quot; In view of the fact that another Iwcteriuui has been recently found associated with severe lung lesions, and is probably the cause, it becomes necessary to re-examine diseases of the lungs, whether associated with true hog-cholera or occurring independently. The subject is fully discussed further on.quot;

The above remarks threw me entirely off my guard, and I did not notice that the quot; subject was (not) fully discussed further on,quot; nor that Mr. Salmon did not again refer to that germ, but immediately went on to describe another organism which, according to him, is the cause of his quot;infectious pneumonia or swine-plague.quot; Being thus misled, I did make a mess of quot; misstatements,quot; of which Mr. Salmon accuses me, for I referred all his (non) quot;identicalquot; remarks about non-motility, not growing on potatoes, and cirrhosis (sclerosis) of the liver to tlie above germ, and hence, for once accused him of contradictions which he is not guilty of, but which, as I will show, do not militate against my own work or my accusations with regard to Mr. Salmon's correctness, but on the other hand only make them more pregnant, in fact the very error I fell into renders the case against Mr. Salmon still worse, for it demonstrates in a most emphatic manner what I have shown in my report, that he idterly fails in giving any evidence that he has had a germ capable of causing quot; infectious pneumonia or swine-plaguequot; in his possession, or that is or was the cause of the very lesion which he claims to be specific to it quot;cirrhosis (sclerosis) hepatis.quot; I will show beyond question that his claims are absolutely false.

I have been constantly'surprised at the pertinacity with

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

which Mr. Salmon accused me of quot; misstatements,quot; for I pride myself on my honesty, and any one could have bankrupted me on that question. The only reason I can think of, that Mr. Salmon did not come out against me, when I had laid myself so open, is, that this swine-plague germ of his, like his hog-cholera, is known to him to be a humbug, and he dared not expose himself to the results of my discovering my own error and thus obtain the greater vantage over him which now I have. I thought him right as to his quot;swine-plague germ,quot; and credited him with having finally discovered it, but considered his points of differentiation were simply assumed for originality, a conclusion I think the reader who is competent will see enough to justify me in, if he follow that person's erratic gyrations.

How did I find out my error?

Any one who will read over Mr. Salmon's accounts of his quot;swine-plague germ,quot; will find that he continually asserts that it cannot be found in the liver and spleen only being present in the lungs and not in quot;internal organs.quot; So far as the true germ is concerned 1 knew this to be erroneous, and believing Mr. Salmon's swine-plague to be in reality what he claimed, quot;identicalquot; with mine, I commenced an exact revision of his autopsies, and then, not only became aware of my error, but discovered that the very first time he reported to have found his quot;swine-plague germ quot; he did (jet it from the spleen, as can be seen from the following:

quot; Reports of swine-plague from Geueseo, Henry county, made it advisable to make a few pest mortem examinations in this section of the state, in order to make sure of the nature of the disease. The losses were very heavy, involving in many places the greater part of the affected herd. July 11 several autopsies were made in a herd about three miles from Geueseo. In this herd the disease had been observed

CRITICALLY COXÖIDEEED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;53

about nine days before. At the time three or four large animals had died during the night and a number of others were ill.

quot;No. 6.Adult black male, in good condition, no signs of decomposition. In the peritoneal cavity there were ecchymoses beneath the peritoneum of the dorsal wall, near the caudal end of the kidneys, at least an inch in diameter. The spleen was enlarged and congested. Whitish patches showing through the serosa of the large intestine were afterwards found to correspond with ulcerations of the mucous membrane. The lymphatic glands in general with congested cortex. The left lung completely solidified, blackish, and everywhere adherent to chest wall. On forcing the ribs apart the lung tissue broke as a watermelon would; from the broken surface a blackish frothy liquid exuded. A portion of the right lung was in the same condition. A fibrinous deposit on the epicardium indicative of pericarditis. In the alimentary tract the mucous membrane of the fundus of the stomach is darkened with extravasations on the ridges of tlie folds. In tiie large intestine the mucous membrane is completely covered with punctiform extravasations, in part converted into pigment. In the cceeum and colon are isolated disk-shaped ulcers, about one-half inch in diameter, slightly elevated. The center is dark, surrounded by a broad yellowish margin, giving the whole a button-like appearance. On section a whitish tough tissue is found to make up the ulcer and extend to the peritoneum, where it appears as a whitish patch when viewed from the serous surface. (Note ! Mr. Salmon originally obtained the germ of his infectious pneumonia from this case.) Cover-glass preparations of the spleen negative. Tioo portions dropped into a tube of gelatine and agar-agar respectively gave rise to cultures which mil be described in detail further on.'' p. 660, 1886.

