Presented to the

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

by the

ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE
LIBRARY

1980

Penna.,

Harrisburg,

2

S

5)

~

o

——

=

=|

=

2

'@)

<3)

nN

ns

oa

2) =
on)
ri

Ms

a

aA

me NN
1

EON

=

St ty

23

os}

aS

—_—-_—

T)

beste =
5)
ie
_

of delegates and guests at the

Group

tu
* a "6

>\\ SF pete
3? eRe:

= O12 ‘Ss

THE CONFERENCE.”

Called by the Governor of Pennsylvania to ease ssc

Ways and Means for Preventing the Spread c
of the Chestnut Tree Bark Disease (t heg Frac

SHE, CAPITOL
Chamber of the House of Representatives
HARRISBURG - PENNSYLVANIA
FEBRUARY 20 and 21, 1912

Stenographic Report of Proceedings
of the Conference

Reported by GUILBERT & LEWIS
519 Land Title Building
Philadelphia, Pa.

; HARRISBURG:
0. E. AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE UF PENNSYLVANIA
1912.

7
!

Bow ft
Pi th
ERR URSA

MICROFILMED BY
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
MASTER NEGATIVE NO.:
e.. 13aiag Sees

FOREWORD.

The following report of the proceedings of the Harrisburg
Chestnut Blight Conference is distributed with the compliments
and best wishes of the State of Pennsylvania. The numerous
papers and the discussions thereon contain many new and
valuable ideas. It is believed that the ultimate worth of the
Conference will lie in the fact that it brought home to the east-
ern United States the truth concerning a most serious tree dis-
ease, and started discussions and a new trend of thought which
must evolve real benefit for the whole people. If the Conference
can produce a better understanding and higher appreciation
respecting the value of trees, and of one tree in particular, its
calling will have been of great public benefit.

The officers chosen by the meeting take this last opportunity
of expressing to the Governor, the Chestnut Tree Blight Com-
mission and the Delegates from the States, their sense of high
appreciation for the honor conferred upon them in being invited
to preside over the deliberations of the Conference. They also
have hopes that information may be found in the following pages
which will incite greater interest in the earnest work now being
undertaken in Pennsylvania and other States to prevent the fur-
ther spread of this serious and destructive Chestnut Bark Dis-
ease.

LCL ¢

New York, Chairman,

Pennsylvania,

t Secretaries.

Maryland,

(3)

¢
G

OFFICIAL CALL FOR CONFERENCE.

The Official Invitation for the Chestnut Tree Bark
Disease Conference, issued by the Governor
of Pennsylvania.

Se Cae of linnsyloanta COW “lly wn hes YO
Me he furcsent a he bapitol Zp Harvitoy on Mhe Land
YS Wf) flay. D IU2 Me, furtr Vide W0 q Convento
walled, YZ, he purifies of ONMM IY lhe dango probed ty
Mw prwatine and ircadr if a pongo décae f thowwld
Ctl: free hncunw Eos Chest Lark Disease and the
anithods l he pursed Za arm fpliting ti fe allecontiol
‘

) . >: = 2 ? A
CvccuttiieD ofp arbvnent, e Vasrve iharg,

GF on dh
SMMNUWOY LIA?

Mir carly aid yf potitle AL “i
walle vofilyy tothe Levlay of Vhe’
Denndyloania then Pree hight
GomainissionDr Harold feirce.xoom

W/2 Boogvis Buildin GY. Vlad pha,
wld le i pectaled

aa

a

‘

=

.

:

4-2 ae es Oe ee ee a Seg,
| i re A ir

Py ee ey ee

,

7
a

ma

| sla
ae

hy

ia ee

7 "i

ca

7
<
re

ee

POTTER TIOGA
CEN-TEFR

=a

¢

Ri 2

L
Cc AWrTORE

Map of Pennsylvania Showing Infected Zones and Percentage.

1. Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware and Philadelphia counties, SO per
cent. 2. Pike, Monroe, Carbon, Northampton, Lehigh, Berks, Lancaster and
York counties, 50 per cent. 8. Wayne, Lackawanna, Wyoming, Luzerne, Co-
lumbia, Montour, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Juniata, Perry, Dauphin,
Schuylkill, Lebanon, Cumberland, Franklin and Adams counties, 15 per cent.
4. From the western boundary of these counties to the quarantine line indicated on
the map, the infected trees are estimated at 1 to 5 per cent.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE PENNSYLVANIA
CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION.

The call issued by the Governor, in which he urged the im-
portance and necessity for prompt and concerted action in com-
bating the Chestnut Bark Disease, included the following
statement:

“In 1911, the Pennsylvania State Legislature passed a bill au-
thorizing the Governor to appoint a Commission of five citizens
for the purpose of thoroughly investigating the Chestnut Tree
Bark Disease which is rapidly destroying the chestnut trees of
the Commonwealth. The Act placed an appropriation of $275,-
000 at the disposal of the Commission for the investigation and
scientific study of the problem, and more specifically to ascer-
tain the exact extent of the blight, and to devise ways and meaus
through which it might, if possible, be stamped out,

The Commission was appointed in June, 1911, and, after or-
ganization, began its work immediately by sending a large force
of experts into the field. The reports of these experts together
with the results of the work of the pathological staff, will, among
other matters, be presented for discussion to a Convention called
by the Governor to assemble at Harrisburg, February 20th,
1912.

In order that the other States not yet touched by the blight,
but certainly in its line of advance, may realize the seriousness
of the situation, the Governor, who is much interested, has called
this Convention for a consideration of ways and means, in the
hope that the States may be aroused to action and be ready to
meet the invasion at their borders. Pennsylvania’s problem is
now or soon will become the problem of Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Caro-
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. Active
co-operation of the States is essential. The attendance of a
large number of Delegates is respectfully urged.”

(7)

/)
WW)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

PROGRAMME

of

THESGONFERENCE

Called by the Governor of Pennsylvania
to Consider Ways and Means

for

PREVENTING THE SPREAD

of the

CHESTNUT TREE BARK DISEASE

February 20 and 21, 1912

THE CAPITOL

Chamber of the House of Representatives

HARRISBURG - PENNSYLVANIA

An office for registration and information will be opened in one of the
ante-rooms of the House of Representatives, and it is earnestly
requested that all delegates and guests will
promptly register.

(9)

(10)

PROGRAMME

OPENING SESSION
Tuesday, February 20, 2 o’clock P. M.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

1. Call to Order and Address of Welcome to Delegates and Visit-
ing Friends, by the Honorable John Kk. Tener, Governor of
Pennsylvania.

Election of Permanent Chairman for the Conference.
Hlection of Two Secretaries.

Designation of Official Reporters.

Appointment of a Committee on Resolutions.

2. Responses to the Governor’s Address by Delegates on Behalf
of the States Represented.

3. “Historical Review and the Pathological Aspects of the Chest-
nut Bark Disease.”
A discourse and illustrated lecture by Dr. Haven Metcalf,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (Dr.
Metealf’s paper will summarize the record of work to date,
and present the leading pathological features of this tree
disease. )

Many of the lantern views will be shown for the first time,

having been especially made for this occasion.

4. “Can the Chestnut Bark Disease be Controlled?”
By Prof. F. C. Stewart, N. Y. Agricultural Experiment
Station, Geneva, N. Y. |

(ual)

12
5. “How Further Research May Increase the Efficiency of the
Control of the Chestnut Bark Disease.”
By Prof. W. Howard Rankin, Cornell University, Ithaca,
Neve
6. “Recent Notes on the Chestnut Bark Disease.”

By Prof. H. R. Fulton, Division of Pathology, Pennsylva-
nia State College.

=~

. “The Possibility of a Medicinal Remedy for Chestnut Blight.”
sy Dr. Caroline Rumbold, in charge of the Pennsylvania
Chestnut Tree Blight Commission’s Laboratory.

8. “Treatment of Individual Trees,”
By Prof. J. Franklin Collins, U. S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D. C.

9. General Discussion.

EVENING SESSION
Tuesday, February 20, 8 o’clock, P. M.

1. “Chestnut Culture.”

An illustrated lecture by Prof. Nelson I’. Davis, of Buck-
nell University, Lewisburg, Penna. In this lecture Prof.
Davis will exhibit the value of the chestnut trees as a source
of food (nuts), and outline the progress made in the new
American industry, chestnut cultivation.

The insect enemies of the chestnut, and the methods of con-
trolling them will be shown.

Many of the views have been especially prepared for the
oceasion, and will be shown for the first time.

2. General Discussion.

MORNING SESSION
Wednesday, February 2l, 9 o’clock, A. M.

HKADICATION AND CONTROL OF THE CHESTNUT
BARK DISEASE.

1. “The Pennsylvania Programme.”
By Samuel bB. Detwiler, Executive Officer of the Pennsyl-
vania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

to

. Reports by State Foresters, or other officials of States repre-
sented, on the present extent of the bark disease and esti-

mate of the present and possible future loss.

3. “Chestnut Blight and the Future of our Forests.”
By Dr. H. P. Baker, Department of Forestry, State College,
Penna.

4. “Chestnut Blight and Constructive Conservation.”
By Dr. J. Russell Smith, Professor of Industry, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

5. Open Discussion of the Problems Presented.

AFTERNOON SESSION
Wednesday, February 21, 2 o’clock, P. M.

1. Presentation of the Report of the Committee on Resolutions,
2. General Discussion,
Adjournment.

(13)

14

In addition to the above stated papers on the advance pro-

vranune, others were read or formally presented as follows:

1. A paper on the “Botanical History of Diaporthe parasitica
and Allied or Identical Fungi,’ by Prof. W. G. Farlow,
of Harvard University ; read by Prof. G. P. Clinton.

2. A paper on the “Relation of Insects to the Chestnut Bark
Disease,” by Dr. A. D. Hopkins, of the Bureau of En-
tomology, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, and
read by him.

3. A paper entitled “Chestnut Blight and its Possible
Remedy,” by Mr. W. M. Benson, of the Oak Extract
Company, Newport, Perry Co., Pa.

~

4. A paper entitled “The Field Work of the Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission,” by Thomas KE. Francis, Field Su-
pervisor of the Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Com-
mission,

5. A paper entitled “A Report on Scout Work on the North
Branch of Bald Eagle Mountain, between Sylvan Dell
and Williamsport, Lycoming county, Pa.,’ by Hugh E.
Wells, Field Supervisor of the Penna. Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission.

Conference for Preventing the Spread of the
Chestnut Tree Bark Disease.

OPENING SESSION
Tuesday, February 20, 1912, 2 o’clock, P. M.

CALL TO ORDER AND ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO DEL-
EGATES AND VISITING FRIENDS, BY THE HON.
JOHN K. TENER, GOVERNOR OF
PENNSYLVANIA.

GOVERNOR TENER: Gentlemen, the meeting will please
be in order.

Let me say at the outset, speaking for this Commonwealth and
less for myself personally, that we are gratified indeed at the
splendid representation here to-day, bearing testimony to the
ereat interest manifested in the work at hand.

I know that many of you have come from afar, many of you at
great inconvenience and certainly at expense to yourselves or to
the State or Association that you represent, in order that you
might meet with us here, in the Capital City of Pennsylvania,
to discuss and to consider seriously the objects and the pur-
poses of this meeting. |

It is not my purpose to enter into an extended discourse upon
the subject of the chestnut tree blight or bark disease, but
rather to extend just a word of welcome to you, on behalf of
our Commonwealth and our city, and also to suggest what might
be proper for your consideration at this time; to go over briefly
the extent of this disease in the area it now covers; what it
means to us if it spreads farther, and what it has meant to us;
the value of our chestnut trees, and a suggestion of what I hope

(15)

16

you may be able to arrive at before you leave us.. We know that
in conventions, we cannot exercise any governmental function;
yet we want this to be something more than a “resolve to re-
solve” meeting, and we hope that something really tangible will
result from it. I have noted just a few things which, as I
stated before, I would like to have you consider in your delibera-
tions:

This Conference has been called for the purpose of obtaining
all possible information concerning the best methods of fighting
the destructive fungous disease known as the chestnut tree bark
disease or the chestnut tree blight, which was first detected in
the neighborhood of New York City about eight years ago, and
has since spread to the Northeast as far as EKastern Massachu-
setts, and to the Southwest as far as Central Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Northern Virginia.

This tree disease is virulent in character. To date, no specific
remedy to be applied to individual trees is known.

It seems almost unthinkable that a disease of this character
should have invaded so large an area and that no means of pre-
venting its spread is yet at hand. Unless this disease be stopped
by concerted action among the States, it is certain that within
a few years very few living wild chestnut trees will be found in
America. It is, therefore, entirely in accord with the American
spirit that we make every effort to destroy or check the advance
of this blight.

The value of the standing chestnut stock to-day in America is
enormous. In Pennsylvania alone, the wild chestnut tree is
found native throughout the State, and in its southern counties
is the principal remaining forest tree. The value of this tree in
the State of Virginia is reliably conceded by competent au-
thority to be not less than thirty-five millions of dollars. I be-
lieve that here in Pennsylvania, by a very conservative estimate,
placing a valuation of fifty cents upon each tree in our wood-
lands, which you will admit is a very low estimate, the value of
the wild chestnut trees is at least forty millions of dollars.

The best chestnut in the world is still standing in the moun-
tains of North Carolina, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and
Tennessee. The chestnut stock of the future must necessarily
be drawn from these states. To date, the blight has not reached

17

that region, but is steadily tending in that direction. This tree
is also of great value in Ohio and the remaining Atlantic Sea-
board States, and by reason of the all too prevalent forest de-
struction going on, the tree can ill be spared; much less its value
wasted, as it largely will be, should the remaining chestnut
stock be attacked.

The destruction of the wild chestnut trees in New Jersey, in
Southeastern New York, Western Connecticut and Massachu-
setts and Southeastern Pennsylvania is marked to be complete.

The industries depending upon the wild chestnut tree for
their support are of large proportions and great value. Every
part of the tree is valuable for making tannic acid, used in the
tanning industry. Telegraph and telephone companies depend
mostly upon this tree for their stock of poles. The railroad com-
panies are largely dependent upon it for their best railroad ties.
The nuts are no inconsiderable part of this valuable product.
Many thousands of men are employed in the industries depend-
ing upon the saving of the wild chestnut tree, and many other
thousands of real estate owners will find their land values seri-
ously affected should the tree ultimately be destroyed.

Two great facts to be borne in mind are, first, that the plague
is with us and it must be reckoned ‘with; and second that har-
monious action and complete co-operation among all the inter-
ests involved, as well as the governments of the various states,
can and will be the only means of checking this disease, if it can
be checked. We are not so much concerned with its origin as
we are with its presence and effects. While its botanical his-
tory and pathology are of importance, the real thing is prepared-
ness to repel the invader, using every means known to science and
practical experience.

It is, therefore, to be hoped that this aspect of the problem
will be thoroughly taken hold of and discussed from every point
of view, that concerted action will be immediately inaugurated,
and no effort left unemployed that might produce desirable re-
sults. The time to act is now, and not after the scientific world
has more fully worked out the history and pathology of the dis-
ease. Present day practical measures may well be aided by
scientific inquiry, but the one by no means must wait upon the

9
~_

18

other. It was because of Pennsylvania’s realization of the im-
portance of this work that the Legislature, at its last session
enacted a bill creating a commission and defining the duties of
that commission, as well as appropriated an adequate amount to
carry on the work. Without reviewing that bill in its full text,
it might be said that the proposed Commission was given the
direction to seek out and destroy this disease. As Admiral
Dewey, you remember, at about the outset of our war with Spain
was directed by President McKinley and the Cabinet to seek out
the Spanish fleet and destroy it, so it might be said that the
only direction given this Commission was to find this dread
chestnut bark disease, and destroy it.

That Commission has been organized, and this State is in-
deed fortunate in being able to command the services of such
splendid men, such capable men as Messrs. Sargent, Peirce,
Craig, Bodine and Ely, who have gone about their work with the
determination to do all that is possible to bring about the de-
sired results.

Were the cause of this disease known, and did we know how
to combat it and how to destroy it, a meeting of this kind would
be unnecessary; but we do know something of its ravages, how
it attacks the trees, and now we are here to consider how we
shall blot it out; how we shall arrive at the source of it, if pos-
sible, and then blot out the disease completely.

I am prepared now to consider a motion looking to a proper
organization of this convention for the carrying out of its work,
and for the proper recording of your deliberations to-day.

MR. HAROLD PEIRCE: I would nominate, as permanent
chairman of the Conference, Dr. R. A. Pearson, former Commis-
sioner of Agriculture of the State of New York, and as secretar-
ies, Messrs. F-. W. Besley, of Maryland, and Samvel B. Det-
wiler, of Pennsylvania.

THE GOVERNOR: You have heard the motion. The ques-
tion is upon the election of Mr. R. A. Pearson, former Commis-
sioner of Agriculture of the State of New York, as chairman of
this Conference, and Messrs. IF’. W. Besley, of Maryland and 8. B.
Detwiler, of Pennsylvania, to serve as secretaries of this Con-
ference.

The motion was put and unanimously carried.

19

THE GOVERNOR: Mr. Pearson is unanimously elected
chairman, and Messrs. Besley and Detwiler are unanimously
elected secretaries. I would suggest, gentlemen, for the com-
plete organization for the transaction of your business, that
some one be selected or designated to report the proceedings of
this convention.

MR. I. C. WILLIAMS: I suggest the name of Mr. Victor G.
Marquissee, who is here prepared to report the proceedings of
this convention.

THE GOVERNOR: Without objection, the gentleman named
in the motion will report the proceedings of this Convention.
I now take very great pleasure in presenting to you, and calling
to the Chair, the Chairman whom you have elected, Mr. Pear-
son, of New York. (Applause).

Mr. Pearson took the chair.

THE CHAIRMAN: Governor Tener, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I appreciate that it is a great honor to be asked to preside over
your deliberations. I accept the honor, and thank you for it,
with appreciation also that it carries with it great responsibili-
ties, for this is an important Conference. It is important be-
cause of the great commercial interests involved, and it is also im-
portant because of the intricate scientific questions that are
involved. That its importance is well recognized could not be
better shown than by the fact that the Governor of this great
Commonwealth has called this Conference together, that it
meets in these splendid quarters, and that this State has taken
the lead in providing for practical, efficient work to be done in
checking the ravages of the chestnut blight, through the efforts
of a special Commission, the competency of the members of which
is recognized not only in your State, but in many other States
as well, where the work which they have begun has come to be
known.

Four months ago we held in the Capital city of New York,
a Conference of much smaller proportions than this, but called
together to consider the same questions; and at that time we
were told that it was the purpose of Governor Tener to call this
larger Conference, and we have been looking forward to this time
as an epoch-making event.

20

It has been suggested that we should do nothing to counteract
the ravages of the chestnut tree disease, because we are not fully
informed as to how to proceed. That is un-American. It is not
the spirit of the Keystone State, nor the Empire State, nor the
New England States, nor the many other great States that are
represented here, to sit down and do nothing, when catastrophies
are upon us. It has been suggested that we should wait patiently
until the scientists have succeeded in working out these ques-
tions in all their minutiae; that thus we may be able to accom-
plish our results more quickly. But that is not the way that
ereat questions are solved. If we had waited until the appli-
cation of steam should be thoroughly understood, we would be
still waiting for our great trains and steamboats, which are the
marvel of the age. (Applause).

We know some things about this curse, and we are here to
exchange ideas; to tell, on the one hand, what we have learned
through our scientific studies, and, on the other hand, what we
have learned through our practical work; and thus we believe
that at the close of this Conference, we will all go away from
here, wiser and better prepared to carry forward the great work
in which we are interested.

Now we are here for business. The Governor has given us the
keynote for the meeting. I should not take your time further in
making remarks, but let me say to you that, so far as in me lies,
these meetings will be expedited; they will begin on time; the
programme will go forward without unnecessary delays; and I
only ask that the Chair may have the sympathy and the cordial
co-operation of the many delegates who are attending the meet-
ings, to the end that when we close, we may all feel that it was
well that we came together. Unless other arrangements are
made, the Chair will understand the usual rules of procedure
will govern our deliberations, and he will follow those rules to
the best of his ability, being always willing to be corrected or
to be overruled by those who are participating in the Conference.