Tiiis is confirmed by the following:

quot;In two tubes inoculated with bits of spleen from No. 0 two microbe} were found which deserve attention.quot; p. 661.

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

By referring to the former quotation from p. 661, which follows directly on the latter, may be read quot; one grew in both tubes,quot; etc.

Now, who on earth would think that quot; onequot; meant two? What sane person would assume that when the description which followed corresponded in all points but one with his own observations, that another germ was going to spring. out somewhere else as the quot;identicalquot; organism and yet have nothing of importance quot;identicalquot; about it, especially as Mr. Salmon gives more attention to quot; green bacilliquot; (the 7th germ) which have no connection with any disease than he does to the specific germ '.' I acknowledge the quot;green quot; this time, but I shall not be so quot; fresh quot; in the future as long as I have to do with a Salmon.

As nothing more is said by our author about the quot; onequot; organism with regard to which I assumed him to be nearly correct, we will at once proceed to notice the other, which was the partner of quot;one (which) grew in both tubes :quot; or

quot; In one of the tubes the motile bacterium just described was mixed with another microbe, which proved to be a very virulent germ.quot; p. (J62.

The latter is the non-quot; identical quot; creature which caused all the trouble, and which will prove a still more troublesome customer to Mr. Salmon than the one he so completely neglected, and which, according to him is quot; identicalquot; with nothing but itself, but of which, 1 think, he gives the truest description he has ever given of the real organism causing the one American swine-plague. Where did he borrow it from ?

6. Here is Mr. Salmon's description, in part :

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;55

quot; GENERAL CHARACTERS OF THE MICROBE CAUSING PNEUMONIA (? B) IN SWINE.

quot; In cover-glass preparations from the organs of animals which have died from inoculation, and of which the rab-,nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;Lit presents the best advantages for study, the microbes

appear as oval bodies, measuring about 1 to 1.2 micromil-limeters in length, and .6 to .8 micromillimeter in breadth. When stained by some aniline, such as an aqueous solution of methyl violet, or an alkaline solution of methylene blue, their appearance is very much like that of the microbes of rabbit septicannia. The two extremities of the longer axis are deeply stained. Between these colored masses a transverse band remains transparent, without any color. This unstained portion may vary between one-fourth and one-half of the entire optical area of the oval. It is limited on either side by a very delicate, stained line (Plate III., Pig. 2; Plate IX., Fig. 1). It is probable that this appearance arises during the elongation of the coccus preparatory to a transverse division into two, and that the width of this unstained area depends upon the stage of the process. Among the cocci there may be seen in cover-glass preparations of liquid cultures rodlikc forms as broad as the cocci, imperfectly segmented, and attaining in a few cases a length of 15 to 20 micromillimeters. These filaments must be regarded as involution forms of the cocci, due to a want of power of division ; for such a form is frequently of varying width, and the extremities irregularly tapering; moreover, the cultures containing them are invariably found pure when tested on gelatine plates. This abnormal growth is not confined to cultures. It is found in cover-glass preparations made directly from the tissues of animals which have succumbed to inoculation with pure cultures. They arc common in mice and rabbits. In the former animals thev assume a bacillar form occasionally; in rabbits a form staining very irregularly, and resembling swollen diplococci. In the earlier experiments with this %ifnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;microbe these abnormal appearances Mere very puzzling.

Inoculation of liquids with these bacteria gave invariably the same form. Gelatine tube cultures and the colonies on

SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CriOLERA

plates always proved the same. It became necessary to conclude from these results that, although fatal to these animals to a very high degree, this particular coccus does not find the best conditions for multiplication in these animals ; or else it may be found that some slight variations in the manipulation of cover-glass preparations, a too rapid drying or a greater heat applied to the dried film, may cause changes in the microscopical appearances of the stained germ. Whatever the reason may be, the striking fact remains that in some rabbits the bacteria on cover-glass preparations are regular and uniformly stained at both extremities; in others they are irregular in outline, and the staining is not characteristic.quot; p. (371.

To which may be added, according to the author :

It is quot;non-motile.quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ^; The real germ is quot;motile.quot;

quot;Growth on potatoes fails.quot; The real one grows pretty

quot; Mice and rabbits destroy-

well.

Same of the real one. The real one has no such

wonderful powers.

ed.quot; quot; Large does cause acute sclerosis of the liver. Bacteria absent.quot; p. 675.

The next question is,

* *

IS THE ABOVE THE GERM OF PNEUMONIA OR SWINE-PLAGUE?

Most emphaticallyNo!

Upon some essential points all patho-bacteriologists agree as to what must be the conditions of exact proof:

1st. A given germ must bo always present in animals having a given infectious or contagious disease.

2d. It must be constantly found in the tissues of such animals when diseased.

3d. It must be derived in pure cultures from these tissues.

4th. The same disease, with constantly characteristic lesions as found in natural infection, must be produced in

I inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;CRITICALLY CONSIDERED. quot;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;57

healthy animals of the same species by means of artificial infection with such pure cultures.

5th. The same germ must again be found in the tissues #9632;of such infected animals, and obtained in pure cultures

nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;*nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; from them.

Such are the conditions, though they cannot always be fulfilled with regard to human diseases, for obvious reasons.

Let us see if Mr. Salmon has fulfilled one single one of them.

The careful reader of the notes of his swine-plague experiments in 1887 will see at once that he has not. Mr. Salmon has printed assertions, but not given a particle of scientific evidence which can be accepted. Inbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;1st. The germ was seldom found in the tissues.

J *

2d. quot; Infectious pneumonia, swine-plague,quot; seldom, if

ever, resulted without intestinal complication. (As Mr. S. now claims both of his diseases to be specific, organic, and

nbsp; nbsp; *nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; contagious, and that this is a specific complication of the

lungs, and as his rabbits fail in accommodating in that direction, and also contradict the results in the hog, by having the germs in liver and spleenwhat condition has this investigator fulfilled?)

3d. The same species of animals were not again experimented with.

4th. quot;Liver cirrhosed, contracted, pale,quot; occurred in

No. 392. Said to have died of swine-plague. quot; Begin-

^JLnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; ning sclerosis of the liver,quot;hog-choleraNo. 372. quot; In-

terlobular tissue increased in quantity,quot;hog-cholera

No. 406. quot;In liver connective tissue increased in quan-

% j,fnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; tity/'hog-cholera swine-plagueNo. 397.

To the above it may be objected that the experiments of 1887 were not made by inoculation, and hence, in order to

SWINK-I'LAGUE AND HOG-CHOI.ERA

see the results following inoculation we must turn to the report where this organism first appears upon the bureaucratic arena1886, pp. 6(58-9where we may read:

quot;This microbe, from Geneseo, 111., also found associated with completely hepatized lungs, was without doubt the same as the one just described, when wc take into consideration microscopical characters and those brought out by culture and inoculation.quot;

SALMON'S KXI'KKIMKNT.-U, DISPROOF OF HIS OWN ASSEBTIONS.

quot;October 30, two pigs were inoculated with the microbe from Geneseo, and an equal number with that from Sodo-rus, 111. The pigs received subcutaneously each 5^CC of a beef-infusion peptone culture. Of the four only two died. One of these had been inoculated with the microbe from Sodorus. On the third day both eyes were discharging, the animal looking unthrifthy and becoming weak and thin. It died on tiie eighth day. In brief the lesions were as follows: Fat and connective tissue in general yellowish. Both ventricles of heart filled with large washed clots and semi-coagulated blood. Liver very firm, of (( dirty red-lead color. On cutting into it a gritty sensation in transmitted to tiie hand. Venous stasis of the abdominal vessels. Other organs and intestinal tract normal. Cultures failed to detect the microbe in the spleen, lirer, and lilood.