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Samuel T. Bodine, of the
Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

MR. BODINE: In order that the deliberations of this Con-

ference may be properly summed up, Mr. Chairman, I move
that a Committee on Resolutions be appointed by the Chairman

21

of this Conference, of which he shall be a member ex-officio, which

Committee shall be representative of the various States inter-

ested in the wild chestnut, and represented at this Conference.
The motion was seconded.

MR. 8S. M. ENTERLINE, of Pottsville, Pa: I would further
add, Mr. Chairman, that these proceedings should be reported
and printed, if that be possible, and forwarded to the delegates,
as far as the supply of reports may reach.

THE CHAIRMAN: That question may come up properly a
little later. The motion now before you is on the appointwent
of a Committee on Resolutions.

The motion was put and unanimously carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will be pleased to receive, if
the opportunity offers, suggestions from members as to their de-
sires in this or any other matter.

The programme now calls for brief responses to the Goyernor’s
address, and it has been suggested that the best manner of pro-
cedure will be to call the roll of States which are represented
here, asking one person from each State to make a response;
and, in order that we may get through the list promptly, unless
directed otherwise, the Chair will have to ask each State to limit
its response to three minutes. It may be that some of the first
names on the list are not prepared to respond at once. In that
case we will pass them over and return to the names a little later.

Alabama. (No response).

Connecticut.

DR. GEORGE P. CLINTON, New Haven, Conn., Expt. Sta-
tion: Mr. Chairman: I hold a commission from the Governor of
Connecticut to represent that State, with two other delegates, at
this Convention. In Connecticut we have studied this disease
somewhat longer than you have here in Pennsylvania, and we
have it in a very serious manner. I am not officially on the pro-
gramme, but I have prepared some of my ideas and views on this
subject which I wish, at the proper time, to present to this Con-
vention. Ihave also a paper by Professor Farlow, from Harvard
University, who has studied the history of this fungus, that I
wish at the proper time to present to the Convention for their

22

consideration. I take it that we want in this Convention, to
know everything that is known concerning the chestnut blight
and from that to deduce our conclusions. In that respect 1 am
prepared to present all that I know and my views on the subject,
in order that the truth, if such is known at present, may come
out.

THE CHAIRMAN: The District of Columbia. This in-
cludes the Federal Department of Agriculture. Is Professor
Collins in the room?

PROFESSOR J. FRANKLIN COLLINS, Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C.: I am not prepared to make
any remarks for the District of Columbia. I come from another
direction. JT have no remarks to make particularly.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will give you an opportunity later,
Professor Collins.

The Dominion of Canada. (No response).

Delaware.

Dr. WESLEY WEBB: Mr. Chairman, Delaware sends a
delegate up here to learn the situation. Delaware itself is pretty
thoroughly infested with this disease. Every chestnut growth
and every forest has diseased trees in it. The only way to destroy
the disease in Delaware, in my opinion, is to destroy every chest-
nut tree and clean it up. I doubt if any measures short of that
would be successful; but still, something may be learned here
that will modify that opinion.

THE CHAIRMAN: Georgia. (No response).
Illinois. (No response).

Indiana. (No response).

Maryland.

MR. J. B.S. NORTON: Mr. Chairman, I had supposed that
Professor Patterson would speak for our State, as he is inter-
ested from the forestry standpoint, and I am interested in the
Jxperiment Station from the nursery standpoint. We will have
a problem to meet in our State in controlling this disease, and
I am sure we are very actively interested in this work, because
we are in the same condition as a few other States. We have a
large part of our area already infested, and a considerable part

23
of it that is free, so it makes it a more active and important ques-
tion to us than to sections where the territory is entirely covered
with the disease.
THE CHAIRMAN: Massachusetts.

PROFESSOR EF. W. RANE, State Forester: Mr. Chairman,
I was sent out here by Governor Foss. I had an opportunity
to have a conference with the Governor shortly before coming.
We had hoped to bring along some of our large timber owners,
but, at the last moment, it was impossible to make arrangements.
The Governor said it would be impossible for him to be here, but
urged me to extend his compliments to you by all means. In
Massachusetts we are just beginning to realize that the chestnut
bark disease is a very serious menace to us. During the past
year we have had a man from the Department of Agriculture
with us for three months, and I have had all my assistants in the
State Forestry Department out in the field hunting it down. We
find that it is scattered pretty much over the State. Our simple
remedies we send out by men that are with us, and we are always
ready to assist anybody in any part of the State with any sug-
gestions possible in regard to it; but I do not care to talk about
that at the present time. Iam here to learn everything possible,
and am glad to be here, I assure you.

THE CHAIRMAN: New Jersey.

DR. MELVILLE T. COOK: Mr. Chairman, in the State of
New Jersey I find, although I have been there but a short time,
that those who have looked into the situation most carefully are
inclined to believe that, so far as the State is concerned, the situ-
ation is practically hopeless. Almost every chestnut growth in
the State is infected at the present time. We expect, of course,
to do some work in combating the chestnut blight, because we
will not give up until the chestnut timber is entirely destroyed.
While the majority of those who have been making a study of the
conditions over the State look upon the situation as hopeless, yet
we can say that there has some good come out of evil, because at
the present time the people are wike-awake to the importance of
the careful study of plant diseases. At the present time there
is no difficulty, whatever, in getting the people to listen to any

24

advice that looks toward the protection of the natural interests
of the State. So the State of New Jersey greets the Convention
here to-day with honest hopes that something may be accom-
plished which will advance the public interest and welfare.

THE CHAIRMAN: New York.

GEORGE G. ATWOOD: Mr. Chairman, the State of New
York appreciated very highly the honor extended by the invita-
tion of the Goyernor to be here to-day, so as many as possible of
the delegation accepted with pleasure. We are here to-day to
learn something in order to perfect a plan that has been brew-
ing in New York State. New York State has a large chestnut
area to save. We have a small section of the State where the
chestnuts are practically gone. Arrangements are being per-
fected for carrying on the work under the advice of the botanists
of our stations, and we hope soon to have a forest plant patholo-
gist, working either with the Department of Agriculture or with
the Conservation Commission. The Governor of the State is very
much interested in this proposition. We are waiting for some
definite plan, which will be taken hold of as quickly as it can
be devised, and as thoroughly as the necessities of the case re;
quire.

THE CHAIRMAN: North Carolina. (No response).

Ohio.

DR. AUGUSTINE D. SELBY: Mr. Chairman, Ohio is very
much interested in this Conference, because Ohio lies in the
western part of the Appalachian chestnut belt, and, as State
Pathologist, the problems of the chestnut bark disease would be-
come our laboratory and field problems. As yet we are not aware
that the disease exists in Ohio, although it may be so; but we are
perfectly aware that our success is indissolubly bound up with
the success of Pennsylvania and the states to the east of it. If
Pennsylvania, either by reason of a natural change in conditions
by which the parasite of this chestnut bark disease becomes less
virulent, or by the trees becoming more resistant, is not able to
save a portion of its chestnut growth, then Ohio will not be. If,
on the other hand, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, as well as
New York, are able to save their trees from the wrecking of this
disease, then Ohio will realize the advantages of such a Confer-

or

av

ence and such work. I assure you that whatever efforts are made
by this Conference, or whatever conclusions are reached by this
Conference and whatever efforts are made by other States, these
will be supplemented with vigor in our own area. Personally, of
course, We are without experience in the disease. For ourselves,
we feel that we have in the chestnut bark disease one of those
occasional and epoch-making parasites which has arisen from the
unknown and wrought incredible damages; that it will continue
its aggressiveness through a long period may or may not prove
to be true. If it prove to be true, then our difficulties are very,
very great. If the conditions prove more favorable, our forests
may be preserved.

THE CHAIRMAN: Rhode Island.

JESSE B. MOWRY, State Forester: Mr. Chairman, in be-
half of the State of Rhode Island and the other delegates repre-
senting that State, I desire to acknowledge the very cordial wel-
come extended to us by the Governor of Pennsylvania. Last sum-
mer a systematic inspection of the State of Rhode Island was
made, under direction of Professor Collins, and this disease was
found to exist in the chestnut-growing portions of the State. We
are very glad to be here, to learn what we can about it, and to
profit by the pioneer work which the State of Pennsylvania is
doing in behalf not only of its own Commonwealth, but in the
interest of all the other States which grow the wild chestnut
tree.

THE CHAIRMAN: Tennessee. (No response).

Vermont. (No response).

Virginia.

MR. GEORGE B. KEEZELL: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of
the General Assembly of Virginia, I desire to return thanks to
the Executive of this great Commonwealth for the invitation to
be present on this occasion, and to take part in these delibera-
tions. So far as Virginia is concerned, we are at this time per-
haps fortunate in the fact that, if we have this dread disease with
us, we have so far had very little complaint of it. We are not here
to give any experience of our own which may be helpful to others,
but to learn from others what may be of benefit to the whole

26

Commonwealth of Virginia. As was suggested by the Governor
in his remarks, a great deal of the wealth of the Commonwealth
of Virginia is in our chestnut timber interests. Within the last
decade her chestnut timber has been the source of a great deal of
income to Virginia, and of a great deal of wealth. Its more re-
cent use, for tannic acid, has brought into great value the waste
places of the State, and timber heretofore regarded as not very
valuable has become one of the most valuable assets of the Com-
monwealth. Naturally, we are very much interested in anything
that goes toward the preservation of this valuable timber, and at
this time we are especially grateful for the invitation to be here,
because our General Assembly is now in session, and bills have
already been introduced looking toward appropriations to com-
bat this disease; and we are particularly anxious to get all the in-
formation we can here, in order that we may go back and give our
legislators the necessary facts. I have no doubt provisions will
be made by the Commonwealth to fight the ravages of this dis-
ease.

THE CHAIRMAN: West Virginia.

DR. N. J. GIDDINGS: Mr. Chairman and Ladies and
Gentlemen: I can assure you that the people who are most in-
terested in West Virginia appreciate the opportunity which this
Commonwealth has offered for meeting here and considering
matters in regard to the chestnut bark disease. The chestnut in
West Virginia is a very important tree. Just recently I learned
of shipments from one station amounting to one hundred and
fifty-five thousand pounds of chestnuts,—the wild nuts,— during
last fall, and there may be other shipments that run as high,
or higher.

The annual cut of chestnut in West Virginia for the last two
years has been about one hundred and eighteen million feet, and
has neither increased or decreased; but the disease is present in
the State. To what extent, we do not know. We are in hopes
to have at least one or two men in the field this spring to learn
more in regard to the conditions in the State, and we hope to be
in a position, after getting the details which we may from this
Conference, to go back and undertake the work in.a much better
manner than we otherwise could.

27

THE CHAIRMAN: For the Dominion of Canada, the Chair
will call on Dr. H. T. Gussow, of Ottawa, the Dominion botanist.

DR. GUSSOW: Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada, I am here to
thank you for your very great courtesy in asking us to partici-
pate in this very important meeting. I may say that, as far as
we are concerned in Canada, we have not this dreaded disease at
the present time, and we have been very anxious to ayoid the im-
portation of it across the border, by passing stringent legislative
measures prohibiting the importation of chestnuts of any kind,
nursery stock or even chestnut wood, or anything else connected
with chestnuts. I find that this will probably be the only means
to restrict the disease to the States in which it is found at the
present moment, and I can only extend to you, neighbors of the
United States, my best wishes to succeed in combating, or at
least, restricting this very serious disease.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there other States represented who
have been passed over? Are there any States we have not heard
from?

MR. J. W. FISHER, of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, we are
very greatly interested in this subject, because we have such a
marvelous growth of chestnut in Tennessee. It is receiving very
considerable attention at the present time from the axemen, for
lumber and tannic acid. It has a vital connection with our water
sources, because it covers the area so completely that if it were
destroyed, it would vitally affect vast water powers and irriga-
tion. We are therefore, extremely interested that you, in your
deliberations, should find some means of checking this disease,
that we may have our forests preserved to us. I shall take a great
deal of pleasure in reporting whatever I can to our Goyernor,
Hon. Benjamin Hooper, whom I have known for years and who
comes from our town, so I think I am in an attitude to bring the
attention of the State to this matter, and I shall be extremely
glad to do so.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there still other States represented,
who have not been heard from? A number of delegates are ex-
pected in later in the day. You will all agree with the Chair:

‘

28

when he suggests that it is very much like having the play of
Hamlet with Hamlet left out, when we fail to hear from the great
State of Pennsylvania; but, as usual, this State asserts her
modesty, and has insisted on being excused for the present. The
Chair will assure you that later we will hear from the State of
Pennsylvania, and from more than one person.

Unless it is otherwise decided by motion and vote, the
Chair will request that all resolutions be handed in at the desk,
without taking the time of the Conference to read them, to be
referred directly to the Committee on Resolutions. This, how-
ever, may be overruled if the delegates desire to take the matter
into their own hands. | |

T am informed that provision has been made for registration
at one of the ante-rooms outside of the entrance to this chamber,
and each one is earnestly requested to register his name, home ad-
dress, official position, and his temporary Harrisburg address.

The program now calls for an address upon the ‘Historical
Review and the Pathological Aspects of the Chestnut Bark Dis-
ease,’ by Dr. Haven Metcalf, of the United States Department
of Agriculture. It is with the greatest regret that we have
learned of the serious illness of Dr. Metcalf, which makes it im-
possible for him to be present at this time. Fortunately, however,
we have with us Professor J. Franklin Collins, the Assistant
Pathologist in the Federal Department of Agriculture, and Pro-
fessor Collins has kindly consented to address us at this time.

ADDRESS OF PROFESSOR J. FRANKLIN COLLINS, OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASH-
INGTON, D. C.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is with very great
regret, for many reasons, as you can imagine, that « have to take
Dr. Metcalf’s place here. I came here rather unprepared to
take his place. The accident to Dr. Metcalf occurred on Satur-
day night, and I had the chance to see him only a little while on

N.

No. 35. Distribution of the chestnut Bark disease. Horizontal lines indicate
approximate distribution of uninfected chestnut; dots indicate isolated infected
spots; the heavier lines in various directions indicate varying degrees of infection
culminating in an area about New York City in which all chestnut trees are dead.

>
“
>
{
*
*
©

7 7

ae
oa) i
i

a

7

No. 1. Branch of a chestnut tree showing a disease lesion on smooth bark.

No. 2. Portion of a branch of chestnut tree, exhibiting a lesion started around
dead stub, the pustules being especially prominent.

No. 4. Surface section of chestnut bark, with pustules in the crevices.
Lower illustration shows pustule greatly enlarged, fiom which three spore
threads have been produced.

29

Sunday. I have come here without many of his ideas. However,
he has some slides which are to be shown, and perhaps I can
tell you something about those, and so add to their interest.

Before the slides are shown, L want, very briefly, to give a short
sketch of the history of this disease. It will be very brief, and
of a general nature only. The history of the disease has already
been published in quite a number of cases, so [ will touch only
upon the main points.

Our attention was first called to this disease, I believe, in the
fall of 1904 by Dr. Merkel, of the Bronx Zoological Park, in New
York city. He noticed that chestnut trees were dying in greater
numbers than seemed to be warranted by any previous knowledge
of the dying of chestnuts. He looked the matter carefully over,
as [ understand it, and decided that there was a definite disease
there, and later turned the material over to Dr. Murrill, of the
New York Botanical Gardens. Dr. Murrill studied this disease
and later published his findings upon it, naming the fungus which
caused the trouble, Diaporthe parasitica, a new species of the
genus. At that time, I believe, Dr. Murrill stated that it was a
very serious disease, and sent out a warning to that effect. If
1 am misquoting him, I hope he will correct me, for he is in this
room to-day. It was not until 1907, three years after the dis-
covery of this disease, that a laboratory was established in Wash-

ington for the study of tree diseases. Since that time—almost
immediately and since then—certain investigations, both in the
laboratory and in the field, have been carried on in Washington,
I do not propose to say anything about these studies at the pres-
ent time. My point here is to give you a general idea of the
disease, what it looks like, how it affects a tree, and things of
a general discussion of the topic. This review will

that sort,
be, will necessarily have to be, primarily an explanation of the
views which will be thrown on the screen. I may elaborate at
points, but, as I say, I am not primed as Dr. Metcalf would have
been had he been able to be here. I think perhaps we may as well
proceed to the views at once.

Slide No. 1. This, to begin with, shows a diseased spot, as
we will find it on the smooth bark of a branch of a chestnut tree,
a branch which is perhaps anywhere from three to six inches
in diameter. The disease is a fungous disease, and starts its

30

growth from a very miscroscopic, one-celled body, which we know
as a spore. By some means the spore reaches a place in the
bark of the chestnut, where conditions are favorable for its
growth. Its growth is not essentially different from that of the
spores of other fungi. It consists mainly, or principally, of a
threadlike growth coming from the spore. This threadlike growth
branches, and finally we have a great mass of threadlike fila-
ments. In the case of the chestnut disease, the spore may gain
entrance at some point, say here, or some little break here, pos-
sibly (indicating on slide), and perhaps occasionally without any
break at all in the bark. The growth in the bark continues to in-
crease in size, that is, the general area of the growth, and sooner
or later, the same as in practically all plants, we have a fruiting
stage of this fungus. This view shows some of these fruiting
stages, as we ordinarily see them on the chestnut. Some of the
stages, which are not quite so common, will be shown a little
later; but I want to call your attention to the fact that, from this
point to the point away over there (indicating) we have an area
of disease. As a rule the bark in the smooth-barked limbs is
somewhat sunken, where the limbs are two or more inches in di-
ameter. Where they are below that diameter, the diseased area
may be an enlargement rather than a depression in the bark.
These little yellowish spots which you see all over here, many of
them, are smaller than the head of a pin. They are of various
colors, but usually some tint of yellowish brown or orange, or
sometimes they weather to a darker color. Those pustules are
what we know as the fruiting pustules of this fungus. These
pustules, during the growing season, in the summer as a rule,
produce a certain type of spore, and later in the season, or at a
later stage in the age of the disease, at least another type of
spore. Tor convenience we will speak of the first type as the
summer spores and those of the later stage as the winter spores.

No. 2. This shows a similar branch with a lesion, which has
started evidently from around this old dead stub, and this has
spread until we get the diseased area from this point, from here
probably, (indicating) up to the top of the picture. Now dur-
ing the summer, or rather after a rainy spell which is followed
by a dry spell, perhaps two days or one day or three days after
the rain has ceased, we shall find that these pustules, or fruiting

31

spots, have pushed out a little mass, a threadlike mass, in much
the same way as you would press out the paste from a collapsible
tube by pinching the tube. As a result we get, perhaps, from
one of these pustules, anywhere from one to fifteen or twenty
structures of that sort, (indicating) which are, of course, here
greatly magnified. This represents the pustule at the base, this
yellow area; and this is one of the threadlike masses which has
been forced out by the swelling of the mucilaginous matter in
the pustule.

No. 3. Each one of those masses shown at the right hand side
of the view is composed of many hundreds of thousands of spores,
no larger than bacteria. One of these spores may, so far as we
know, under favorable conditions, reproduce this fungus and con-
sequently reproduce the disease, if it starts growth in the proper
place.

No. 4. This shows simply a somewhat larger view of one of
those pustules, from which three of those spore threads have
been produced. At the upper part of this picture we have a sur-
face view of the chestnut bark in which we find the pustules
gathered in the crevices. This is rather characteristic on chest-
nut bark that is of a sufficient age to be cracked. Only on smooth
chestnut bark, as a rule, do we find these pustules all over the
bark. In the cracked bark we find them primarily, if not entirely, -
in the crevices.

No. 5. There we have a section of a small branch that shows
some of these pustules, and above some of these threads as they
appear on the bark of the chestnut. I have nothing special to
say about that view, except that, so far as the color is concerned,
we are apt to get it just that color, but quite as often somewhat
darker, with a little orange or reddish tint to the pustule.

No. 6. Now if we take one of those areas of disease on smooth
bark and cut into it, if we shave the top of the bark off with a
sharp knife,—suppose we take just such a case as we have at the
left here (in fact this is made from the same branch) and shave
it so as to show what is beneath,—we get a discolored area, a
rather characteristic area, which is not shown as well in this
view as it will be in another; but remember that this view at the
right represents such a branch as that at the left, with the sur-
face of the bark removed with the knife.

32

No. 7. Here is a view which represents a branch, from which
the surface of the bark has been shaved in the same manner as
in the last view, but here we have the characteristic fanlike mott-
ling, which we often get in the bark beneath the surface. Some
times the effect which you see here is produced immediately be-
neath the surface of the bark, at other times down in the middle
of the bark, and at other times you have to get in pretty well to-
wards the wood in order to find this characteristic marking, de-
pending largely upon whether there is a perfect epidermis, or
perfect skin, over the bark, or whether there is a corky layer;
but it is not entirely gauged by those characters. This line (in-
dicating) representing the line of discoloration; the infection
started at this point and radiated in all directions from the com-
mon starting point. Of course, if we shaved off the other side
of that branch, we should have expected to find about the same
condition of affairs there; but here we have shown only the half
circle of the more or less circular area of the disease.

No. 8. Here are two branches of a chestnut tree, an orchard
tree as I recall it. These branches are about four or five inches
in diameter. This represents a very common appearance on
chestnut in the smooth-bark stage. Of course, this has begun to
crack more or less from age. That is not an exceptional case by
any means, as all who have seen the disease will readily realize.

' No. 9. This represents another case of a diseased portion, in
which the disease started about at this point (indicating). One
of these cracks probably represents the position of the starting
point of the disease, and it has radiated in all directions, tending
to form the circular mass which is shown here, running down
there and across the bottom and of course off of the view entirely
at the right. That is a grafted tree, by the way, and the enlarged
portion at the middle of the tree represents the graft line.

No. 10. This is merely a section of a little older piece of bark,
where we get the pustules of a darker color, that is, more of the
brownish tinge, as we often do in weathered bark. This, as I
said a moment ago, is found in material which has withstood the
weather for some time.

No. 11. This is another view which shows merely some of
the older pustules. This is intended more to represent the winter
stage of the fungus. I do not think, however, that you will be

No. 6. Sections of smooth-barked chestnut twigs showing disease lesions. Sur-
face of bark removed from right-hand specimen, showing discolored and diseased
areas.

No. 7. Characteristic fan-like mottling revealed by shaving the bark of a diseased
branch.

No. 8. A large area of disease pustules on a smooth-barked orchard tree.—Photo-

graph by Prof. Collins.

No. 9. Bark removed from over a canker, showing the cracks at the centre and
the fan-shaped spread of the yellowish fungous mycelium; also, at the lower edge,
the circular margin of the disease.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

able to make out the individual little spots which go to make
up one of these common masses. The winter stage of this dis-
ease produces its spores down in the bark; that is, down beneath
the surface of the bark, and so also does the summer spore stage,
except that in the summer spore stage they are extruded in the
form of these threads, while the winter spores are not extruded in
the same way, although they are extruded later.

No. 12. This view represents a diseased spot on an orchard
tree. The diseased spot is less than three years old, but more
than two years old, according to the records which were kept.
This shows, at the upper part of the picture, how the bark soon
loosens and later falls from the tree and the branches, until
finally we have simply the bare trunk or a bare branch left.
Sometimes this bark breaks away in less than two years, to much
the extent that is shown there.

No. 13. Here is a small twig of a chestnut. A little while ago
T mentioned the fact that, in the smaller twigs, we sometimes
had an enlargement when the disease was present, rather than a
depression. flere at the left we get the normal size of the twig,
and then, running out this way towards the apex of the branch,
we see where the disease started, and we have this considerable
swelling. This is quite characteristic, under certain conditions,
of twigs which are less than a half inch in diameter. It some-
times occurs in larger branches, but as a rule we get it quite com-
monly in this type of branch.

No. {4. In the older trees, where the bark has become deeply
furrowed, I said that we found the diseased pustules almost en-
tirely in the cracks or crevices of the bark. This represents the
surface,—egreatly magnified, of course, and beyond what you
might imagine,—and some of the furrows. We get the yellowish-
orange pustules in the crevices there, and in various places,
whereas the other parts, the raised places, show no pustules at
all.

No. 15. So much for the disease as it appears on the branches.
Now when the disease appears on a branch, or on the trunk of a
tree, it starts from the common point and radiates in all direc-
tions, forming the more or less circular area of disease. Of
course, on the trunk of a tree it goes up the trunk from the com-

3

o4

mon point, down the trunk, and around the trunk. When
these portions of the disease which go around the trunk meet on
the other side, we have a branch or a trunk which we speak of as
eirdled. Now a girdled branch, or a girdled twig, or a girdled
trunk, means the early death of all parts of the tree beyond the
girdled area. If it is a twig, it means the death of the twig be-
yond the girdled area. Jf it is the trunk, it means the death of
the whole tree at once, or soon after the girdling is completed;
not immediately, as a rule. Now I want to call your attention to
some of the obvious effects of this girdling upon the foliage of
the tree. When you are looking for this disease during the sea-
son of foliage, it can be detected oftentimes at a great distance.
I have myself detected diseased trees more than a mile away, or
trees supposed to be diseased, by the characteristics which I want
to call your attention to now. ‘To be sure, you must bear in mind
that the coloration of the leaves to which I am going to call your
attention can at times be brought about by other things than this
disease; but we have in the coloration of the leaves, as we gener-
ally say, the “danger signal” which suggests where to look for the
disease; for, if the disease has been going on very long, for a few
months, or weeks even, in certain places, we shall get some of
these discolored leaves as the result of the girdling of some one
or more of the twigs or branches. I have shown here a somewhat
normal chestnut leaf. It is a little broader than the normal leaf;
this is intended to represent not, perhaps, a perfectly typical
chestnut leaf, because we have on the margin a little paler green
than in the portion in the centre. The pale green in the margin
of every leaf at times, is one of the first symptoms of discolora-
tion. It becomes a little pale. First of all, perhaps, the leaf
wilts a little, if you notice it carefully, and if this paleness of the
leaves is extended over the leaves of a whole branch, the effect as
a whole is quite noticeable.

No. 16. Here is a greenhouse plant which has been inoculated
with the disease. At the left we find some of the normal chest-
nut leaves; at the right a branch which had been inoculated and
has been girdled way down here. (Indicating). Now I do not
know about that particular specimen, but, if we were looking for
the disease on such a specimen as that, we should never look up
here for ‘it; that.is, not primarily. What is causing the trouble

No. 10. Bark showing pustules of a dark color or of a brownish tint, due to longer
exposure to weather.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

No. 12. Diseased ches‘nut tree showing shredded bark after two or three years in-
fection.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Live

S
oo i & }
a <a > O

No. 13. Small twig of chestnut with enlargement due to disease. At the left side
the normal size of the twig is shown.

No. 15. Normal chestnut leaf. A pale green in the margin is one cf the first
symptoms of discoloration and disease.

oo

with that stem is down here somewhere, down below all these
dead leaves. That applies to looking for the disease on the tree,
ov on the sprouts or suckers which may come up from the base
of a tree.

No. 17. In very young nursery stock, or the young sprouts
which come up from a tree, or the vigorous growth on a tree, on
the twigs at least, we often get this type of the disease at its very
beginning. This is often more brilliantly colored than shown in
this view. It is very conspicuous indeed, particularly on nursery
stock. Although the view does not show any fruiting pustules
at all, by cutting into that area we get the characteristic mottled
mycelium or vegetative stage of the fungus beneath the bark.

No. 18. Now we have a branch which shows the withered and
yellowish leaves. This yellow color follows along after the pale
green color. It is not a pure yellow, as a rule, although some-
times it has been quite strikingly of a pure yellow color. You
will notice that the leaves wither after awhile; that is, they
crumple up after a time and that crumpling is shown, to a certain
extent, in this view; and also the yellow color.

No. 19. A little later we have the deeper color. This shows
the browner coloration around the margin of the leaves. At the
left we have two leaves which show merely the beginning of the
discoloration. At the right the leaf is somewhat crumpled, bent,
and discolored.

No. 20. This is a stage much the same as that of the little
branch which was shown three views back, this showing a larger
view of the same thing.

No. 21. Finally the leaf assumes a somewhat brownish tint,
which is shown here. The leaves in this condition are often more
crumpled and curled up than shown here. These two leaves have
been flattened out somewhat so as to show the color.

No. 22. Now to take some of the woodland views, to show
how the disease looks in the landscape. Here is a large tree
which, owing to lack of special instruction as to the coloring of
it, lacks one or two features which it ought to have. For instance,
this branch up here, and that whole branch (indicating), ought
to have shown the yellow brown color. The coloring, however,
was not noticed in time to give instructions in regard to it. This
view, however, is shown primarily to represent the type of tree

56

Which is so valuable in the large estates in the various States.
This particular tree had a circumference, above the settee which
is there, of more than nineteen feet. The view was taken three
years ago. That tree now has only two or three of the green
branches left and the whole top of the tree is cut off. IT am sorry
I do not have the other views to go with this, but through some
slip somewhere they were not forwarded to be shown.

No. 25. Now we have a view in which the disease has a start
up in this corner, and the discoloration of the leaves, or the
Inasses Of leaves, is here shown. Now a discoloration of this sort,
particularly when it comes to a little later stage and has a more
brilliant color, is quite conspicuous in the landscape. This view
does not do credit by any means to the point which is intended to
be brought out here.

No. 24. Here is a view taken on Long Island, which shows
the effect on the tree; a tree which has been nearly killed by the
disease, showing the practically defoliated type of tree. Here
is another type, (indicating), which has become badly diseased,
and we have a bunch of sprouts appearing at this point, alse here,
and also basal sprouts coming up. These sprouts are rather char-
acteristic; perhaps I should not say characteristic, but they are
commonly found connected with this disease, and are supposed
to be more or less characteristic of the disease, but the sprouts
can be produced by other means than as a result of the disease.

No. 25. Another tree, also on Long Island, in which all but
two of the lower limbs on the left hand side haye been killed by
girdling from the disease, and now we have remaining only those
two, or perhaps three, lower left hand limbs.

No. 26. This is a tree showing the sprout growth which I
alluded to in one of the last pictures, to even better advantage.
Notice the sprouts which come up around the base, and the
sprouts which come from the trunk at various places up in the
crown.

No. 27. There you have another type of the same thing, a more
pronounced example, in which the sprouts are confined almost
entirely to the trunk of the tree and everything is dead or dying,
except perhaps one or two branches.

No. 28. This view is shown in order to call to vour attention
this particular tree (indicating), which shows four good lesions

No. 16. A green-house chestnut tree in pot, three menths after artificial inoculation
with summer spores. Photograph by Brewer.

No.

Uf

Early effect of the

disease

upon young

chestnut sprouts and nursery stock.

No. 18. Characteristic withered and vellewish leaves on chestnut twig infected
with the disease.

-_
37

of the disease, diseased spots, on the trunk of the tree. That is
the way the tree looks when this disease attacks the trunk. That
tree is practically dead. The lower part, represented by the
lower half of that picture, shows some life.

No. 29. In the course of two or three years we find that the
bark begins to peel from the trunks of the trees. At the left we
have a tree which las only recently been killed, that is, within
a year or so perhaps, and the next one to it is one which is a little
older, and the bark has begun to peel off. The one which is so
prominent is probably the first in the group which was attacked
and killed, and the bark has practically disappeared from the
tree, so far as this view shows.

No. 30. Now to consider the more general appearance of the
woodland, here is a view taken in Forest Park, Brooklyn, along
the Boulevard. This is one of the main boulevards through the
Park, and any of you will have no difficulty in picking out the
chestnuts. They are the most conspicuous objects. Not one of
the green trees you see there is a chestnut.

No. 51. Here is another view taken, I think, at Port Jeffer-
son on Long Island. It may have been a New Jersey view; I
am a little uncertain as to just where it was taken. That shows
the young growth coming up and beconing diseased, and shows
the effect along the hedgerow that we get from this disease.

No. 32. This is one of the most southern stations which we
know for the disease. This view was taken in South-western Vir-
ginia, in Bedford county. The more prominent trees there have
lost the bark entirely. Those trees, I understand, have been cut
out and no longer exist.

No. 53. If you want to see what the chestnut disease can do
in a very nearly pure stand of chestnuts, there is a view which
will show it. That was taken in Forest Park on Long Island.
Any of you who have been in Forest Park will probably recognize
that view.

No. 34. The next view, I think, is another view of a little
different portion of the same Park. These trees at the right are
not chestnuts at all. This one up here, I believe, is a chestnut
and there are some oaks there at the left.

No. 55. T want to call your attention to the distribution of the
chestnut, and, to do so, T want to call your attention to this map.

9
oc

This map represents the eastern portion of the United States
and the horizontal lines represent the approximate general dis-
tribution of the chestnut tree. It may not be exact. I think most
any of you who live at or near the border line represented here
would have some suggestions to offer, but the map has been com-
piled from as reliable general sources as we could obtain. Thus
we have the chestnut from northern Mississippi, through
northern Alabama and Georgia, northwestern South Carolina,
western North Carolina, up through this region and up into the
northwestern edge of Androscoggin county in Maine. In New
Hampshire and Vermont there are only a few chestnuts present,
as compared with the region farther south. Down through here
(pointing to the southern Alleghanies), we have our great chest-
nut stand, particularly on the western slope of the mountains.
In the State of Connecticut a bulletin which was published with-
in a few years stated that probably more than fifty per cent. of
the forest trees in Connecticut were chestnuts. That was on
very good authority, and I do not hesitate to quote it. In Rhode
Island the chestnut is of a little less importance, but probably
pretty nearly half of the trees in Rhode Island are chestnuts.
The proportion further south I am not so well informed about,
but we have the bulk of the heavy chestnut timber south of the
Potomac River. The black area on the map represents the places
where practically all the chestnuts are now dead, and the various
forms of lines which are shown on the map represent varying de-
grees of infection, until we come down to the line right here. (In-
dicating). These vertical lines represent the approximate limits
of what you might call somewhat general infection. The black
spots which are shown there represent the outlying spots of infee-
tion, so far as we knew them in December. Here is the line
through Pennsylvania. The eastern part of Pennsylvania is
pretty well infected with the disease, and the work now being
done in this region, (indicating), will be told about a little
later by someone who is better informed than I am.

In closing this address, I want to read just a few words and,
if we can have the lights now, I will finish in about two or three
minutes.

Having seen what this disease is and what it is doing, we now

come to the question which, T take it, we are gathered here to

No. 21. Leaves of the chestnut. showing brownish tint from effect of girdling by
the disease.

No. 22. Types of ornamental chestnut trees killed by thousands. Note the small,

diseased branches. Scene near Philadelphia, Pa.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

No. 19. Leaves of the chestnut exhibiting discolorations and curling of leaves
caused by the disease.

No. 20. Curled and discolored leaves of the chestnut at an advanced stage of the
disease.

39

answer as best we can: What are we going to do about it? That
is the question. Three conditions lie open before us, as we see it:

First: Do nothing; lie down and let the disease spread as far
as it will, and destroy as much property as it can. It must be
acknowledged that there is ample precedent for this course, us
well as ample scientific support. Beyond question, this is the
easiest thing to do.

Second: Conduct scientific investigations of the disease, but
make no attempt to control the disease until these investigations
yield conclusive results. Such a course would unquestionably
yield results which would be valuable in future epidemics of dis-
‘ase, but it would not save the chestnut trees at this time. The
President of the Carnegie Institution, in a recent address, enun-
ciated the principle that the results of scientific research must
be stated in decades, not in years. We must investigate the dis-
ease as thoroughly as possible, but investigation alone, without
application, will not save the trees.

Third: Investigate as thoroughly as possible, devote as much
money as possible to research on the fundamental problems re-
lating to the disease, but, at the same time, put into force im-
mediately whatever measures against the disease appear to be
most promising, recognizing clearly that there is not time first to
prove absolute efficiency. I am informed that, as an immediate
result of the recent burning of the Equitable Building in New
York city, a special commission was appointed to devise better
methods of fighting fires in the congested business section of New
York. The appointment of the commission was necessary and
will unquestionably yield excellent future results; but I notice
that the New York Fire Department, went ahead and did its best
to put out the Equitable Building fire, without waiting for the re-
ports of any commissions. It appears to me that we are in much
the same situation. The fire is burning too fast for us to wait for
the reports of experiments which will take from two to ten years
time to carry out. We must go ahead, using the best methods
that we have, and leave the results to the future. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure everyone will agree that this
talk has been both instructive and interesting, and we are par-
ticularly indebted to Professor Collins for stepping in at the

eleventh hour, as he has done, and favoring us so generously.
: 4idve ‘
~>* e

40

PROFESSOR SELBY: Mr. Chairman, would it not be
proper for us to send, on behalf of this Convention, at this time,
an expression of our sympathy with Dr. Metcalf in his serious
accident? I move you that such an expression be sent by the
Convention.

Seconded by Mr. f. C. Williams.

THE CHAIRMAN: Such a motion naturally would go at
once to the Resolutions Committee, but the Chair is glad to make
an exception in this case. Professor Selby moves that this Con-
ference send a message of sympathy to Dr. Metcalf, with hopes
for his speedy recovery.

The motion was put and unanimously carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will appoint Professor Selby
a Committee of One to prepare and forward the message.

The next on the program is a paper entitled “Can the Chestnut
Bark Disease be Controlied?” by Professor I*. C. Stewart, of the
New York Agricultural Experiment Station.

CAN THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE BE CON-
TROLLED?

By PROF. F. C. STEWART, New York Agricultural Experiment Station.

Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen: My views are so
much at variance with what I conceive to be the sentiment of
this Conference that I hesitated somewhat to present them. I
feel like one throwing water on a fire which his friends are dili-
gently striving to kindle. But a sense of my duty to the publie
and, also, myself, impels me to proceed.

I assume that you are all familiar with the method of control
Which has been recommended, namely, the one which has been
outlined by Dr. Metcalf and Prof. Collins in Farmers’ Bulletin
No. 467, so I shall not take time to explain it. If you are not
familiar with it, vou will become familiar with it before the
close of this meeting.

od.

Complete destruction of
trunks have lost their bark.
Photograph by Prof. Collins.

chestnut
Scene

trees

in Forest

in

a ne arly

Park. n

pure stand.
ar Brooklyn,

Many
New

,

ae

bP ee |

:
:

a

® Seta
1
‘
F _ a _ -
= t

‘
i
7
ot
[ie a

"oe Ty

No.

99

25. Very early stage; infection of twigs in top of trees, at upper right-
hand side. Lancaster county, Penna——rhotogiaph by Prof. Collins.

No. 24. Type of diseased chestnut tree on Long Island, New York, showing

characteristic sprouts.—Photocraph by Prof. Collins.

a ey *
a; Py Aan

ip hae OE ¢ i
ie kee ene parr See ee ee ee wos * ee. oe am,

No. 25. Tree nearly dead from the disease. Only the two lower left-hand
branches remain alive. Scene near Cold Spring, New York.—Photograph by Prof.
Collins.

No. 26. Chestnut trees on Long Island. New York, showing the effect of the
girdling of the tree by the chestnut bark disease-—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

A

chestnut tree on Long Island, New York, with sprouts
points on the trunk.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

at various

ay Ve

No. 28. The chestnut tree in the centre of the picture shows four well-developed
lesions.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

No. 29. Typical group of dead chestnut trees. Note dead suckers on the trunks.
From left to right:—the first trunk shows the disease less than one year old,
(nothnig evident in this photograph); the second, an infection of from two to three
years old; the third four or more years old: and the fourth about three years old.
Scene near Brooklyn, New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

e

Fark

No. 30. Dead chestnut trees along a boulevard near Richmond Hill, New York.
Note healthy condition of trees of other species—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

No. 31. Dead and dying sprout growth. Note healthy condition of trees of other
species. Scene at Port Jefferson, New York. Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Lee

aS een

©

1 oe E
i

©
S.

= th

-
y ~
FR me ee re mee ie ns cols

te pc

No. 32. The most southern point of infection—a group of diseased chestnut trees
at Fontella, Bedford county, Virginia. Photograph by Prof. Collins.