quot;No. 363, inoculated with 5deg;deg; from a culture of the microbe obtained from Geneseo, 111., showed inflammation of the eyes a few days after, which disappeared in a week. At the same time the animal looked unthrifty. It had apparently recovered two weeks after inoculation, when it again became unthrifty and weak. The abdomen became enlarged, and it \^as unable to rise. Found dead December 27, nearly two months after inoculation. At each point of inoculation on the thigh an encysted mass was found in the subcutaneous tissue as large as a marble. The contents were softening and inclosed by a fibrous

il-

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;59

wall. Lungs hypostatic. Pulmonary vessels and right heart filled with a firm clot. Liver very much eontraded, especially the lobes on the right, and streaked with depressed lines and. furrows. The peritoneal covering on the cephalic aspect was very much thickened, in some places uniformly, in others in a mesh-work corresponding to the interlobular tissue. The acini ofquot; this side were very small. On the caudal aspect they were in some places very large and bulging. On section this transition from large below to small above could be easily traced. Gall _xnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;bladder filled with a thick prune-juice-colored bile. In-

flammatory adhesion between rectum and csecum. The mucous membrane of the large intestine of a dull red color, probably due to a passive congestion. No ulcera-tion anywhere to be seen. The intestine was very much distended with dry, half-digested feces of a yellowish hue. Four liquid cultures made from blood of heart remained dear.

quot;This case is interesting in that the inoculation caused a cirrhosis of the liver, which became indirectly fatal, by destroying in great part the normal functions of this organ.

quot;November 18, two pigs (Nos. 374 and 375) received hypodermically 5^CC (one-half into each thigh) of a beef-infusion peptone culture two days old, derived from a gelatine culture (rabbit) about one month old. Three pigs were placed with these to determine whether the disease was infectious. In both animals two days after inoculation the sclerotic became deeply reddened. This congestion was followed by discharge, which gummed the lids together for a part of the time. In about a week these symptoms gave way, and the eyes become jaundiced. The eyes of the three check pigs were not affected. No. 375 died November 25, one week after inoculation. The

, f^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;subcutaneous connective tissue of a deep yellow color.

The points of inoculation occupied by cysts filled with a blood-stained serum. Blood black, partially coagulated. Hypostatic conjesfion of lungs. Purplish spots beneath

\ ''igt;nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;pleura and in parenchyma; some lung worms present.

Liver very pale, bloodless, very iow/lu The sclerosis general,. and the contraction of the connective tissue has made the

60nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

caudal aspect very concave. Removed from the body it resembles india-rubber, as it retains the same form in whatever position if is laid. Gritty sensation ivhen cut. The gall bladder filled with semi-liquid, dark brown bile, resembling plum juice, surrounding a mass of putty-like consistency of the same color. The papillar opening ofnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;W

the common duct into the duodenum contained a plug of gelatinous mucus, and when the duct was slit open it contained mucus only. The walls were not even bile-stained; the secretion of bile had ceased some time past. When the liver was cut the section was of a dirty reddish-yellow color throughout; no blood flowed from the vessels; when scraped the cellular elements of the acini came away readily, leaving the tough interlobular tissue m laquo;7laquo; as a honeycombed mass.

quot; Sections hardened in alcohol and stained in alum-carmine showed a laro;e amount of connective tissue as com-pared with the normal liver. This increase was general. In the parenchyma of the lobules there were circumscribed areas in which the protoplasm of the cells stained very feebly, while the nuclei were either shriveled or else replaced by a group of granules. The characteristic trabec-ular structure in these areas was more or less destroyed.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;

Almost every lobule examined contained these altered regions, which were situated as a rule near the periphery.

quot; There was a very marked venous stasis of the portal circulation, characterized by an over-distension of the vessels, bringing even the smallest into view. The vasa recta of kidneys very prominent, giving the pyramids a bright red appearance. Serum in the abdominal cavity of a deep yellow. This yellow tinge is present in the fat around the base of the heart. The urine deep yellow, the mu-cosa of bladder stained with the same color. The urine readily gives, with Gmelin's test, the colors characteristicnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; laquo;

of the bile pigments. The intestinal tract normal throughout, save what changes arose from the general stasis of the portal circnlation. The stomach empty and coatednbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;^

with a viscid mucus.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;*

quot;The injected microbe which without doubt caused these lesions could not be found. These tubes of culture

(i )

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; 4)1

liquid, inoculated each with 3 or 4- drops of blood from the heart. They remained sterile. Bits -of spleen and. liver dropped into tubes also remained sterile.quot;

quot;No. 374 lived longer. Eleven days after inoculation it died. Lesions similar to those just given but less pronounced.quot;

quot;There -was slight icterus of the connective tissue.quot;

What's that?

quot; Lungs hypostatic.quot; That's all!

quot; Intestinal tract normalquot; !

quot; Four liquid cultures from heart's blood sterile.quot; quot;Pieces of liver fail to induce any bacterial growth.quot; quot;Check animals remained well for a month after.quot; p. 670.