No. 53. Complete destruction of chestnut trees in a nearly pure stand. Many
of the trunks have lost their bark. View in Forest Park, neat Brooklyn, New
York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

41

It is my opinion that we are rushing into this enormously ex-
pensive campaign against the chestnut bark disease without con-
sidering as carefully as we should the chances of success. The
first question to consider is, can the disease be controlled by Met-
calf’s and Collins’ method,’ of destroying advance infections and
establishing an “immune zone?” This is a technical question of
fundamental importance. It is a question to be answered by ex-
pert mycologists and plant pathologists. I have observed that
the leading advocates of the method avoid, as far as possible, dis-
cussion of its probable effectiveness. In Farmers’ Bulletin 467,
the question is disposed of by inserting into the letter of trans-
mittal the following sentence: “The experimental data upon
which the recommendations contained in this publication are
based will be published in full in a forthcoming bulletin of the
Bureau of Plant Industry.” The authors then go on to say (page
10) that “so far as tested” the method is practicable; and on
page 11, after giving an account of what they consider a success-
ful attempt to control the disease in the vicinity of Washington,
D. C., conelude with the following statement: “It is therefore
believed that this method of attack will prove equally practicable
in other localities and if carried out on a large scale will result
ultimately in the control of the bark disease.” Up to the present
time the promised bulletin has not appeared and we are still in
the dark as to the nature of the “experimental data.” I had
hoped that it might be presented at this meeting. In justice to
the public it should have been published before Bulletin 467,
There is great need of some real evadence that the disease can
be controlled. Apparently, the sole foundation for the optimis-
tic statements made by Metealf and Collins in Bulletin 467 is
the result of the field test? which they made at Washington and
I hold that no definite conclusions can be drawn from that test.
The chief criticism to be made of it is that there is no means of
knowing what would have happened if the diseased trees had
not been removed. There was no check, and experimenters are
agreed that experiments without checks have little value. This
is one of the first principles of experimentation. Weather con-
ditions may have been unfavorable for the spread of the disease,

42

Most fungous diseases have periods of quiescence alternating
with periods of activity, depending largely upon varying weather
conditions.

Also, there is reason to believe that the region covered by the
test is not now as free from the disease as Metcalf and Collins
think it is. Last summer there were found two centres of in-
fection previously overlooked.’ One of these consisting of a
croup of six diseased trees, was within a few miles of Washing-
ton. In company with Dr. Metcalf and others I had an oppor-
tunity to examine these trees on December 30, 1911. One of
them, a tree over three feet in diameter, was in an advanced stage
of the disease. Large limbs were dead and the lower portion of
the trunk was thickly covered with spore masses of the fungus.
How long these trees had been affected it was impossible to de-
termine, but it is safe to say that some of them had been diseased
for at least a year and probably longer. That is to say, they be-
came infected in 1910 or earlier and must have been discharging
millions of spores at the very moment Dr. Metcalf was writing
his statement that the country within a radius of 35 miles of
Washington was apparently free from the disease.t It is quite
probable that other overlooked cases of the disease exist in the
vicinity of Washington at the present time.

Further, We visited two places where diseased trees had been
removed and the disease “eliminated” in 1909. In one case, one
tree had been cut; in the other case two trees. The bark had not
been removed from the stumps. On one stump we found a few
spore masses of the fungus; also on the base of a nearby tree.
On the other two stumps no fungus was found. The first-men-
tioned stump had not sprouted, but the other two were -sur-
rounded by healthy sprouts. At both points there were a few
chestnut trees in the immediate vicinity, but, so far as could
be determined, none of them were diseased. It should be stated,
however, that it is very difficult to locate diseased trees in win-
ter. It is inevitable that the bark around the base of a diseased
tree and also the surrounding soil, fallen leaves and other litter
will become covered with spores carried down by rain. Hence,
when the diseased trees were removed thousands of spores were
left behind. How long such spores live and retain their power
of infection is not known. Now does it seem probable that the

’

43

failure of the disease to spread to nearby trees was due to the
removal of the diseased trees? Is it not more likely that its
spread was prevented by the conditions being unfavorable for in-
fection?

Returning now to the main question: No such method of
controlling a fungous disease has ever been attempted. Our
knowledge of fungous diseases in general indicates that it is im-
practicable. It will be extremely difficult to locate all of the
diseased trees and absolutely impossible to remove all of the
fungus after the diseased trees are found. The fungus spores,
which are produced quickly and in enormous numbers may be
widely disseminated in several different ways, some of which
cannot be prevented. The work will be exceedingly expensive
and must be continued indefinitely. Taking all these things
into consideration, the chances of success are much too small to
warrant the expense.

It is true that some fungous diseases, notably the plum black
knot, are more or less successfully controlled by the prompt re-
moval of diseased plants or parts of plants; but it should be
noted that the diseases successfully controlled in this way have
two characteristics which make this method of control possible:
(1) The diseased plants may be readily detected in the early
stages of the disease; (2) the causal fungus requires a long time
to ripen its spores. Plum black knot may be readily detected
from one to several months before the ripening of the spores of
the causal fungus. Hence, the knots may be remoyed before
they have had a chance to spread the infection. Not so with the
chestnut disease. It possesses neither of these characteristics.
It is difficult to detect in the early stages, and multitudes of
spores may be produced within a month after infection.

Undoubtedly, the spores are carried long distances by birds,
especially woodpeckers, which visit the diseased trees, seeking
borers, in the tunnels of which most of the infections occur.’ It
naturally follows that the “Immune zone” must be many miles
wide,—Dr. Metcalf suggests ten or twenty miles wide. In this
connection, please note that while the main line of infection is
now somewhere north of the Potomac river, advance infections
already occur in southern Virginia and West Virginia, 150 miles
or more southwest of Washington. In fact, Metcalf and Collins

44

say :° “Observations made by the junior writer indicate that the
disease may have been present in an orchard in Bedford county,
Va., as early as 1903.” The advance infections are widely scat-
tered.

Back of the “immune zone” extensive areas must be inspected
frequently and thoroughly. Should the ‘immune zone” be lo-
cated at or north of the Potomac, the entire States of Virginia
and West Virginia must be covered by such inspection. ‘There
is no knowing when or where the disease may break out, and
when conditions for its spread are favorable, a single diseased
(ree overlooked may start an uncontrollable epidemic which will
necessitate establishing a new “immune zone” farther south and
starting all over.

It is quite generally admitted that it will be difficult to locate
all of the diseased trees, but there is some difference of opinion as
to the importance of this fact. ft may be argued that by the de-
struction of 90 or 95 per cent. of the diseased trees the spread of
the disease will be reduced to that extent. This is very improb-
able. If this disease behaves like fungous diseases in general,
its spread depends more upon weather conditions and the sus-
ceptibility of the host than upon the number of spores produced.
When the conditions for its spread are favorable five per cent. of
the spores may be sufficient to nullify any attempt to control the
disease. All experience with such methods of treatment goes
to show that the work must be done thoroughly, else it is not
effective.

The history of the chestnut bark disease is unparalleled in the
annals of plant pathology. Here we have an unknown fungus,
none of the relatives of which are parasites, suddenly becoming
widespread and taking high rank as a destructive parasite. This
indicates that it may be expected to behave in an erratic manner
and be unusually difficult to. control; also, that something
unusual has happened either to the host or to the fungus, or per-
haps to both, making this epidemic possible. Just what this
may be I am unable to say. There is no reason for believing
that the fungus is either a recent creation or a recent introduc-
tion from abroad. The only rational theory yet advanced re-
garding the origin of the epidemie is Dr. Clinton’s winter-and-
drought-injury theory,’ but even this seems insufficient in some
respects.

4D

It has been asked “What then would you have us do? Stand
idle while the disease destroys our chestnut forests ~ My
answer is this: It tay be well to restrict the transportation of
diseased nursery stock, but this is all that it is worth while to
attempt at present in the line of combating the disease. /t is bet-
ter to attempt nothing than to waste a large amount of public
money on a method of control which there is every reason to be-
lieve cannot succeed. 1 believe in being honest with the public
and admitting frankly that we know of no way to control this
disease. I fayor moderate-sized appropriations for investigation
of the disease, but none at all to be used in attempts to control it
by any method or methods at present known.

What will be the future course of the disease can only be con-
jectured, but it can be safely predicted that nothing which man
can now do will materially alter its course. However, the situa-
tion is by no means hopeless. That the disease has already reach-
ed its zenith and will now gradually subside is quite possible.
There’ have been other epidemics, and other kinds of trees and
plants have been threatened with destruction through disease,
but such a thing has never actually happened. So far as known,
no plant has ever been exterminated by disease. It is unlikely
that the chestnut will be exterminated.

THE CHAIRMAN: It occurs to the Chair that the situation
would suggest discussion at this time, but it would probably be
hetter to continve with our programme as it was ably laid out by
those who have provided for this Conference, and have the dis-
cussion after we have heard the papers. We will, therefore, call
for the next paper, entitled “How Further Research may Increase
the Efficiency of the Control of the Chestnut Bark Disease,” by
T'rofessor W. Howard Rankin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York:

1. Metealf. H. and Collins, J. F. The control of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A.
Farmers’ Bul. 467, 28 O. 1911.

Ze Oe. 1eib:) D: IL.

3. Reported by Dr. Metealf at a conference on the chestnut bark disease held in Albany,
N. Y., October.19, 1911.

4. U. S. D. A. Farmers’ Bul. 467:11.
5. U. S. D. A. Farmers’ Bul. 467:10.

6. Metealf and Collins. The present status of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A. Bur.
Plant Indus. Bul. 141, Part V, p. 46. 30 S. 1909.

7. Clinton, G. P. Report of the Botanist, 1908. Conn. Exp. Sta. Rpt. of 1907-1908: 879-890.
July, 1909.

HOW FURTHER RESEARCH MAY INCREASE THE EFFI-
CIENCY OF THE CONTROL OF THE CHEST-
NUT BARK DISEASE.

BY PROFESSOR W. HOWARD RANKIN, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Up to this time investi-
eations concerning the chestnut tree canker disease and the
causal fungus have not brought forth facts as rapidly as we
could wish. It was the opinion of the conference held at Albany,
N. Y. last October that we did not have facts enough about the
disease and that scientific research was the one thing needed. To
emphasize this point we may consider some important phases of
the disease which are yet little understood, but the knowledge of
which is fundamental to devising efficient control methods. Con-
cerning the means of spread of the fungus from one tree to
another we have nothing except secondary evidence. Most writ-
ers have theorized on the different methods by which the conidia
or summer spores might be carried from one tree to another and
2 new infection started. . Reasoning by analogy with what is
known of the behavior of many fungi, such agencies as borers,
birds, ants and the wind, ete., have been suggested but in no wise
proved to be responsible. It seems that the ascospore stage has
not been considered by any writer in the dissemination of the
fungus, yet this stage follows the conidia very quickly and is the
more abundant fruiting stage which is formed in the red or brown
pustules on the surface of the cankers. Under moist conditions
the ascospores are shot forcibly out in the air where they can be
caught up by the wind and carried for a considerable distance.
The speaker found the ascospores being shot from mature pus-
{ules during every rainy period last summer. These spores ger-
minate readily in rain water producing a new mycelium of con-
siderable length in fifteen hours. The question at once arises,
why could not these ascospores once shot into the air be carried
long distances and owing to their abundance cause a large ma-
jority of the infection? The time of year at which new infee-

47

tious took place last summer in the Hudson River Valley was
evidently about the time when the ascospore stage was just be-
coming abundant. It is an important matter then to determine
the spore stage and the ageney responsible for the spread of the
fungus before we can hope to advise an efficient and effective con-
trol. For example, such precautionary measures as the peeling
of logs before allowing them to be moved could be limited to the
time of year when this was necessary and thus obviate a great
cost,

Likewise the problem as to how the present epidemical char-
acters exhibited by the disease have come about is as far from
solution as it was six years ago. The speaker has recently col-
lected and examined a fungus indistinguishable from the chest-
nut canker disease fungus on dead chestnut bark in several
places in Virginia. No case of this fungus attacking living
trees was found in the short preliminary examination made near
Lynchburg, although several specimens were collected on dead
bark of stumps from which trees were cut about two years ago.
Also a fungus found in Pennsylvania on white, red and black
oak has great similarity to the canker disease fungus. The pos-
sibility of having several strains of the same fungus identical as
to microscopic characters, some saprophytic and others causing
a virulent disease, is at once puzzling. One of two things has
evidently happened, either the host plant has, under existing
conditions, been altered in its physiological process enough to
change its susceptibility to this heretofore saprophytic fungus,
or the fungus has developed a parasitic habit independent of
any change in the host. Possibly, of course, both factors may
have combined to bring about this disease-condition. Prelim-
inary investigations carried on by the speaker seem to point to
the fact that the susceptibility of the chestnut tree to this fungus
depends upon drought conditions; that is a low water content in
the tree. This requires confirmation however by further detailed
experiment. Weather conditions causing winter injury as sug-
gested by Dr. Clinton may quite possibly be of importance also
in this connection, and accurate data concerning past weather
conditions and experiments to determine the effect of low temper-
ature on the chestnut tree in connection with the production of
susceptibility is highly important.

48

If the results of Dr. Munch on the cause of susceptibility and
immunity of forest trees to disease should prove true in the case
of this disease also, we may hope to be able to control the bark
disease in shade, lawn, and park trees, by keeping up the water
content of the tree.

Whether nursery stock serves to introduce the disease into
new localities is an important problem to be determined by ob-
servation and experiment. The present method of inspection
and cutting out would be inefficient if the fungus lives commonly
as a saprophyte at the base of the tree on dead bark and can at-
tain a parasitic habit with some slight change in weather condi-
tions. If, on the other hand, it exists only as a wound parasite,
then inspections would be possible and the cutting out method
effective. However, with such problems as these undecided, no
ohne can pronounce definite judgment upon the efficiency of the
cutting out method. Once however, these facts are established,
modifications may be made in the present method by which its
cifectiveness may be insured at possibly a lower cost than can
now be expected.

The present method which the Pennsylvania Commission has
adopted of eradicating only spots where the fungus is distinetly
parasitic, can accomplish a great good in a sanitary way, and
once sufficient facts are forthcoming, the method may be altered
to suit our knowledge and thus its efficiency assured.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next paper, entitled “Recent Notes on
the Chestnut Bark Disease,’ will be delivered by Professor H. R.

Fulton, Division of Pathology, Pennsylvania State College.

RECENT NOTES ON THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE.

BY PROFESSOR H. R. FULTON, Pennsylvania State College, State
College, Pa.

The steady and devastating spread of the chestnut bark dis-
ease brings us face to face with a grave situation, and raises
many questions of great importance. Most of these will centre
about the three great questions: Is it possible to check effectively

Orchard chestnut tree girdled at base, showing characteristic growth of sprouts.
Scene near Westbury, New York.—-Photograph by Perley Spaulding.

ee

"
a5 =
7 =
* -
‘

ae

=

,
_
; 7
fe
i
! 7
—_
*
F "
i
_
=
_

Large forest tree girdled at base, showing characteristic growth of sprouts; near
Richmond Hill, New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Large trees with some branches girdled. Note condition of the foliage. Seene at
Westbury, New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Large trees with some branches girdled. Note condition of foliage. Scene at
Westbury, New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

=

om

Ps
a
Wah
2 -
+z
“y
Bal
Sh
he ay
.
oe
7
, oo
_
ts)
—_
e,
oe.
* et
;
es
wd
. _ =
| b
- =
s LJ a

-
7
i al
se
7
% :
‘>
.
> A

Orchard chestnuts, (grafted varieties), nearly dead. Note sprouts on the trunks.
Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Orchard chestnut with limb girdled by twig-girdling borer. Easily mistaken at
a short distance for chestnut bark disease-—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Examples of tree surgery, showing healing process after cutting out cankers, in
treatment of orchard trees. This treatment undoubtedly prolongs the life of the
trees.—lhotograph by Vrof. Collins.

Example of tree surgery, showing healing process after cutting out cankers in
treatment of orchard trees. Will prolong life of tree—Photograph by Prof.
Collins.

Chestnut tree showing early stage of disease; note small girdled twig on upper part
of the tree in the centre of the picture.

Large chestnut tree partly dead. Note sprouts with leaves near the top, the
dwarfed leaves on the middle right-hand limb, and the healthy lower branches with
normal leaves. Scene at Rawlinsville, Penna.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Bye #1) >, f *\
Rare oe

Karly stage of infection in an orchard tree; note girdled twigs with withered
leaves at top. Scene in Lancaster county, Penna.—Photograph by Prof, Collins.

Complete destruction of the chestnut trees in mixed stand. Note healthy con-
dition of trees of other species. Views along Long Island Railroad, near Richmond
Hill, New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Complete destruction of chestnut trees in mixed stands. Note healthy condition
of trees of other species. Views along Long Island Railroad, near Richmond Hill,
New York.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

Small orchard chestnut nearly dead.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

A dying tree on Long Island, New York.

Examples of tree surgery, showing healing process after cutting out cankers, in
treatment of orchard trees. ‘This treatment undoubtedly prolongs the life of the
trees.—Photograph by Prof. Collins.

AY

the spread of this disease? Is it worth while doing so? > What
are the best methods to use = While no one, perhaps, will ven-
{ure to prophesy the outcome, all doubtless agree that the great
interests at stake justify an aggressive fight; and all alike are
anxious to see the warfare waged in the most effective way.
Other contests against fungous foes have been won in spite of
apparently insuperable obstacles, and we now look back from
the vantage ground of knowledge gained through the contests,
and wonder that the tasks should have seemed hard. Each year
Witnesses the conquest of more than one important pest, just as
each year is apt to bring into the limelight some hitherto unob-
trusive pest. Mention might be made of scores of animal and
plant pests that, in the wide interchanges incident to modern
civilization, have been brought into contact with new host species,
or with new environmental conditions, and have forthwith en-
tered upon a period of riotous devastation. At the present time,
federal and state resources are being drawn upon, and concerted
state action is being had, in the fights against the gypsy and
brown-tail moths in New England, and against the cotton boll
weevil in the southwestern portion of the cotton belt. I cannot
refrain from recalling to mind the eradication of the cattle tick
in certain districts within its range, and the stamping out of yel-
low fever in territory under United State jurisdiction, as notable
examples of success that has in recent times come from complete
knowledge of the situations, combined with efficient administra-
tion. As a citizen of Pennsylvania, I take pride in pointing to
the successful suppression of the fcot and mouth disease of cattle,
during 1908, by the State Livestock Sanitary Board in co-opera-
tion with the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry. These were
campaigns of quarantine and sanitation.

These examples of yery diverse nature do not prove anything in
regard to the chestnut bark disease; but they do serve to em-
phasize the fact that persistent effort in the right direction may
win in the face of great odds.

To the specialist in plant diseases, a most interesting question
is, Why is it that this disease has made such headway in this coun-
try in so short atime. Is it that there are factors involved, aside
from administrative difficulties, that are not found in the many

4

50

fungous diseases that affect our crops,—less spectacular in their
working, but none the less damaging in their effects? Or is it
that well recognized factors are here found in a unique combina-
tion that adds to the seriousness of the situation? Is this dis-
ease inherently more serious than pear blight or cotton wilt or
wheat stem rust? Answers to such questions involve considera-
tion of the habits and value of the host plant, as well as definite
knowledge on all important points in the life history of the causa-
tive organisin, Diaporthe parasitica.

lor chestnut bark disease infection to occur, three general con-
ditions must be met just as for any other fungous disease.
Broadly stated, these are (1) the presence of infective material,
(2) a host plant in a condition of susceptibility, (8) general en-
vironmental conditions that are favorable. All rational control
measures for the disease must be based on the peculiarities of this
fungus with reference to these three things.

The infective material for Diaporthe parasitica seems to be
pre-eminently the spores, which are of two types, the pycnospores,
sometimes called conidia or summer spores, and the ascospores,
or winter spores. We wish to know definitely the conditions that
influence the formation of each type, the longevity of each under
favorable and under unfavorable conditions, their modes of shed-
ding and of transfer, the conditions favorable and unfavorable to
their germination, their abilities to establish the fungus upon
various materials, and the relative importance of the two types
in spreading the disease. General environmental conditions may
have their effect upon longevity of spores, upon germination of
spores, upon rapidity of growth of the fungus, and upon spore
production by the fungus. Susceptibility in the host has refer-
ence to qualities of genera or species or varieties or strains or
individuals, that render them liable to attack by the fungus,
which qualities may be inherent or possibly induced by environ-
mental conditions. Here must be included the exposure through
various wounds of susceptible portions of the host; and the pro-
tective effects of measures that may lessen the susceptibility of
the host. Other points in the general life history of the organism
may be of interest and importance, aside from any direct rela-

tion to the setting up of infection.

51

Realizing the importance to the public welfare of more com-
plete knowledge along these lines, the Pennsylvania Agricultural
Experiment Station, through its laboratory of plant pathology,
has undertaken certain investigations upon the life history of
Diaporthe parasitica, in hearty co-operation with the work of the
Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission. While a com-
plete report cannot be made, in the nature of the case, for a long
time, we beg to submit a brief preliminary report on the labora-
tory work now being carried on by Mr. R. A. Waldron, of the
Experiment Station staff; to which is added at the request of the
xecutive Officer of the Pennsylvania Commission, a summary
of field studies made by Mr. R. C. Walton, one of the field agents
of the Commission. Credit for the findings reported here is due
to the careful work of these two men.

AIR CURRENTS AS CARRIERS OF THE CONIDIA.

The tests were made with the blast from an electric fan, with
a velocity of perhaps twenty miles an hour. The material used
was bark of chestnut with tendrils of conidia projecting from
the mouths of the fruit-bodies. The tests were made with these
tendrils dry, with them moist, and with the spray from an atomi-
zer playing over them, the last to imitate conditions prevailing
during storms. The attempt was made to catch the spores on the
surface of sterilized potato agar exposed about six inches away,
in the blast; and to determine the carrying power of the air cur-
rent from the subsequent growth of Diaporthe parasitica in this
material. Also, wet cotton was similarly held in the blast; it
was then squeezed out in sterile water; this was centrifuged, and
microscopic examination made of the sediment, as well as cul-
tures from it. There was unmistakable evidence, from each
line of testing, that the conidia may be detached by strong air
currents, and carried short distances. The detachment was
greater when the spray played over the material. The test will
have to be carried further before quantitative results can be
given. It seems likely that the detachment was largely of small
bits of the tendrils made up of large numbers of spores, and that
these are too heavy to be carried great distances; and suggests
that under natural conditions infection may be spread short
distances by wind.

52
LONGEVITY OF CONIDIA AND ASCOSPORES.

The length of time that conidia retain their power to germinate
will doubtless vary with the conditions under which the spores
are kept. Spores from bark collected in late summer and kept
dry at ordinary room temperature, germinated readily for four
months, but three weeks later could not be induced to germinate,
Material exposed out of doors and that kept moist and at about
75 degrees T°, in a greenhouse, did not give germination of conidia

after four months earlier tests not having been made.
GERMINATION OF CONIDIA AND ASCOSPORES IN DIFFERENT MEDIA.

Both kinds of spores germinate in a decoction of chestnut bark,
in rice broth, ete. Ascospores germinate in spring water, the

conidia do not.
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON GERMINATION,

Conidia germinate best at a temperature of 60 degrees F., and
distinetiy less rapidly at temperatures 10 degrees above or below
this point.

Ascospores germinate best at a temperature of about 70 degrees
I*., but a good percentage of germination occurs at 85 degrees F,
and 45 degrees I’. Even at 38 degrees F. the germination of as-
cospores was 25 per cent. in the first 24 hours, and reached 70
per cent. in three days. Ascospores germinate readily after at
least moderate freezing. These facts indicate that the ascos-
pores may play a more important part in causing infection under
certain conditions, than has been commonly attributed to them.

The effect of extremely high and low temperatures on spores
has not yet been completely investigated in our laboratory.

EEFEECT OF TEMPERATURE ON BARLY GROWTH.

In general the most rapid early growth is at the optimum tem-
perature for germination. In a nutrient solution of boiled chest-
nut bark, the ascospores will send out a length of mycelium 10
to 15 times the spore length in the first 24 hours at 70 degrees F.,
which becomes an indefinitely large mass of mycelium in two
days. At 358 degrees F., the growth is about one spore length the
first day, and 15 times this in five days.

GROWTH ON OTHER MATERIALS THAN CHESTNUT.

In the laboratory the fungus grows well on a variety of artifi-
cial media, perhaps most readily on potato agar that has been
made slightly acid. Material was submitted to us of white oak
and black oak bark, collected by Mr. J. Kh. Guyer, agent of the
Pennsylvania Commission, which bark had been killed by fire pre-
vious to its observation, and siowe. pustules of what seemed to
be Diaporthe parasitica, Careful microscopic examination show-
ed that the morphological features corresponded closely to those
of Diaporthe parasitica, as did also the growth of the fungous in
artificial culture. Red oak twigs killed by steaming in the process
of sterilization, were readily infected by Diaporthe parasitica ob-
tained from a typical chestnut lesion. While it is desirable to
carry on further cross inoculation experiments, it seems rea-
sonable to suppose, in the light of present evidence, that Diapor-
the parasitica may, under unusual circumstances, establish itself
saprophytically on portions of trees outside the genus Castaneda,
if these portions are already dead. We have found no evidence
that the fungus produces in any sense a disease of such trees as

the oak. -
RELATION TO LIGHTNING INJURY.

In August, 1908, Mr. George Wirt, of the Pennsylvania For-
estry Department, directed the attention of the speaker to a
chestnut tree in an advanced stage of infection, that had been
struck by lightning earlier in the season, when its leaves were
half grown. Where the wood had been splintered along the
lightning track, there were numerous pycnidia standing apart
one from the other, as is characteristic of Diaporthe parasitica
when fruiting on wood rather than on bark. Many of these fruit-
bodies were deep in the cracks made by the lightning, and evi-
dently had been formed after the stroke. Specimens taken from
the wood and from the bark near by, when tested, gave good
germination of spores. Probably the bark infection, whieh
seemed to date far back, existed at the time of the stroke, and the
fungus spread from this to the shattered wood, the lightning
presumably not having killed the fungus in the vicinity.

54
DEVELOPMENT IN SAPWOOD AND HEARTWOOD.

Where a section of a large infected branch was kept in a moist
atmosphere constantly, an abundant development of pycnidial
fruit bodies was noted in about two months from both sapwood
and heartwood at the more moist cut surface. The similar de-
velopment in wood shattered by lightning has been mentioned
above. In two cases, the fungus was found on young, unligni-
fied shoots; in both cases, the parts had been distinctly injured
by insects.

SUMMARY OF FIELD STUDIES AT ORBISONIA, PA.

During the fall and early winter of 1911-12, Mr. R. C. Walton
made a detailed study of an advance spot of infection at Orbi-
sonia, Huntingdon county, in Central Pennsylvania. The tract
covered some forty-six acres on the north and northwest slope of
a mountain. It had been cut over originally forty-five years
ago, and at intervals since, the last cutting being in 1908. Most
of the chestnut growth was coppice of four years standing.
Rather severe fire injury had occurred in 1902, and the land had
been pastured recently. Soil conditions and density of stand
varied considerably over the tract. The infection was found in
detached spots over about thirteen acres. There was one spot
that seemed to be the original centre of infection, dating back
two years; but elsewhere in the area there were lesions apparently
as old. Altogether three thousand and fifty-nine chestnut trees,
- sprouts, and stumps were examined and tyo hundred and eighty,
or 9.1 per cent. were found to be infected. Of these, practically
all were four year coppice growth. The oldest lesions were
seemingly two years old, and ten of these were found. The
youngest were for the current season, and of the total, about half
seemed to be less than one year old; and estimates of the age of
all the leSions indicated a very uniform rate of spread during
the two years. It may be added from a recent investigation that
153 trees in southeastern Pennsylvania, near Haverford exposed
to natural infection, carefully examined and marked as unin-
fected in January 1911, showed 25 trees infected in a recent ex-
amination. This would indicate something, perhaps, of the
‘apidity of the spread ot the disease, where observations were
made upon that point.

~
AD

Out of 18 sprouts showing two lesions, 15 had the younger
lesion above and 5 the older, which might indicate the probable
work of insects in carrying infection.

Sprouts were originally infected at the base in more than four-
fifths of the cases. Forty per cent. of the oldest lesions on
sprouts showed twigs as a centre of infection; eighteen per cent.
showed cracks, fourteen per cent. wounds; thirteen per cent.
beetle holes, eleven per cent. crotches, and four per cent. were in-
determinate.

More infections were found in medium dense growth than in
dense growth, and yery few in rather open growth. Of all in-
fections recorded, 47.3 per cent. were within twenty feet of old
logging roads, 7.4 per cent. from 20 to 50 feet away, and 45.5
per cent. at greater distance. Many more infections were found
where soil conditions were moderately moist than where they
were dry. Of 150 original sprout infections, 62, or 41 per cent.
had a north to northeast exposure; 20 or 15 per cent. a south to
southwest exposure; and the remainder ‘were about equally
divided between the other two quadrants of the compass. This
might suggest moisture again as an important factor.

There were 28 cases of pycnidia observed developing on wood.
Only eight trees larger than seven inches in diameter showed in-
fection. One of these had a lesion apparently two years old; and
half had the oldest lesion less than one year old. <All of the tree
infection was in the bark of the trunk, none in the tops. Half
had development of watersprouts in connection with the lesions.
Lesions in the bark of stumps showed fissures at their centres
in almost all cases, and in the oldest ones the pustules were
usually dark and in the aseus stage.

In connection with lesions on sprouts, trees, and stumps, there
were abundant evidences of animal association, principally
beetle and other large insect larvae, tunnels and holes; but also
woodpecker holes and claw marks, and ant nests and trails.
Most of the ant nests were in old dried stump stubs. Fully nine-
tenths of all old lesions showed beetle larvae in or near them.
These were mainly a species of Leptura. Of the youngest lesions,
about two-fifths showed larvae in or near them; and in all cases

56

there were about twice as many larvae in as near the lesions. It
would seem that these usually follow rather than precede the in-
fection.

Woodpecker work was noted in about one-tenth of the oldest
lesions, and not at all in the youngest lesions,—much less fre-
quently than beetle work. Ants were seldom found actually in
the lesions.

It is expected that careful observations of this same tract next
year and later, will add much to the value of the present very
complete records, which it has been possible to summarize only
briefly in this account.

A good deal is known about this parasite; very much remains
to be learned. As far as our present knowledge goes, the prompt
stamping out of advance spots of infection, and the general cut-
ting off of hopelessly infected tracts, seem to be the only practi-
cable means of control. No one perhaps realizes more keenly
than the speaker the difficulties of finding infection and thor-
oughly removing it in sparsely settled tracts of large extent and
of little value for timber. I have had occasion this last summer
to be on the outskirts of the line of spread of this disease through
the State, and I have seen numbers of these advance spots. It
seems that if we can find these spots and remove the timber, we
will be doing much to check the advance of this disease. In this
State the fight is on, and it is the part of all good citizens to c€o-
“operate in the work that is being done. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Caroline Rumbold, who is in charge
of important research work at the laboratory of the University
of Pennsylvania, will present a paper in relation to medicinal
remedies for the chestnut tree bark disease.

THE POSSIBILITY OF A MEDICINAL REMEDY FOR
CHESTNUT BLIGHT.

BY DR. CAROLINE RUMBOLD, IN CHARGE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION’S LABORATORY.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Although in the pro-
gramme, the title of my remarks has been given as the possibility
of a medicinal remedy for chestnut blight, 1 much prefer to con-
fine myself to a question of medicinal treatment as I believe it
would limit me too much were [ to try to discuss a remedy, a
cure-all, one might say, when we have only started to work out
the problems in the case. My main task is to attempt to find the
relation between the chestnut tree and the fungus which causes
its death; consequently my work is with individual trees.

The question of medicinal treatment should be considered
broadly from two sides. IT irstly, the side of securing better
health conditions for the chestnut trees, in order that they may
have the ability better to resist the disease. This we will call
preventive treatment. Secondly, the aspect of curative treat-
inent,

Under the first heading come the details of water, food, light,
in other words, matters of environment. As for water, there is
the question as te whether or not droughts of recent years are
partially responsible for the spread of the disease in the chestnut
tree. I am now conducting experiments in which chestnut trees
are being exposed to infection under varying conditions from dry-
ness to excessive moisture, both of atinosphere and soil. These
experiments may also throw some light on the report that the
blight spreads rapidly where trees are in a crowded coppice,
while trees growing on the ridge of a hill are uninfected.

In the matter of food, various fertilizers are being subjected to
tests on growing trees.

IT am about to start a series of experiments in which young
trees are to be grown in solutions of different chemicals, with

the object of hastening the growth of the bark, or of increasing

58

the amount of chlorophyll in the leaves, in order to find out.
whether or not such variations as this might increase the immu-
nity of a healthy tree. Under the head of preventive treatment
is also to be considered the care of wounds, etc. This subject
will be fully considered in this conference by other speakers.
My own work in this direction is confined to the testing of
“washes” submitted to the Pennsylvania Commission for trial.

If the question of preventive treatment is still so far from be-
ing satisfactorily answered, that of a curative treatment is in
a more inchoate condition. At most, I can describe the meth-
ods adopted in the Pennsylvania Commission laboratory, and in
which I shall attempt gradually to start experiments along the
following lines :—Experiments to test the relative vitality of the
mycelium of the fungus, its ascospores and the conidiospores
found in summer and those formed on wood during the winter;
injection into trees of chemicals toxic to the fungus causing the
blight; tests as to the immunity of different varieties of trees.
I have started some experiments along two of these lines, but
none is completed. According to my experiments so far, the
ascospores or Winter spores seem to have the greater vitality;
then follow the summer or conidiospores. The mycelium and
those conidiospores grown on wood seem to be equally suscep-
tible to poisons. The injection experiments which are to be
made are those where chemicals are injected into roots and
where hypodermic injections are made on the trunks of the
trees. These are of necessity dependent on the experiments
leading to the discovery of chemicals toxic to the fungus and
not deadly to the tree.

Experiments as to relative immunity of chestnuts are now
being conducted on two or three varieties of trees. Japanese
and American trees have been inoculated with the blight. Tor
the purpose of such experimentation, the Commission has been
given the privileges of the Botanical Laboratory of the Uni-—
versity of Pennsylvania, where a special room has been set
aside for my work. <A greenhouse has been recently completed,
in which a number of small chestnut trees are now growing.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next paper is entitled “Treatment

of Individual Trees,” by Professor J. Franklin Collins, United
States Department of Agriculture.

bo |
YS

TREATMENT OF ORCHARD AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.

BY PROFESSOR J. FRANKLIN COLLINS, U. S. DEP’T OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: lor the purpose of call-
ing your attention to one or two points that 1 want to emphasize
as a preliminary to my main topic, I will quote the opening para-
graphs of a story published in the fall of 1910 in a well known
popular magazine. The particular incident may or may not
have been true, it doesn’t matter, still, all who have had much
to do with the chestnut bark disease will recognize the incident
as a fairly typical one, with perhaps a slightly different setting.

The programme of experimentation thus outlined seems for-
midable, but this work must be thorough if any results of value
are to be obtained. It can be said that nearly all of these experi-
ments point to the possibility of curing infected chestnut trees.
Perhaps by the end .of another year the Pennsylvania Commis-
sion laboratory will be able to report, if less of a forward looking
programine, at least more of actual and valuable results. (Ap-

plause).

“A tall, lean man, with a grizzled beard and the air of wisdom
that goes with such adornment, strode across the lawn of an old
fashioned Connecticut country seat, and gallantly lifting his
dingy Panama hat to the mistress of the manse, said in impres-
Sive tones:

‘Madam, I have just been looking at your chestnut trees. They
are all covered with scale, and are dying. I can save them, if
you wish to have it done.’

>]

‘Can you?’ said the credulous woman, looking up to the dead
top of a noble tree. ‘I have noticed that there was something
the matter with them. Tow much will it cost?’

‘Let’s see,’ mused the tree-doctor. ‘Eleven trees, two dollars
apiece. Well, I'll make it twenty dollars for the lot. They're

worth more than that to you, ain’t they?’

60

‘I should say they were,’ said the owner of the estate. ‘My
husband said before he died that he wouldnt take five hundred
dollars for that big chestnut out in front there. I will willing!y
pay twenty dollars to have them saved.’ ‘All right. Let me get
my outfit.’

He went to his buggy, brought back a paper bag of powder and
a whitewash brush, and borrowed a pail, some water and a step-
ladder. In an hour he had swabbed the trees from as high as he
could reach from the ladder down to the ground, pocketed the
pleased widow's twenty dollars, got into the buggy, said ‘Gid-
dap’ to his horse, and was down at the next door yard, swabbing

more trees and pocketing more dollars.”

It is true that many unscrupulous persons have been making
money in a manner similar to the one mentioned in this story.
It is true also that the ravages of the disease, and especially the
legislative appropriation to combat it in Pennsylvania, have sud-
denly brought to light numerous unsuspected infallible cures for
all the ills (including the chestnut bark disease) to which trees
are or ever will become heir, if we should judge only from the
statements of the advertisers and inventors.

Apropos of this, the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission of
Pennsylvania might relate some of their experiences along this
line that would make more interesting reading than the above,
though the incidents were less profitable financially to the fakirs.

The main point that I want to emphasize, however, is that the
value of ornanmental trees cannot, like forest trees, be gauged by
the mere timber value of the wood, nor, like the orchard tree,
merely by the value of the annual crop of nuts. The chestnut
tree undoubtedly attains its highest value as an ornamental tree.
You will all recall, I am sure, certain estates where one or more
chestnut trees are the main aesthetic or decorative features. Per-
haps the tree may have been a veteran, famous in the country-
side, long before the present owner purchased the land and built
his domicile. Oftentimes the value of the ornamental tree is
largely enhanced by its location with reference to the house, and
even more largely, at times, by historic or ancestral traditions
with which if may have been, lone since, associated. The value
placed by the owner of the estate upon such tree may oceasion-
ally be almost without limit.

61

The very fact that the tree is of much greater value to its
owner than any tree in the forest could be, means that more
labor and more care, can and will be expended upon it, if it needs
it, than would be considered possible, from almost any economic
point of view, on either the orchard or the woodland tree. Con-
sequently some methods of combating the disease may be profit-
ably applied to ornamental trees that would not for a moment be
cousidered in connection with a tree in the forest.

At the very beginning of the experimental work undertaken
by the United States Departinent of Agriculture, this fact was
recognized, and has since been kept in mind. Considerable of
the experimental work has had for its main object the solving of
the problem as to whether or not it will be possible to eradicate
or control the disease on individual trees.

Notwithstanding the fact that much of this work has been
done in chestnut orchards, there are probably few orchard trees
that would be worth the expense involved in an attempt to save
them; however, on account of their smaller size and greater ac-
cessibility, they would be more profitable for individual treat-
ment than the forest tree. Consequently these orchard trees be-
come, in most cases, nothing more or less than experimental
martyrs for the possible future benefit of their more aestheti-
cally valuable ornamental kin.

It is yet much too early to make a very definite statement, cer-
tainly not a final report, upon the possibilities of being able to
control fully the Chestnut Bark Disease on ornamental trees
without recourse to the radical methods at present advocated
for controlling it in a woodland. Nevertheless, certain facts
have been repeatedly demonstrated in the course of the experi-
mental work which apparently point in a very encouraging man-
ner to the probable ultimate accomplishment of this highly de-
sirable end though perhaps not on a very encouraging economic
basis, as such a basis is usually figured.

IT want to call your attention to some of these facts, as well as
to the bearing that they may have upon control work of this
general character. But in order to make clear certain points I
must first refer very briefly to the general line of treatment
which is being followed in the experimental work mentioned.

62

This has been fully described in Farmer’s Bulletin No. 467, of
the United States Department of Agriculture, and need not be
considered in its entirety here.