There is the evidence! Are the conditions fulfilled? Has Mr. Salmon contributed anything but confusion to the questions of interest to our hog-raisers ?

Summed up we have his experimental proof as follows :

1st. No pneumonia, no bowel lesions, hence no bacte-

rium of either hog-cholera or swine-plague could have ^unbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; been used. Notice! ^Vb examination of lung tissue re-

ported I

2d. While quot;large doses cause acute sclerosis of the liver, with icterus,quot; still there is no proof that they did, because they were not again found in the tissues, or in cultures from the same, of the experimental animals.

4th. Because Mr. Salmon admits .everything when he

says : quot; In the preceding report a number of cases are

cited in which subcutaneous injections of cultures produced

knbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;in pigs a very marhed sclerosis of the liver.quot;

nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Mark ! quot; Neither the organisms injected or any other

were found in the organs after death.quot; 1887p. 509. Jnbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; See further quot;Attempts to produce Smne-Plague,quot; 1887

p. 507. These quot; attempts quot; prove nothing.

oth. Because in 1887, an quot;Further investigations on the

SWINE-PLAGTJE AND HOG-CHOLBBA

nature and prevention of hog-cholera,quot; Mr. Salmon entirely upsets all his assertions of ISS6, when he claims eirrhos'is-sclerosis of the liver to be a specific lesion of swine-plague. Here he says:

quot;The bacteriological examination re-affirmed the constant presence of the bacterium described three years ago in genuine hog-cholora.quot; p. 481.

quot;The animals were kept in pens on the top of a low hillock.quot;

quot;They were swill-fed.quot;

quot; In most of them the feeding induced a cirrhosis of the liver.quot; 482.

quot;The swill-feeding has already been mentioned as a probable cause of the cirrhosis of the liver in so many of the animals. This organ was tough and imparted a gritty sensation to the hand when cut. It seems reasonable to suppose that this chronic malady has made the herd more susceptible to the disease (hog-cholera.B.), and more especially to the acute hemorrhagic type.quot;

quot;This chronic malady quot; ! 1887, p. 483.

quot; Microbe of pneumonia.quot; 1886.

quot; Large doses cause acute sclerosis of the liver, p. 675.

quot;Chronicquot;! ----------. quot;Acutequot;! ----------. What?

quot;HOW CAN HOG CHOLERA BE PREVENTED?

quot; The measures which must be adopted to prevent the introduction and spread of hog-cholora depend upon our knowledge of the disease as it appears in herds, and more especially upon a study of the cause.quot; (!!!?) Of this disease the only reliable diagnostic lesion is ulceration of the large intestine, or the presence of bacterium in the body of the affected animal, and whatever follows can only apply to the disease produced by this specific organism or bacterium.quot; 1886, p. 654.

CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;63

quot;SUGGESTIONS AS TO TUE MEANS OP PREVENTINQ THK SPREAD OF SWINE-PLAGUE.quot; 1887.

quot; Tliere may be some difficulty in determining which disease has attacked a given herd, or whether both are not actually present. Aery severe lung disease is now the only sign that is of any positive value in the detection of swine-plague, unless it be bacteriological testimony.quot;

quot;Where any doubt exists the disease should be treated as hog-cholera.quot; p. 520.

quot; The pathological process in the large intestine is dis-tinctlv exudative, diphtheritic in swine-plague.quot; 1. c, p. 518. ' (quot; No. 407, S. P.quot; The mucosa of the large intestine is sprinkled with isolated or confluent masses |- to J of an inch in diameter, of a dirty grayish-white color; there are several ulcers in the cmcum; the patch of mucous glands at the base of the valve converted into an ulcerated mass.quot; p. 495.) In hog-cholera it is essentially necrotic or ulcerative.quot; p. 518.

quot;The lesions of the intestinal tract (in S. P.) are always co-existent with the specific broncho-pneumonia and without doubt .secondary to it, because we have frequently encountered lung disease without intestinal disease.quot; 1. c. 518.nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;*

Conundrum.! How can a given thing be quot;always coexistentquot; with another given condition and at the same time quot;secondary quot; to it, or even fail altogether?

quot; These lesions (of the lungs) indicated a severe form of swine-plaguequot; !

quot;The intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera also.quot; 1. c, p. 504. quot;In the remaining cases, the characteristic swine-plague lesions disappear from the intestines, and the lungs show a more advanced state of cheesy degeneration.quot; 1. c, p. 50C.