For this work the most essential implements are a gouge, a
mallet or hammer, a pot of tar or paint, and a brush to apply the
latter; also a whetstone for keeping the gouge sharp. When a
diseased spot in the bark is located, it is carefully cut out with
the gouge and mallet, care being taken to cut the bark perhaps
one-half inch beyond the discolored area which is usually so
prominent a characteristic of diseased bark. It is extremely im-
portant that the gouge be kept scrupulously sharp. If it is dull,
the pressure required in forcing it through the bark will invari-
ably result in some injury to the delicate cambium cells at the
edge of the cut. This means that the new growth will start
back under the bark some distance, an eighth, a quarter, a
half inch, or even more, and not close to the edge of the cut,
where it should start under the most favorable conditions.

During the growing season the new growth begins to lift the
old bark within a week or ten days. If this growth does not be-
vin close to the edge of the cut, we shall find in the course of
three weeks, under the uplifted edge of the bark, the finest kind
of a shelter for all kinds of small grubs, beetles, ete.; all of which
are well known danger factors in connection with the spread
of the disease.

At most seasons of the year, it is highly important that the
edge of the cut along the cambium line be covered with paint or
tar as promptly as possible. This is an important, and often
essential, point in coaxing the new growth to start closer to
the edge of the cut than it ever would under perfectly normal
conditions. By using a sharp gouge and promptly covering the
cut edges, we have many times had the satisfaction of seeing
the new growth start within a thirty-second of an inch of the
edge of the cut, and be readily visible to the unaided eye in less
than a week. Anything better than this can scarcely be expected.
Of course, all portions of the cuts must be finally, carefully and
completely painted with tar, paint, or other suitable waterproof
coating, and it is, theoretically at least, a good plan to paint the
cut surface with copper sulphate or Bordeaux before waterproof
coating is applied.

63

In discussing ‘the possibilities pro and con of controlling the
disease on individual trees after it has become established, there
are many factors that should be clearly understood and carefully
considered. It should be determined just what bearing each
will have on the main problem, just how each unfavorable one
can be overcome or at least neutralized, just how each favorable
one can be made even more helpful in the fight; all these, and
more, if we are to enter the combat fully equipped. Irom
numerous points of view it is extremely unfortunate that the
disease has spread with such rapidity from its first known
centre, that nearly every person who has been detailed by the
States or the federal Government to work on the disease has,
of necessity, been obliged to devote most of his energies to lo-
cating or destroying infected trees, and relatively little or none
to the research or investigation phase of the problem.

Everybody who has had much to do with the disease will
agree with me, I am sure, when I say that in our efforts to con-
trol it we have been enormously handicapped by lack of just
such knowledge as comes only from systematic and painstaking
research. If we had this knowledge at the present time we
would undoubtedly see with clearness many things which are
now shrouded in the mistiness of uncertainty or in the darkness
of complete ignorance. Who, I wonder would venture to foretell
the effects upon the whole question of control if we had spread
before us a complete, or fairly complete, positive knowledge of
the many important points connected with the disease, about
which we now know so little; e. g., to mention a few of these, its
origin, methods of dissemination, detailed effects upon the host,

immediate cause of the death or the lost vitality of the spores,
resistance of spores and mycelium to toxic agents, climatic in-

fluence upon host and disease, the extent to which it is possible
artificially to introduce various fluids into the circulatory sys-
tem of a tree without killing it, the extent to which insects are
responsible for the spread of the spores, the precise knowlege of
the relation of birds, rodents, wind, etc., to dissemination of the
spores.

In attempting to control the disease on individual trees, there
are certain facts, as I have already stated, which have been re-

_* 64

peatedly demonstrated in the course of experimental work, that
are worthy of consideration at this time. I want to mention
and very briefly discuss six of these:

(1). Lateral or oblique conduction.

There seems to be a rather widespread (but erroneous) idea
that the crude aud elaborated sap of a tree can pass up and
down the trunk or branch only in a longitudinal direction, that
is, lengthwise of the fibres or “grain” of wood or bark, or at most
with but slight deviation from this route. The fact that it is
transferred almost entirely in a longitudinal direction in a
healthy uninjured tree may be true enough under normal con-
ditions, but it is far from true in trees that have been injured
in certain ways, and, as all students of plant physiology know,
not strictly true under perfectly normal conditions.

It is a fact of common knowledge that a tree will ordinarily
cover or grow over, an area of bare wood where the bark has
been removed. It is common knowledge to all observant persons
that these scars heal over mainly from the sides. In all proba-
bility this is largely because they adjoin the uninjured vessels
through which sap is being conducted in the normal longitudinal
direction, but doubtless in part also to other causes to which I
shall allude directly. If a partially or entirely healed over scar
should be dissected, it will be found that in the layers of wood
formed immediately after the injury the fibres are curved out-
ward around the injury, and continue in a nearly longitudinal
direction both above and below the scar. When the scar is par-
tially covered, the newly formed fibres are straighter, and finally
after the scar is entirely covered, the youngest fibres will be
found to have assumed their normal longitudinal direction, or
very nearly so.

If it were not for this possibility of oblique conduction, a tree
that had a large lesion extending half way around the trunk
on the north side, for instance, and an equally large one on the
south side, either above or below the other, would, to all intents
and purposes, be girdled.

In the chestnut tree, the angle from the perpendicular to
which these fibres can be made to curve, as a result of experimen-
tal cuttings, may seem surprisingly great. In one instance the

O65

writer very nearly succeeded in an attempt to force this new
growth to produce fibres at right angles to the normal direction :
i. e., they were made to bend more than SO degrees.

The fact that new fibres can, if necessary, be formed at such
a great angle from the normal is of very great advantage to the
chestnut in the process of healing over scars made, for example,
by cutting out diseased spots in the bark. As food is conveyed
through a plant in very dilute watery solutions, it is necessary
that a great amount of sap be circulated or conveyed to a point
where any considerable’ amount of food is demanded. If the
tubes which primarily convey sap should be severed, as when a
diseased spot has been cut out of the bark, the free transfer of
Sap is at most seasons of the vear immediately reduced to a mini-
mum in the severed or “dead ends” of these sap conducting tubes,
which from the point of view of circulation, now hold about
the same relation to the uninjured tubes that the stagnant arm
of a river does to the main river.

So far as the actual food is concerned, it is obvious that the
amount of sap necessary to supply the requisite food cannot
reach the upper and lower edges of a scar by means of the dead
ends of the conducting tubes as readily and rapidly as at the
edges where there is a. continuous stream of sap passing along
the uninjured tubes.

Oftentimes just below a broad scar which reaches to the wood,
and less often above it, a triangular piece of bark will die. This
is due directly or indirectly to the inability or great difficulty
that the sap has in reaching these places. In order to preclude
the possibility of the bark dying back either above or below a
sear, and thus furnishing favorable shelters for insects, the top
and bottom of the scar should be pointed instead of allowed to
remain abrupt or rounded. Under ordinary conditions it takes
no longer for a scar six inches long and an inch wide to heal
over completely than it does for one an inch long and an inch
wide, simply because the healing over depends almost entirely
upon the growth at the sides of the scar. As I have already in-
timated, all cuts should be made with instruments that are kept
very sharp.

(2). Mycelium in the wood.

5

66

The mycelium of the fungus almost always produces a very
characteristic mottled fan-like appearance in the bark, and ap-
pears to penetrate through the tissues of the bark but a short
distance, if at all, beyond this discolored area. The mycelium
also penetrates the sapwood very freely, when the disease reaches
as deep as the wood, as it generally does sooner or later; but,
unlike its effect in the bark, no pronounced discoloration is pro-
duced in the wood, and it is impossible to determine with the
unaided eye the approximate limits of the mycelium, as in the
case of the bark.

In all efforts to control the disease without destroying the
tree, it is of course necessary to gouge out this disease infected
sapwood. The depth to which it is necessary to remove it can-
not at present be definitely stated, as insufficient time has
elapsed to demonstrate this point experimentally. Many cut-
tings, some with the sapwood partially removed from beneath
a lesion, and others with all of it removed, are now being watched
for results. However, in a diseased spot from three to four
inches in diameter apparently at least three annual layers of
wood in the centre of the diseased spot must be removed.

Of course where sapwood is cut, enormous numbers of minute
tubes, which conduct the crude sap from the roots through the
trunk and branches to the leaves, are severed, and, should the
cutting happen to have been done during warm, dry weather,
it often happens that one or more branches directly above the
cut-out area will show much wilted leaves within an hour or
two. This is a direct and inevitable result of the suppression,
from any cause whatsoever, of a considerable portion of the sup-
ply of water for the leaves.

Considerable careful judgment may at times have to be used
when making cuts of this nature, and occasionally it may be
wise to remove one or more healthy limbs, or perhaps to strip the
foliage partially from a branch situated just above a place where
much sapwood has been removed. This will at least tend to pre-
vent wilting, which if excessive, may result in the subsequent
death of the branch.

(8). Preservation of exposed wood from decay.

If exposed surfaces of wood are left with no protective cover-
ing they soon become weathered, dried, checked, and easily in-
fected with fungi, causing decay of the wood, In the chestnut,

wye

67

moreover, there is the additional danger of infection from the
spores of Diaporthe parasitica. In order to reduce the chances
of infection from wood rotting and other fungi, it has been the
prevailing custom for many years m this country as well as
abroad, to paint all exposed surfaces of wood with tar or lead
paint. Judging from our own experience perhaps these are as
good general preparations for this purpose as any that we care
to recommend at this time, though they are not ideal and they
do not prevent the checking of the wood. Moreyer, they must
be renewed from time to time in order to accomplish permanent
good. Creosote is excellent for a preliminary coating, but it
sinks into the wood readily and apparently has waterproof quali-
ties of only temporary value. It should always be followed
(within a few days, for example) with some thick or heavy coat-
ing, such as_ tar or paint.

For preventing the drying back of the cambium layer at the
edge of a cut, we have so far found nothing better than orange
shellac. This does not long remain a waterproof covering under
ordinary conditions, and should, as in the case of creosote, be
covered with a heavy coating of paint or tar, say within two or
three weeks after it is applied. Many other preparations for
covering exposed wood have been tried, but those mentioned ap-
pear to have been the most satisfactory from the point of view
of our experiments on ornamental and orchard chestnut trees.

(4). Sanitation.

In cutting out diseased spots in the trunk or branches of
chestnut trees, the chips should be carefully gathered in papers,
or better, paper bags, and destroyed by burning. They should
not be left scattered about on the ground. In other words, sani-
tation is one of the essentials for success in this kind of work,
just as it is in the case of diseases of human beings. In all of
our experiments with the disease on one particular plot the
chips were left where they fell. No attempt was made to de-
stroy them. Later many of these chips were examined and ap-
parently good, though dormant, fruiting pustules were present in
the majority of cases. To take one particular case: In March,
1911, some diseased spots, with good fruiting pustules, were cut
from a chestnut tree and the chips left on the ground in a sunny
exposed place on a dry hill-top. These remained on the ground

; 68

throughout the spring, through the hot dry weather of early
July, and the drought of July and August. In early September,
two days after the almost unbroken week of rain during the lat-
ter part of August, these chips were again examined, and on a
few of them which were composed entirely of bark, two or three
inches long and half as wide, many spore threads were found.
These, remember, from chips that had been lying on the ground
for more than five months through the hot summer drought. Pos-
sibly this may be regarded as an extreme case, but in any event
it clearly emphasized the necessity of extreme care in destroying
-all diseased bark, chips, ete., in all attempts to control the dis-
ease. Again, extreme cases of the sort mentioned are often the
very ones that must be guarded against. In certain instances a
gasoline torch has proved an efficient adjunct for the burning out
of the diseased spot and thus destroying the fungus, whether or
not followed by the gouge and mallet.

(5))5. insects:

Soon after beginning work on the disease in 1908, our atten-
tion was irresistibly drawn to the evident intimate relation that
insects bore to the spread of the disease. It is singularly inter-
esting to note that practically every person who has been work-
ing on the disease in the field for any length of time has, sooner
or later, been strongly impressed with this very apparent inter-
relationship between insects and the chestnut bark disease. Per-
sonally, we have made many observations upon the topic, but as
this work properly belongs to another Bureau of the U. 8. Dept.
of Agriculture, we have limited our work to observations. flere
is a phase of the work that could easily influence the plans of
control to a large extent if we knew absolutely the relation of
insects to the disease. It is gratifying to know that the Commis-
sion has an expert entomologist already at work on this particu-
lar part of the general problem.

(6). Immunity.

From what is now known regarding the spread and virulence
of the Chestnut Bark Disease, there seems little immediate
promise of individual trees or variations of the American Sweet
Chestnut (Castanea dentata) developing immunity. As _ this

+

species is the only forest tree of the genus in the country, 1

69

would appear that the question of immunity can have practically
no direct or immediate bearing upon the saving of our forest
chestnut trees.

At the present time there is every prospect that we can rea-
sonably expect to procure immune pure bred varieties or species
of chestnuts from northern Asia and Japan. Indeed, we already
know that some of the Japanese and korean chestnuts are al-
most, if not quite, immune to the disease. I think it is safe to
say, Where Japanese varieties have been killed by this disease,
that in more than ninety per cent. of the cases which have come
under our personal observation, the trees have been grafted with
Japanese scions on American or Huropean stocks, and the Jap-
anese trees have been killed by girdling below the graft. We
have repeatedly observed such cases where the stock has been
absolutely covered with disease up to the graft line, with not a
sign of it anywhere on the Japanese portion. Naturally, this fact
in itself is strong proof of the immune nature of these particular
Japanese varieties. As these highly resistant, or perhaps im-
mune, trees are with us small, and the nuts, though often huge,
are of inferior quality, their value will be almost entirely as or-
hamental trees, and probably never, in our time at least, of any
value in replacing the American chestnut. If the better flavored
native and Paragon nuts should disappear from the market, we
would doubtless soon turn to the inferior Japanese nut as a sub-
stitute.

In recent years much has been accomplished along the line of
breeding hybrids or strains of plants which are not only often
fine in quality, but also highly resistant to disease. The results
that have been attained in this direction within a comparatively
few years are truly gratifying, but the future will witness
greater results. There is no reason to doubt that we may eyen-
tually see an immune hybrid chesinut that will rival the Ameri-
can sweet chestnut in flavor of the nut, and the Paragon in
size.

THE CHAIRMAN: You will recall that, while we were
listening to the addresses in response to the remarks of Gover-
nor Tener, the gentleman from Connecticut stated that he had

70

some results which he desired to present to us at sometime dur-
ing the Conference. It has been suggested to me that, as it is
a little late, it would be best to put over all general discussion
until this evening, when we are to have only one set paper and
at this time to call upon the gentleman from Connecticut, Pro-
fessor Clinton, who has his results in the form of two short
papers. If that meets with your approval, then, we will ask
Professor Clinton to speak at this time. He is not “a long, lean
man with a grizzled beard,” but he has some other points that
will commend themselves to us. (Applause).

PROFESSOR GEORGE P. CLINTON (Botanist, Connecti-
cut Agricultural Station): Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle-
men: The first paper that I will present is written by Profes-
sor Farlow, of Harvard University. For the benefit of those
who do not know Professor Farlow, I will say that he is the
oldest mycologist in this country, has had the greatest experience
in studying fungi and has some of the best herbaria dealing with
fungi, especially those bound in book form, known as Exsiccati,
in the world. He took up the study of the nomenclature of the
chestnut blight disease, at my request, about two years ago. He
has not supplied a title to the paper which I will now present.

PAPER BY PROFESSOR W. G. FARLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY,

MASSACHUSETTS.

The cause of the disease of chestnut trees prevalent in our
Kastern States is ascribed to the growth of the fungus named
Diaporthe parasitica by Murrill in 1906. If as is generally be-
lieved, this fungus is the cause of the disease, in searching for
the best method of combating it we not only should obtain all the
information possible in regard to the microscopic structure and
pathogenic action of the fungus, but we should see whether we
may not get some practical suggestions from what has been
written in regard to the distribution and pathological action of
fungi which are most nearly related to our chestnut fungus.

The first question we may ask is: Is Diaporthe parasitica, as
at first supposed, really a species new to science? If so, is it
a native species which has hitherto escaped the notice of our my-
cologists, or has it been introduced from some other country?
In disease due to fungi the presumption is always in favor of the

71

theory that they have been introduced when they produce sudden
and virulent epidemics, as in the case of the potato rot. The
presumption, I say, is in favor of this theory, but a presumption
it should be borne in mind is not a certainty. If Diaporthe para-
sitica is not a species new to science, what is it, and where did
it come from? The microscopic structure of the chestnut tree
fungus as we now know it, is well known, and its habit and its
reproductive organs have been described and figured in many
publications accessible to everyone. What, however, is not so
generally known is what has been written in times past on fungi
found on chestnut trees in different countries, and a review of
What is known to mycologists in this connection may he instruc-
tive although, it must be admitted, the subject is not very easy
to follow. On account of dried specimens in the older herbaria
and a summary of the often obscure and conficting descriptions
to be found in old treatises, even if desperately dull, will enable
us to form certain practical conclusions.

When I first received fresh specimens of the fruiting fungus
of the chestnut tree I was struck by their great resemblance to
what is generally known in American herbaria as Hindothia
gyrosa. Unfortunately most of the specimens of that species in
herbaria are sterile and from the habit alone one cannot be sure
of the species of a fungus of this group. The fresh fungus also
recalled a specimen I had seen in an Italian collection, and on
looking it up and comparing it miscroscopically with the fresh
material, I found the two to be identical. The gross structure
and the characters of the spores and asci were the same in both.
The Italian specimen to which I refer is No. 986, First Series of
the Erhario Crittogamico Italiana, issued in 1863. The label
states that the fungus grew on chestnut trunks at Locarno on
Lake Maggiore, where it was collected by Daldini in 1862. The
name there given is Endothia radicalis, but the question of the
name need not be considered at present. As other botanists
have examined the specimen just mentioned and agree as to
the identity of the Endothia radicalis and the Diaporthe parasi-
tica, some having already expressed their opinion in print, we
may state definitely that our American chestnut tree fungus does
not appear to be new but to have been known on chestnuts in
Italy fifty years ago.

(2

It may be well to glance at what has been written on the sub-
ject in Italy. The earliest reference known to me is that of Ru-
dolphi in Linnaea, 1829, where the Hndothia is said to grow on
Quercus Ilex, Q. pubens and Castanea vesca. Later accounts
were given by Cesati and De Notaris in 1863 in their Schema and
the Sphaeriacei Italica, where there is a good description and a
rather crude figure apparently drawn from somewhat immature
specimens, for the spores are represented as one celled, although
in the description they are said to be sometimes obscurely two-
parted. The fungus is said to be common on dried branches and
denuded roots of oaks and chestnuts in Northern Italy and to
occur also on elms.

Italian specimens were distributed in Rabenhorst’s Herbarium
Mycologicum, Thuemenis, Mycotheca Universalis and Saccardo
Mycotheca Veneta; but in the copies which I have examined the
specimens had spermogonia but no asci. The most recent notice
of the fungus in Italy is that of Traverso in Flora Italica Cryp-
togama, in 1906, who uses the name Nndothia gyrosa, It is said
to grow on Aesculus, Alnus, Carpinus, Castanea, Corylus, Fagus,
Juglans, and Quercus, and to occur not only in Europe and
North America but even in Ceylon and New Zealand.

We have early notices of the fungus in I*'rance. In 1830 Fries
stated in Linnaea that he had received it from that country and
Tulasne in his Carpologia, Vol. II, 1863, gave a long notice of
the fungus, which he says grows on Carpinus, with critical notes
on the synonymy of the species. In 1870 Fuckel recorded its
appearance as rare on Alnus at Oestrich in Nassau, and Winter,
in 1886, in Rabenhorst’s Crytogamen Flora, stated that the Wn-
dothia grew on different deciduous trees in Germany. The
records of the fungus in France and Germany are less satisfac-
tory than its record in Italy, and the specimens distributed from
the former countries in exsiccati are few and poor.