How about the quot; idea among some investigators that the lung lesions of infectious pneumonia or swine-plague and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera are due to the same sjerm quot; ?

SWXNE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA.

quot; In these latter cases hog-cholera bacteria are found m the spleen, and more rarely in the thoracic organs.quot; p. 506..

quot; These results show the specific microbe (of swine-plague) is not present in the internal organs(cover-glass preparation from spleen and liver negative)and can only be obtained from the diseased lungs and pleura.quot; p. 496.

Compare: quot; Hog-cholera bacteria more rarely in the thoracic organs; swine-plague, spleen and liver negative; only from lungs and pleura.quot;

SOME CHAEACTEKISTIC QUOTATIONS.

quot; Our investigations have shown that the plague is a nonrecurrent fever ; they have even proven that these germs may be made to lose their virulent activities and produce a mild effect. Surely, ice have here sufficient evidence to show that a reliable vaccine might easily be prepared if we carried our investigations a little icay further.quot; 1883, p. 57.

quot;At the end of the year only about a dozen were alive out of the entire herd.quot;

quot; These may have acquired an immunity.quot; I!! p. 482_r1887.

quot; It was found that in a majority of cases, when bit* of lung tisue were iilaced bmeath the shin of rabbits or mice, a septicmnia! ! ! appeared.quot; 1. c, p. 510.

quot; The writer has frequently alluded, to it as laquo; contagiouraquo; fever.quot; Journal Comp. Med.', Vol IX., 1888, p. 145.

quot; Considering all these facts, there can be no doubt that these animals all died of a general diseasee, a disease not caused by any changes in any single organ, but on the con-trary a disease which causes the various organic changes observed.quot; 1878, p. 436.

quot;There is an idea among some investigators that the lung lesions of infectious pne in aoniu, or swine-plague, and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera are produced by the same bacteria.quot; Journ. Comp. Med., 1. c.

,7 r-(?/z



	d. e. salmon. Swine-Plague, Hog-Cholera.

	1887.

	E-ETTIE-WSaD b-jt

	FRANK S. BILLINGS.


	m	*'Ö!-.*

	quot;DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;

	quot;REPORT OF 1887.quot;

	-

	Swi n e-Plagu e / Hog-Cholek A

	CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.

	FRANK S. BILLINGS, Director of the Patho-Biological Laboratoky of the State University of Nkbraska.

	^^xäsaär^^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;LINCOLN, KKB.: *gt;#9632;#9632; #9632;~~gt;~~raquo;- ^nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; nbsp;* State Journal Company Printhks. 1S89.**	IS



	To the Members of the quot; Board of Inquiry for the Study of Swine Diseases quot; in the United States, this brochure is respectfully dedicated. THE AUTHOR.

	r k



	14 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA quot; Unfortunately the animal was placed in a pen which had been long infested with hog-cholera, but in which the animals iiad lately failed to take the disease.quot; (It will be shown by circumstantial evidence that this pig was, in all probability, put in the same pen in which No. 4Ü6 had just died.) Autopsy note: quot;Eight lung hypostatic,quot; quot; two old healing ulcers in caecum.quot; quot; Spleen cultures sterile.quot; quot; In the same pen where No. 406 died of hog-cholera were Nos. 403, 404, 405.quot; 3.Pig 403. quot;Died Feb. 16th. Hepatization in lungs. Mucosa deeply inflamed from caecum to anus; in colon and rectum covered with a continuous layer of exudate of a dirty yellow and probably diphtheritic. Slight superficial necrosis of the membrane.quot; If any one will read the whole of the original he will see that the language used in regard to the intestinal lesions is much more strong: than mrards those of the lungs. This then was a case demanding especial quot; bacteriological investigation,quot; butquot; unfortunately no bacteriological examination was made,quot; still Mr. Salmon has no hesitancy in saying that quot; this was without doubt a case of genuine swine-plague,quot; though penned with No. 406 which quot; was without a doubt a case of ocn-nine hog-cholera.quot; Of No. 404 I find no record, it .-was probably too much, but we shall see that No. 405 died of swine-plague, though put in the same pen with 406, and that the quot; severest lesions were confined to the lungs and large irvtestinesquot; Respectfully referred to the quot; Board of Inquiryquot; !