Irom this rather long account of the history of the chestnut
fungus in Kurope, we may draw the following conclusions: Our
chestnut tree fungus is widely spread in Europe and is common
in Northern Italy, where it was first noticed as long ago as 1829.
It is of interest to notice that writers are very generally agreed
that it grows on bark, dried branches, and dead roots, rather

than on living branches, and the hosts on which it is said to grow

are not merely chestnuts and oaks but a considerable number of
deciduous trees. Yet, although the fungus has been so well
known in Italy, where it is in some places certainly common,
there is no record whatever of any serious disease of the chestnut
due to it. The chestnut, which is a tree of great economical im-
portance in Italy, is subject to a good many diseases which have
been carefully studied by the Italian pathologists but, so far as
I know, not one has suggested that any is due to the Endothia.
Were it a fact that the Endothia, whatever specific name we
please to call it, is a species endemic in Italy but not found in
North America until the appearance of the present epidemic, we
could understand why the fungus might cause a serious disease
in this country although it causes no trouble in Italy, for, if in-
fected plants were imported from Europe, the fungus, as in other
well known cases, might be transferred to our native chestnuts
which unlike the chestnuts of Italy have not become immune.
Italian botanists did not and do not regard their chestnut En-
dothia as merely an endemic species but consider it to be the
same as Nphaeria radicalis described by Fries in 1828 from
North American specimens collected by Schweinitz. We learn
from Schweinitz, in his North American Fungi, that the species
Was very rare on roots of Fagus in North Carolina. The syn-
onymy is too complicated to be followed here but some reasons
why it is so complicated should be stated. Prior to the publica-
tion of N. radicalis, Schweinitz had in 1822 described a Sphaeria
gyrosa from North Carolina said to grow on Fagus and Juglans.
Later Fries made this species the type of a new genus, Endothia.
The earlier Italian writers regarded NS. gyrosa and NS, radicalis
as two distinct species, apparently basing their opinion on the
fact that Fries placed the two in different sections of the old
eenus Nphaecria rather than on an examination of American
specimens of the two species. Traverso and some later writers,
however, consider that the so-called two species are really only
two different stages of a single species. It appears to me that
their opinion is quite possibly correct, but the question can be
settled definitely only by an examination of original Schweinit-
“zian specimens. Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Stewartson
Brown I have been allowed to examine the specimens in the
Schweinitzian Herbarium in the Academy of Natural Sciences

74

in Philadelphia, and I have also examined Schweinitzian speci-
mens in the Curtis Herbarium at Harvard. Unfortunately I
have not as yet succeeded in finding a Schweinitzian specimen of
S. radicalis which shows ascospores; possibly none of the so-
called S. radicalis has ascospores, but I am not yet certain that
that is the fact. Specimens supposed to be S. gyrosa are com-
mon in American herbaria and have frequently been distributed
in different sets of exsiccati. Unfortunately of the considerable
number of specimens I have examined, the greater part were
sterile although judging by the habit alone, they might very well
be S. gyrosa.. I have, however, seen no specimens in the older
American herbaria where the fungus supposed to be S. gyrosa
was certainly growing on chestnut. In general the hosts were
not specificially stated but a large per cent. were evidently on
oak. There is a fungus common on oak in the Southern states
which has the external habit of Endothia, and appears fre-
quently in herbaria as HLndothia gyrosa. An examination of a
number of fertile specimens on oak from different localities, hay-
ing all the appearance of being 1’. gyrosa, has shown that the as-
cospores are unlike those of the Endothia of Northern Italy or
like those of what is called Diaporthe parasitica. Stated in
words the differences may seem to be slight but in practice one
can without difficulty distinguish the two. The spores of the
form on oak have hardly half the diameter of those of the chest-
nut and the spores are nearly linear. Naturally no definite ae-
count of the spores was given by Schweinitz and therefore ex-
cept by an examination of authentic specimens we are not able
to say whether the form on oak should be considered the true NS.
gyrosa of Schweinitz or not. As I have said, I have not yet been
able to complete my examination of original material, not as yet
having found mature S. radicalis.

Although further examination is necessary before expressing
a final opinion, certain facts seem to be settled. Our form on
chestnut called Diaporthe parasitica, described in 1906, and that
on chestnut in Italy collected by Daldini in 1862 are identical as
far as can be determined by a study of the dried, herbarium
specimens which we have been able to examine. As far as I have
been able to examine the older herbaria, I have found no speci-
men of Endothia on chestnut in North America. There is, how-

75

ever, an Endothia on oak not uncommonly found in fruit in the
Southern States which has spores which seem to me to be speci-
fically different from those found on the chestnut. The question,
however, is still open as to whether the form on chestnuts may
not also be found on oaks on further examination. If so, how-
ever, it must be less common, if I may judge by the considerable
number of specimens [ have examined, than the form with nar-
row, linear spores.

DR. JOHN MICKLEBOROUGH, of Brooklyn: Mr. Chair-
man: I would suggest that Professor Clinton be given the first
opportunity to present his own paper the first thing this evening.
We have had a very long session, and [ think the time has come
for adjournment.

THE CHAIRMAN: That seems an excellent ‘Suggestion.
What is the pleasure of the Conference? Is there objection to
it? If not, then, Professor Clinton, if it is agreeable to you, we
will ask you to present the other paper the first thing this even-
ing.

The Chair will remind you, gentlemen, that you are invited
to register and he would state, also, that the Committee on Reso-
lutions will be announced to-night. We will then now stand in
recess until sharp at eight o’clock, when we will again meet in
this chamber.

EKVENING SESSION.

Tuesday, February 20, 1912, eight o’clock P. M.

THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, the meeting will please be
in order. We will first hear the short paper that we had expected
to hear at the close of the afternoon session, by Professor Clin-
ton. (Applause).

SOME FACTS:AND THEORIES CONCERNING CHEST-
NUT. BEIGET;

BY PROFESSOR GEORGE P. CLINTON, BOTANIST, AGRICULTURAL EX-
PERIMENT STATION, CONNECTICUT.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen :—
At a recent meeting of the American Phytopathological So-

76

ciety held in Washington, D. C., during a discussion of the chest-
nut blight problem, the writer made the following predictions:

(1). That chestnut blight was not imported into the United
States from Japan; not saying that it does not occur in the lat-
ter country.

(2). That it is a native American species.

(3). That it is a previously described species.

(4). That there is evident relationship between its rise and
spread in this country and weather conditions.

(5). That it is impossible to eradicate it by the cutting out
method.

(6). That there will in time be a decline in its prominence
due to natural conditions.

(7). Unpublished—by which was meant that the fungus oe-
curs in Kurope.

I propose here to discuss some of these predictions, thus giv-
ing my reasons for presenting them. There have been advocated
two almost diametrically opposed views concerning the chestnut
blight in this country.

The first of these, if I understand it correctly, assumes that
the chestnut blight is a recently introduced disease, apparently
from Japan, and that its spread and destructiveness here have
not been at all influenced by weather conditions; that if left un-
controlled, it will continue to spread and devastate our forests
until they are practically ruined,

The second view, advanced by the writer, assumes that the
chestnut blight is a native American fungus, apparently also
indigenous to Europe, and that weather and other unfavorable
conditions, which have weakened the vitality of the chestnut
trees in the northeastern United States, have had much to do
with its sudden, destructive, and wide-spread appearance, and
that it will not necessarily wipe out all of our chestnuts, as it
is likely to decline gradually with the disappearance of the fae-
tors that have favored its rise into prominence.

Between these two extremes there are those who take one or
the other view in modified form, or agree in part with both. It
is highly important that the truth of the matter be ascertained,

since upon the nature of the fungus and the manner of its appear-

77

ance in this country depend in large measure the pragticability
or impracticability of the only method now advocated for its
control, namely, the cutting out and destruction of the diseased
trees. c

Before proceeding to a discussion -of the reasons why L hold
the view I do, let us consider for a moment the apparent reasons
for the other view. So far as I can make them out, they are as
follows:

(1). The trouble appeared suddenly and seriously, and as it
is unusual for a fungus thus to spring up in a country where
it has never been known before, it is presumably an imported
one.

(2). But such a serious disease of chestnuts has never been
known before in any other country. However, insects and weeds
and fungi also, that have been comparatively inconspicuous in
their native countries, when introduced into a new country,
sometimes develop into serious pests because of their new and
unusually favorable surroundings.

(3). The Japanese species of chestnut has apparently shown
considerable immunity to the chestnut disease, more so than any
other. It may therefore be supposed that the fungus is an in-
conspicuous native of Japan, and was brought into this country
on seedlings from there. It spread to our native chestnuts, and
finding these much less resistant to its attacks, has suddenly
spread through the regions in which it is now known to occur.

(4). The preceding statements being true, there is no reason
why it should not go on spreading, and annihilating the chest-
nuts of the eastern and southern United States.

(5). Preliminary cutting out experiments in a region with-

’

in thirty-five miles of Washington, D. C., are claimed to have
prevented the spread of the disease in that region, and based on
this, the much more extensive work in Pennsylvania is now being
carried on, and similar work is advocated in other States to
prevent its further spread through the south and west.

Now, if the preceding points are true, Pennsylvania has pos-
sibly taken a wise step in trying to control the disease. That it
~ ean ever be eradicated, the writer does not believe for one in-
stant, and he has serious doubts about the control being effective
or financially profitable, since it means a continuous fight, much

78

like the gypsy moth work in Massachusetts, to prevent re-infee-
tion. If the above points, however, are not true, it seems to me,
at least, that the efforts for control planned for this State will be
time, money and trees thrown away.

The author of the first view has not, to my knowledge, claimed
that the chestnut blight was imported from Europe, or that the
Kuropean chestnuts in this country are especially immune to
the disease. If he should ever advocate that it is a Kuropean im-
portation, I do not see how he can account for the fact that it
has caused no very noticeable trouble on that continent, and yet,
when introduced here, kills off the European chestnuts as readily
as the native ones; unless he admits that weather or other con-
ditions have been unfavorable for these chestnuts, and have thus
favored the development of the fungus.

Proceeding now to my own theory, let me take it up point by
point.

First, that the chestnut blight is a native of this country. In
1909 I sent to Professor Farlow, of Harvard University, the first
specimen of Diaporthe parasitica that he had examined, and
asked his opinion as to whether or not it was the same as a cer-
tain species that Schweinitz had years before described on chest-
nuts from this country. He replied that it was not, but that it
agreed more perfectly with the genus Endothia than with Dia-
porthe, and that it was closely related to, but apparently dis-
tinet from, Lndothia gyrosa. Endothia gyrosa was originally
described from Carolina and Pennsylvania by Schweinitz as
Sphaecria radicalis and Sphaeria gyrosa, and reported by him on
Fagus and Juglans. It has since been reported in the United
States on Liquidambar and Quercus species, chiefly on the lat-
ter. :

With the clue furnished by Professor Farlow, I found and so
stated in my 1908 report, that a specimen of Hndothia gyrosa
on chestnut collected by Scarrado in Italy had been issued in de
Thuemen’s Myc. Univ. No. 769, and that so far as its gross ap-
pearance and pyecnidial stage (the only stage present in my speci-
men) were concerned, I could not distinguish it from Diaporthe
parasitica Murr. As the ascospore stage was not present, I did
not venture to claim that they were the same species.

7

The writer has since made a careful hunt for Ludothia gyrosa
and has specimens of it on two species of oak collected in Cou.
necticut and the District of Columbia. Cultures have been made
of these, and from Diaporthe parasitica on chestnut obtained
from the same localities. Our studies of these cultures and
specimens from yarious localities are not yet complete, but they
have gone far enough to say definitely that Diaporthe parasitica
belongs in the same genus with the Lndothia gyrosa on oak, and
at least is very closely related to it, though at present my opinion
is that they are distinct species. Professor Farlow has also
made further studies, and I have presented his paper on the
subject.

We have not been able so far to find in literature a reference to
Hndothia gyrosa on chestnut in this country before the outbreak
of Diaporthe parasitica in 1904. | Neither have we found speci-
mens in an herbarium that were collected before that date. We
have not, however, quite exhausted all opportunities for investi-
cation along this line. If it is ever proved that our Hndothia
gyrosa on the oak is exactly the same as Diaporthe parasitica on
the chestnut, of course it is at once apparent that Diaporthe para-
sitica is a native and not an imported fungus.

A second observation that leads me to believe that Diuperthe
parasititca is a native species is the fact that frequently in Con-
necticut I have found it as a languishing parasite on the roots
and base of trees, where it was doing no very apparent harm,
and this is somewhat the way Hundothia gyrosa occurs on oak
here and elsewhere, and is also the way that the so-called Hn-
dothia gyrosa on chestnut acts in Europe, where it causes no
particular trouble. This makes me_ believe that these
particular occurrences of Diaporthe parasitica in Connecticut
represent the fungus in its native condition as an inconspicuous
parasite, rather than as an introduced pest that is bound to kill
those particular trees. Likewise, I believe that at least part of
the so-called spread of the disease in this country is merely an
unusual development of the fungus which has existed there for
years in an inconspicuous way.

A third indication that the chestnut blight is a native species
is a comparison of the situation of Hndothia gyrosa in Europe
and in this country. In Europe Endothia gyrosa has been re-

SO

ported on chestnut, oak and various other hosts in different
places, but apparently the natural home of the fungus is Soutl-
ern Europe, as it has been reported most frequently from Italy
and France. In Germany, Winter reported that it produced its
pycnidial, but not its perfect stage, though both are found in
Italy." Now, if Hndothia gyrosa has a variety of hosts, including
chestnut, in Europe, and prefers a southern habitat, what of its
preferences in this country? From an examination of literature
and of specimens in the New York Botanical Gardens, it is ap-
parent that Mudothia gyrosa has been reported much more fre-
quently south of Pennsylvania than north of it. For two years,
I and others have been looking for it in Connecticut, and only
this winter was it found by our forester. This specimen, like
those reported by Winter from Germany, has only its pyenidial
stage, though this is the time of year to find the asco-stage. /)i-
dothia gyrosa las been found on as many hosts in this country

as in Hurope, and likewise chiefly from the south. Why may we
not then expect to find it there on the chestnut? We certainly]
have had trouble enough with the chestnuts in the South in for-
mer years to believe that it might occur there.*

The second point expressed in my view is that the chestnut}
blight fungus is also a native of Europe. Briefly stated, my rea-
sons for this belief are: (1) The specimens in deThueman’'s
exsiccati on chestnut in Italy already referred to; (2) the state-
ment of Professor Farlow that he has seen identical herbarium
specimens of it from Europe; and (3) a recent letter from Pro-
fessor Saccardo of Italy, who states that he and Professor Hol-
nel simultaneously recognized that Diaporthe parasitica Murr.
is the same thing as Hndothia gyrosa, both in its ascospore and
conidial stages. A critical study of more specimens on all hosts
from each country may, however, settle differently some points’
at present not clear to me.

*After the Harrisburg conference the writer went South especially to see if Pndothia gyrosa or
Diaporthe parasitica occurred there on chestnut, as suggested in this paper, though never having

been so reported. Stops were made at Roanoke and Blacksburg, Va., Bristol. Va., and in Ten-
nessee and at Asheville and Tryon, North Carolina, and Lynchburg, Va., and at each place there
was found the suspected fungus on both chestnut and oak, and more frequently on the former, This
fungus occurred asa languishing parasite or as a saprophyte, usually at the base or on the roots of
the trees, and was never found forming isolated ecankers on the otherwise sound sprouts, as is
Diaporthe parasitica in the North. Apparently this fungus is the same on both the oak and
chestnut, and the same thing as the so-called Endothia gyrosa on the same hosts in Eurepe. What
its exact relationship is to Diaportha parasitica has not yet been fully determined. In gross ap-|
pearance its fruiting pustules are searcely different, except possibly slightly less luxuriant,
as a rule. Its pyecnidial spores or Cytospora stage is apparently identical with that of PD. para-|
silica, but the asco-spores are evidently as a whole less luxuriant; that is, they are somewhat}
smaller, and especially slightly narrower. Whether these differences are those of a strain, yariety,
or distinct species, is yet to be determined by cultures, inoculations, and further study.

Sl

The third point in my theory is that weather and other un-
favorable conditions have weakened the vitality of the chestnut
in the eastern United States, and that the fungus has developed
into prominence because of this. The reasons I have for advocat-
ing this theory are as follows:

(1). The chestnut blight came into prominence suddenly in
1904, just after the severe winter of 1903-4. From my own ob-
servation at that time and since, I know that this winter was un-
usually severe on fruit, and to a less extent on shade and forest
trees in Connecticut. I am corroborated in my views by the ob-
servations of Professor Stone, botanist of the Massachusetts Ex-
periment Station, who has made a specialty of the diseases and
injuries of shade and forest trees. Various experiment stations
and other publications show that the fruit trees in New York,
Michigan and Ohio suffered from this, and possibly from subse-
quent cold winters.

(2). Sinee 1907, speaking particularly for Connecticut, we
have had five summers with unusual periods of drought, culmi-
nating with that of last season, which lasted from June until
about the first of August. I know that these droughts have been
hard on forest and shade trees from their weakened condition
and from the unusual number that have died. Except in the
ease of chestnuts, the death of these trees has been laid directly

to the drought, by many observers. I have given somewhat more

detailed accounts of these weather conditions in my previous re-
ports, and will not dwell further on them here. We have found
‘that chestnut trees on the south and southwest exposures, (and
on that side of the trees) where they have suffered most from
drought and winter injury, have sometimes developed severe outt-
breaks of the blight, while the trees on the more protected nortl-
ern exposures in the same vicinity did not.

(5). We have found cases of chestnut blight developing more
severely in woods suffering from fire injury than in surrounding
woods not so injured. It has been our almost universal experi-
ence that blight develops first and most severely in the easily in-
jured chestnut sprouts from one to ten years old, whose new
roots have not yet become thoroughly established, and last on the

6

82

Sm

sturdy old seedling trees. Hlow many times we can renew our
chestnut woods by sprout growth is a question, but that such
trees in time are weakened foresters generally acknowledge. Most
of our Connecticut chestnut timber has already been cut over at
least two or three times.

(4). The unusual spread of the disease in very dry years is
contrary to the general experience of fungous troubles, which
are favored by moist years; and yet here is a case where the
severer the drought, the worse the fungus became. If I am
wrong about its relation to weather conditions, what a
deluge of trouble we may expect with the return of a few moist
years!

As to my statement that chestnut blight cannot be eradicated
in this country by the cutting out and burning method perhaps
no one now thoroughly conversant with the trouble will deny,
though there are those that evidently believe it can be controled
in this way. Man never yet has eradicated a fungus so widely
distributed as this, unaided by nature, and is never likely to un-
less he eliminates the host. Professors Stewart and Murrill have
given reasons why they believe it is impractical even to try to
control the disease. I agree in the main with their contentions.
The method that is advocated in the present case aims at the com-
plete destruction of the infected trees and in some regions, if I
am informed correctly, of the healthy as well. This is a decidedly
unusual procedure in the control of plant diseases, since usually
we aim to save not only the healthy plants but the infected ones
as well. I know of no similar practice, outside of nursery in-
spections, except that applied in a few regions for the control]
of peach yellows. There the infected trees only are destroyed,
but the yellows would kill those any way in a short time. There
is, howeyer, no National effort to control peach yellows even in
this way and at least one State, Connecticut, that started under
authority of law to inspect orchards and to destroy all infected
trees, repealed that law after a few vears’ trial.

Now as to my last contention: that the disease of itself will
eradually decline with the return of a series of years favorable
to the chestnut trees. If unfavorable weather conditions for the
trees have been the chief cause of the rise of the fungus as an
ageressive parasite, favorable weather conditions for the chest-

¢

83

nut will of course bring about the decline of the fungus, unless it
has already attained an unusual and lasting virulence from its
present aggressiveness.

That chestnuts have in the past in our southern States sulfered
from disease or injury of some kind yet unaccounted for, no one
who has looked up the literature of the subject can deny. I have
gathered together statements of this sort from various sources,
but will not take the time to present them here. From the fact
that no trained mycologist has studied these outbreaks in the
past, and from the further fact that the observers often speak
of them by such terms as “blight,” “root rot” and so forth, and
did not find insects responsible, I, for one, am open to proof as
to their relation to Diaporthe pasasitica, despite the statement of
two or three observers who have recently examined trees in the
South, that there is no such relationship. Anyway, the chest-
nuts have suffered severely in these States at different times dur-
ing the past seventy-five years, and have been apparently
crowded out of the lower lands, but they still seem to be quite
vigorous and abundant in the higher regions of those States,
since the chief object of the campaign in fighting Diaporthe para-
sitica seems to be to keep it north of the Potomae River in order
to preserve the valuable timber said to exist south of it.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are now to be favored by hearing an
illustrated lecture on Chestnut Culture, the speaker being Pro-
fessor Nelson T°. Davis, of Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.