	18 SWINE-PLAGUE AXD HOG-CHOLERA lung-.quot; The interesting query comes, why was not quot;a bitquot; of intestine or of the spleen also experimented with in order to show the quot;hog cholera microbequot;? 7.Pig 407. It will be remembered tiiat JCo. 405 died of swine-plague. Of 407 the author says, quot;one of the most pro-nuuuced cases of tiiis disease died February 21 and was examined on the following day.quot; Will tiie reader have the kindness to turn to page 50(5 of this same report, for a moment, where he may read: quot;Nos. 40quot;) and 407 were perhaps the most typical of the acute, uncomplicated form of this diseasequot;swine-plague. Remember, quot;ifiost typical of the acute, uncomplicated form!quot; Now what is that quot;formquot;? Mr. Salmon has told us as late as March, 1888, that quot; there is an idea among some investigators that the lung .lamp;dons of infectious pneumonia, or swinc-playue, and the bowel lesions of hog-cholera, are produced by the same bacteria.quot; 1. c. lie has told us in this very report quot;that the intestinal ulcers pointed to the existence of hog-cholera only.quot; 1, c. Hence, quot;the typical and uncomplicated form of this diseasequot; presented by Pigs 40ö and 407 should be quot;lung lesions.quot; Were they? Of 40;') Mr. Salmon has said: quot;The severest lesions were confined to the lunffs and large intestines.quot; Of 407 he writes: quot;Mucosa of ctDcum and upper colon of a dirty blackish color. Besides the diffuse pigmentation the mucosa is



	28 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA isolated, that they both are specific and each causes a distinct disease, adniitting further his claim that botii of these diseases are contagious, then I appeal to all my confreres in tiie world, what kind of experimentation is that which Mr. Salmon has here detailed and which I have here noted in the most exact manner? Under such circumstances should not any investigator be able to keep two such distinct quot; contagious quot; diseases apart, when one has pure cultures of their germs and claims to be able to produce them at will? How well founded that claim is has been shown and will be still better demonstrated. The idea of quot; in order to test the communicable character of the lung disease,quot; or swiue-plague, putting healthy pigs into a pen infested with, and among hogs diseased with, another quot; contagious disease, hog-cholera.quot; The idea is too absurd for words ! It would be as sensible quot; in order to test the communicable characterquot; of the measles to put healthy children in bod with others diseased with small-pox. To the members of the quot; Board of Inquiry,quot; to the pathological investigators of the world, I say, I am willing to let the test of competency, of trustworthiness, of scientific ability, aye, of sanity, rest upon this point alone. Shame on the country, shame on the government, aye, total abnegation to Republicanism, if such must be the work issued from the one Public Laboratory of our country ; if such must be the character of the work by which original research in this country is to he judged. No monarchy on earth has ever heen so disgraced. quot;Crank quot; I may bo, but, by the Eternal, I am no such idiot as that. But patience ! Let us go on! The results of this never-to-be-forgotten experiment are as wonderful as the method absurd.

	* m



	32	SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA

	15.Pig 397. This is a wonderful case, also. quot; Pig Ko. 397 illustrates well the existence of two diseases in tlie same animal, the hog-cholera bacteria being obtained from the spleen, the swine-plague germs from the lungs.quot; quot; This animal was fed with the hepatized lung of pig No. 378 on March 28th, and three days later with lung tissue from pig No. 359.quot; Here is a pretty mess ! By referring to the notes of Pig 378, it will be seen that while it is said to have died, it did not die of anything, so far as specific disease is reported, while No. 359 is said to have died of swine-plague, though the quot; four or five large ulcers in the intestines quot; do not seem to have been accounted for. Must we then assume that 397 had also been placed in that wonderful pen? However, April 13th it died with quot;extensive disease of the lungs and large intestine.quot; quot; In liver the-connective tissue increased in quantity.quot; Unfortunately we cannot now tell which bacterium produced that, for, as said, in ]88() it was considered specifically due to the swme-plague organism, while in 1887 the quot;swill-feedingquot; quot;had induced a cirrhosis of the liver in most of them,quot; and,, according to the text, this lot of hogs had hog-cholera. The reader should compare the report of tiiis pig with No. 359, in which the intestinal lesions are almost identical, and yet that was swine-plague, lleally, things are-getting dreadfully mixed. No examination of the tissues of the hog for germs is reported, but quot; rabbits inoculated with bits of lung tissue were found dead within forty hours ; the bacteria of swine-plague present in spleen and liver in large numbers,quot; (why not in the lungsV), while quot;two mice inoculated from.



	34 SWINE-PLAGUE AND HOG-CHOLERA be obtained from the diseased lungs and pleura,quot; though in the rabbit quot; inoculated in the ear with a bit of lung, immense numbers of swine-plague bacteria (wereB.) in the blood, spleen, and liver.quot; Now let us turn over to page 502 and pig No. 39G once more, which was quot;/laquo;Z with 'portions of the spleen and intestines of 407.quot; . The question arises, quot; What for?quot; when it has been distinctly asserted that quot;No. 407quot; died of quot;swine-plague,quot; and quot;cover-glass preparations of the spleen,quot; as well as cultures and animal experimental tests, were quot;negativequot; as regards hog-cholera? Where, then, could the hog-cholera have come from? Not from the spleen and intestines of 407, certain!v ! Nothing is positively said of the pen where No. 396 was confined, but we might as well fix this pen business up once for all, for we can find evidence which shows that all 'these pigs were confined in that same accommodatingly infested pen. Pig 396 quot;died April 18.quot; In a foot-note at the bottom of the page is the following : quot; The next case of swine-plague in this pen died June 29th, over two months after the death of 392,quot; the next one we have to consider. At the bottom of page 506 may be read, quot; The introduction of hog-cholera after the appearance of swine-plague was most likely due to the case first reported in these pages, No. 406,quot; which died of hog-cholera. How this quot;first casequot; can be made to answer for quot;the introduction of hog-cholera aftev the appearance of swine-plague,quot; I must leave to others to explain. As Mr. Salmon's testimony must be taken as positively excluding the possibility of even quot;the spleen and intestines of 407quot; having caused the infection of 396 with hog-cholera, we must place that coincidence to the quot; pen,quot;



62	SWINE-PLAGTJE AND HOG-CHOLBBA

nature and prevention of hog-cholera,quot; Mr. Salmon entirely upsets all his assertions of ISS6, when he claims eirrhos'is-sclerosis of the liver to be a specific lesion of swine-plague. Here he says: quot;The bacteriological examination re-affirmed the constant presence of the bacterium described three years ago in genuine hog-cholora.quot; p. 481. quot;The animals were kept in pens on the top of a low hillock.quot; quot;They were swill-fed.quot; quot; In most of them the feeding induced a cirrhosis of the liver.quot; 482. quot;The swill-feeding has already been mentioned as a probable cause of the cirrhosis of the liver in so many of the animals. This organ was tough and imparted a gritty sensation to the hand when cut. It seems reasonable to suppose that this chronic malady has made the herd more susceptible to the disease (hog-cholera.B.), and more especially to the acute hemorrhagic type.quot; quot;This chronic malady quot; ! 1887, p. 483. quot; Microbe of pneumonia.quot; 1886. quot; Large doses cause acute sclerosis of the liver, p. 675. quot;Chronicquot;! ----------. quot;Acutequot;! ----------. What?		i

quot;HOW CAN HOG CHOLERA BE PREVENTED? quot; The measures which must be adopted to prevent the introduction and spread of hog-cholora depend upon our knowledge of the disease as it appears in herds, and more especially upon a study of the cause.quot; (!!!?) Of this disease the only reliable diagnostic lesion is ulceration of the large intestine, or the presence of bacterium in the body of the affected animal, and whatever follows can only apply to the disease produced by this specific organism or bacterium.quot; 1886, p. 654.		i 1



	BIBLIOTHEEK UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT

	2911 081 8