CHESTNUT CULTURE.

AN ILLUSTRATED LECTURE BY PROFESSOR NELSON F. DAVIS, OF
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY, LEWISBURG, PA.

Mr, Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: TI wish to take you
to-night on a little trip to Irish Valley, situated near Shamokin,
Pa. I will take you on this trip by a series of lantern slides.

1 wish to show you to-night what has been done in spite of ene-

&4

mies, by Mr. C. K. Sober, who has been working with the Para-
gon chestnut since 1896 and 1897. In 1896 Mr. Sober began to
eraft the Sober Paragon chestnut, as it is now called, on native
chestnut sprouts. He had on his farm in Irish Valley about four
hundred acres of waste mountain land. This mountain land he
wished to reclaim. It was not suitable for ordinary farm crops.
His method was to remove everything and, by means of cleanli-
ness, which he obtained by using the grubbing hoe, the saw, the
axe, and the pruning knife, and then burning everything, to keep
his growth clean. In this way he hoped to keep out the enemies,
such as the weevil, and another worse than the weevil, the burr
worm. There are two species of the burr worm, one of which is
new to scientists. It belong to the genus //olcocera, and has been
named. in honor of Mr. Sober, Holcocera Soberii. The other
larva, the adult of which is not known, is equally injurious. By
means of removing the nuts as soon as they emerge, removing
the burrs from the grove and burning the shucks as soon as the
nuts are taken out, Mr. Sober on fifty acres has practically re-
moved the weevil and burr worm, so that last year the nuts
gathered from fifty acres contained scarcely a peck of wormy
chestnuts. He has done this by means of cleanliness in every way,
and by removing the larvae and not allowing them to mature, In
other parts of the grove it has not been possible to do this in
every respect, and there the weevil is an enemy. It has been his
custom, during the last ten years, to remove every dead limb that
has appeared in the four hundred acres and if there was chestnut
blight, it has been cut off and burned. An actual count of the
chestnut trees now in the grove showed forty-four thousand and
thirty-five trees that are bearing, and in addition to those there
are others that are not yet matured.

By means of these slides I will take you in harvest time over
the grove as it now is, and then, by means of other slides which
I have taken during the last ten years, show you the various steps
that have been taken in developing this grove. If we may have
the lantern, we will begin our trip.

The first slide is a portrait of Mr. C. K. Sober. (Applause).

The next slide represents a portion of a fifty-acre tract, as it
appeared when he took possession of it. It was covered with
waste wood of various sorts. Very little of this was of any use.

A typical cluster of burrs of the Paragon chestnut.

at

ke Les. C

85

Some could be used, of course, for pulp wood; but notice, among
the old stumps, there are a few sprouts coming up. These are
sprouts of the native chestuut, and it was upon these sprouts
that Mr. Sober conceived the idea of grafting. Of course, it had
been done elsewhere, but not upon his four hundred acres. That
was the beginning of his Paragon chestnut.

As we approach the grove at the present time, you will see the
mountain side in Irish Valley from this view. This shows on
the hillside from a distance a portion of the four hundred acres,
which is now grafted, and from one end of the picture to the
other represents a distance of over a mile.

In the next view, as we approach the farm, coming near to the
buildings, you can see the nature of the surrounding country,
the hillside. Back in the centre of the picture, at the top, is
ninety acres now grafted to the Paragon chestnut.

In the next view we see the farm buildings and, starting from
the buildings, we will now visit the grove as it appeared last
October.

Driving up the road you notice along the roadside everywhere
seedlings grafted to the Paragon. They have been transplanted,
and all along the road wherever you drive, you will see these
trees.

As we approach the grove, you can see its condition in this
view. This is a portion of the four hundred acres. There are
Shown in the view about three hundred acres. Above you see the
the mountain side, as this grove would now have been had he not
cleared it.

A nearer approach to the grove shows the grafted trees, and
above them the native chestnut principally. This land was ori-
ginally covered with, I suppose, white pine. That was removed
and later hard woods came in its place, oak, chestnut, and other
hard woods. Now it meant considerable work removing and
clearing and grafting these trees, and I wish to show you the
various stages as we pass along. |

As we enter the grove, it is harvest time, as shown in this view.
They are gathering the nuts, which have been placed in bags at
this particular portion, so that we are just entering the grove.

86

In the next view, the largest tree at the right is about nine
years old. Really the work from 1896 until 1900 consisted in
experimenting. When the methods were perfected, the real work
began, in 1900.

Another portion of the grove shows a tree on which the nuts
are maturing. This tree is about eight years old.

A branch from that tree shows the nuts almost ripe, just ready
to open. If we examine under the trees, many of the burrs are
fallen to the ground. You can see the burrs and the nuts in the
burrs. It is harvest time and the harvesters are gathering the
nuts and placing them in piles, whence they can be hauled to
the threshing machine, which will be shown later.

The next view shows a normal burr, containing three nuts.

I will now show the different stages through which fifty acres
of this four hundred have passed. I do not have the photographs
taken in 1896 and 97. The photographs 1 have were taken be-
ginning with 1903 up to the present time. This view shows the
work of removing the brush piles, which were left on the ground.
These had to be burned, the logs removed and all the sprouts pro-
tected. Every native sprout was protected in every way from
fire and from injury, and in the front of this view you see a num-
ber of sprouts that have been left. These are ready to be grafted.
When the logs are hauled out, these have to be protected; when
fires are made, to burn the brush and rubbish, these need to be
protected. A sawmill was set up, and what wood was valuable
used either for railroad ties, or mine props, or pulpwood, for
whatever it could be used, so that it partly paid for clearing.

When the sprouts are ready to graft, they are about six feet
high. Four sprouts are here shown. The two on this side were
cut off about the point where the hand is, and these two were
selected because, coming from the stump, they came from lower
down and a little farther out and apparently had better roots.
So two were selected and two were left. The two were grafted
on this side and two left, in case of injury to the other two; so
that, if anything happened, the others could be grafted the next
season.

Old trees were cut down in different parts of the farm. This
shows a giant tree that was cut in order that this little sprout at

87

the side might be grafted. This was about two years after the
tree Was cul.

This shows another tree from which four sprouts were grafted,
This was grafted in May, and in June the sprouts were started.
Of course, all buds below the graft were removed in order to pre-
vent the strength passing iba, cie buds.

This view shows the same grafts as they were maturing dur-
ing the first summer. Three have started; the fourth was a little
slow in starting.

Here they are shown after one season’s growth. The roots
from the old stump contained lots of nourishment and pushed the
growth rapidly, so that during one season the growth that you
see took place. This was taken in October.

Another view showing one season’s growth, after the leaves
had been removed. This shows four sprouts grafted. They are
growing together.

This is a typical sprout after the first year’s growth. Notice
it makes a fan-shaped tree. At this point, sometime during the
early spring this limb would be cut off here (indicating), this
one and the one at that point, thereby insuring the next year a
low crown. The growth is so rapid that frequently the wind
would break them off if they were not cut back, so that it is much
better to cut them back.

The next view shows a grafting outfit. These are the sprouts
cut from the Paragon trees, called the “scions,” to be grafted on
the native sprouts. This shows the tape, which is waxed, and
some of the grafting wax. This is the machine for winding the
waxed tape, previous to the beginning of the grafting.

The wedge graft was used first. This view shows the method
of insertion of the wedge graft. It is then waxed and wound
with the waxed tape. The wedge graft was used by professional
grafters who were employed in 1897, 1898 and 1899, but only
about two per cent. survived. The season is very short during
Which this could be used, because the bark separates from the
stock so early that the union would not take place.

This view shows one of the trees, showing a successful union
of the wedge graft. This is one of the oldest trees now to be

seen in the grove.

88

This view shows a wedge eraft, one of the original ones, that
cid grow. This photograph, I think, was taken in 1903, but
only about two per cent. of the grafts in 1897, 98, and 99 lived,
so that there are only a few of these surviving. The wedge graft
method was consequently abandoned.

Then budding was tried. This method you are familiar with.
This is the bud to be inserted. It is then inserted, wrapped with
wax and covered with the cloth. This method, however, was not
successful when used in the grove. A few of them lived. The
next view shows such a case; two on either side are buds that did
live, and in the centre is a whip graft. Here is one that was suc-
cessful. After a time the tree heals up perfectly at the union.

This view shows the manner of inserting the knife in the whip
graft. It should be inserted at a considerable depth. ‘This one
is shown with the top cut off ready for grafting. This is the
sprout, on which the graft is to be set.

This shows another view of the whip graft, the method that
has been successful. This came in 1900, when Mr. Sober person-
ally took charge of the grafting. He instructed green men
rather than professional grafters and had them use his method,
being particular to make the scion fit perfectly to the stock.
It is then inserted and driven down so that the tongue holds it
at that point; it is cut back a little later, waxed there (indicat-
ing) and the bud is allowed to develop.

This view shows the completion of it. The stock may be even
a little larger than the scion. It is better to have them the same
diameter. It is then waxed and wrapped with tape and a little
piece of wax put on the top of the scion to keep the moisture in.
This is the most successful method with chestnuts.

This shows one after the graft has started. This is waxed
muslin, which is old muslin that will tear readily as the tree
grows, and will remove itself, so that it does not girdle the tree.

This is after one year’s growth, the union practically complete
all the way around.

The next view shows a through section, showing the complete
union. Here is the tongue which held them together; and here
is another section through. Occasionally they decay at that
point. This shows a perfeet union of the whip graft.

89

It is very necessary to keep the buds removed from below the
graft. The four grafts shown in this view started, all of them,
but the buds below took all the strength from them. The bark
has been removed from the three on this side; from the other it
has not. The sap, of course, flows along the line of least re-
sistance and takes all the strength and the graft dies.

The next is a photograph to show the Paragon grafted on oak.
The tree is still living. The oak now is smaller in diameter than
the chestnut, the chestnut growing faster. This was not very
successful; still, it is succecssful to the extent that it lives and
bears nuts.

A defective union. At that point (indicating) enemies can
enter,—fungi and beetles. The wind also will frequently break
olf a tree at the point of union, if the union is not perfect. A
sprout was allowed to mature on this and later was grafted.
The growth is very rapid, and the chestnut not being a strong
wood, many were lost in this way where the union was defective.

This is a portion of the fifty acres as it appeared six years ago.

Ilere we have a view of it a little later. All the roots of the
other trees begin to sprout and it is necessary to clean out every-
thing. If the underbrush is allowed to grow, it will, sooner or
later, choke out the trees and will allow enemies to develop; you
cannot keep it too clean. Fires will run through it; so Mr.
Sober early found that it was necessary to keep the growth
clean. Many parts of it are now clean enough to mow with a
lawn mower. In many places the grass is beginning to grow.
I wish you would notice how clean the grove is in places. This
is the condition soon after the grafting. Then it was necessary
to employ from twenty-five to fifty men to clean out and, in
order to save the young grafted trees, screens were made. At
one time I saw as many as twenty-five of these screens. They
were covered with asbestos to protect them from the fire, and
the young sprouts that have been grafted are back of the screens.
These men are grubbing.out and cleaning, trying to get the
eround clean enough to raise grass.

This view shows one of the screens a little nearer and some
of the men, who rested a moment while I took the photograph.

90

Here they are again. Even after the trees are of this size, it
is necessary to finish the cleaning. They are cleaning out every-
thing; any suspicious sign, any dead tree, is cut out.

Another view showing them carrying the material to the
screens for burning,—grubbing out sprouts, so that later it was
possible to run a specially constructed mowing machine through
it, and much of the undergrowth could be cut off in that way.
It is possible to run a mowing machine through nearly all of the
four hundred acres, except where there are too many stones,

Originally the idea occurred to Mr. Sober to graft the tops of
a few of the trees, and we had full sized trees in which eight or
ten grafts were set on the top. This view shows one where the
top was grafted; this one is another, with the top grafted. That,
however, did not prove successful, because you would have only
« few limbs in the top, and in a little while the others would
catch up with them.

Here is another view of a tree grafted at the top, and this a
younger tree, two years old, beginning to bear nearly as many
nuts as the grafts at the top of the other tree. You can see,
therefore, why that method was abandoned. The Paragon be-
gins to bear very early, the second year after grafting; occa-
sionally the first year a burr or two will mature.

Now the grove is beginning to look cleaner. These trees are
two or three years old. This was taken in the summer time, in
June, before the trees had blossomed. This is a young tree two
years from the time the graft was set, really the third summer
for it; a typical tree. It is now making independent roots for
itself and in a little while it will be free from the old stump.
Many of the old stumps are still standing. Some of them have
rotted away.

Another portion of the grove, just a little later, showing trees
one, two, and three years old, and the tops of a few trees that
were grafted in the top.

This view shows two trees by the roadside, one two years old;
the other in the third season of its growth. Notice the shape.
They were cut low, so as to secure this low crown, which makes
it convenient in harvesting the nuts. It keeps the trees low.
It is like it is with a peach tree; the shape is much the same as
that of a peach tree.

~

brie pes al hit

Group of Paragon chestnut trees, two, four and six years old.

91

This is a view of an ideal tree, three years old, with a low
crown, two feet from the ground.

In this view, the huckleberries are beginning to grow under-
neath; all through the grove the huckleberries have filled prac-
tically everything. The ground has been burned over, to burn
up the leaves and the burrs, which contain the enemies, and the
huckleberries and chestnut sprouts are coming up; but it is nee-
essary to keep these down.

This view shows how that same ground was cleared, and
how it appeared in the winter time. Everything that could
be removed was grubbed off and burned, the screens which you
saw before being used.

This is a young tree, three years old, in the third summer.
From that tree three hundred burrs were removed. Two lun-
dred were left to mature. This was too many, and many of
them dropped otf. The leaves were picked from that same tree,
and this view shows it with over a hundred burrs in which the
nuts are practically ripe.

This is the grove as it appeared in 1904. This is a portion
not of the fifty acres, but a portion in the flat which was grafted
about 1800, some of it in 1899. Notice now that the grass is be-
ginning to grow below the trees. The stumps are there, but the
tree is becoming independent. It is now possible to have the
mowing done by means of cattle and sheep in the grove.

This is another view showing trees out by the edges, as the
sprouts come up. They were grafted until there is a stand all
over the four hundred acres, and now it is necessary to use the
axe to trim out, because they are too thick.

Another portion, showing a four-year old tree, with nuts.

This view shows the trees a little older. This was taken in
1910 and shows the character of the mountain side. It is coy-
ered with stones; impossible to mow around it; it has to be
grubbed,—but an ideal place. The stones help to keep the mois-
ture in the ground and the trees do exceptionally well.

This is another tree, a photograph taken in 1911. It was in
October and the nuts were ripening on the tree.

The next view shows part of an old hedgerow that had grown
up with everything. Stones from the field on either side of
this had been thrown along a gully that existed there at one

92

time. In that row, in which there are altogether about twenty-
nine trees, three years ago there matured nine and a half bush-
els of nuts, just on that old hedgerow, that could not be used for
anything else, and full of stones. Some of the trees in that row
last fall had almost half a bushel of nuts on single trees. The
trees on the four hundred acres last year were practically all
bearing; some of them less than a pint to the tree; others almost
half a bushel to the tree.

This view was taken in 1903, or 1904. Notice the size of the
trees, especially. About five hundred sheep were put into the
erove and they are doing the mowing and fattening themselves,
Where the machine is no longer needed.

This view shows the same trees in 1911. The fence by the side
shows the growth from 1904 to 1911. They are rapid growers,
because they have a good root system.

This is a view of the ridge, a portion of the ridge that has a
southern front. There are ninety acres grafted, and all bearing.
The red spider appeared on this southern side, the sunny slope,
and interfered with the growth.

Here is a near view on the three hundred acre lot. It shows
the condition which might have existed up to the top of the ridge.
That is Mr. Sober’s line. A fence is built,—you can just see
the posts,—and that fence is a mile long, running from one end
to the other, and below it is what you see and above is waste
mountain land, containing chestnut and rock oak. Through
that, of course, fires run every now and then and it is necessary
to establish fire lanes at the upper end, so that below the fence
is a fire lane which will prevent a fire from getting into the
grove.

This photograph shows what was there in 1896 and 1897—that
same grove that you saw up at the edge. This has been possi-
ble with Mr. Sober, and it is possible anywhere where the chest-
nut grows. You can make the change from this to what you
saw before.

This is the identical spot that you were looking at in the pie-
ture preceding. The preceding picture was taken five years
ago, and here it is to-day. These trees have been grafted two
years and three years, and they are bearing. On this fifty acres
ever since they have been bearing, every nut, practically, has

*s]nujs

ayo uo

BR.

1B]

7
oo

ulysaty] pure

a
oO

SUMSOATBTT

His)

been removed, so that last year on this fifty acres there was
scarcely a weevil, and scarcely a burr worm, in the nuts that ma-
tured there.

Another portion, showing young trees bending over, breaking
down, almost, on that same fifty acres. It was taken in 1911,
about the first of October. The trees are heavily laden, the nuts
perfect.

Another view showing the sheep doing the mowing. The cat-
tle help with the work. Pigs help, but I do not have a photo-
eraph showing them. <A lot of them were put in after the crops
were gathered. The men harvested the nuts and afterwards
the pigs were turned in and found enough to fatten themselves.
I think that on the waste mountain land in this State, you could
fatten on chestnuts all the pigs that we raise, if we used it for
nothing else.

In harvesting, the nuts gathered in 1911 were hauled to a
threshing machine. It was necessary to have a machine made,
the problem of threshing the nuts, getting them out of the burrs,
becoming so great. This shows a photograph of the men hauling
the burrs before they are quite ripe, and placing them in piles.
They ripen, the burrs open, and the nuts can then be picked out.

This shows another pile of the burrs. Notice that they are
opening. This was taken a little later and the nuts were matur-
ing.

Harvesting before we had the machine, The men had to pick
them out. The nuts were taken out and placed in sacks, all
by hand. This shows a pile of burrs. Every burr had to be
opened with gloves, and it was very tedious. The problem was
too great, so that a threshing machine was invented by Mr. C. Kk.
Sober especially for the purpose this last year, and this view
shows the machine in operation. The nuts were Jiauled in piles
in the burrs. They were then put through this machine, which
is run by a little gasoline engine; the nuts ran out into a basket,
were put into sacks, and later they were loaded and carted to the
house to be assorted.

This is the assorting room. They are then packed in boxes.
Here are crates filled with nuts. Last year a carload was sent
to Seattle, Washington. After the season was over, orders were
taken for two carloads to be delivered at Seattle next fall, and

Ot

the same man may take the entire crop next vear. What that
will be I cannot say. This year it was between three and four
thousand bushels, including good and bad nuts.

In this view typical burrs are shown. Notice how thin the
husks are on many of them.

Another burr. It does not look as if it could cover the nuts.
In fact, it could not now, because the burr has shrunken away
as it dried out, leaving the nuts. Four, five and often seven
nuts are found in a burr.

This view shows seven ina burr. Notice that they are
crowded in, which gives them irregular shapes.

In this view the nuts in the lower row are covering silver half
dollars. The seven below measured over ten inches. Eight of
them measured thirteen inches.

In this view the nut in the lower right hand corner is covering
a silver dollar; the other four covering silver half dollars.
Above, are typical burrs.

Here are thirty-two selected nuts, measuring one quart.
Another group of the burrs as they were taken from one tree, a
little seedling three years old.

Forest fires were started in the mountains above by hunters,
carelessly or otherwise. They run down into the grove, so that
it is necessary to watch cautiously. Perhaps, however, the burn-
ing of the part above helped to destroy some of the weevils and
some of the burr worms; but of course the danger is that it will
get into the grove, and it did burn over nearly ten acres at one
time. This view shows a fire lane; the building of a fire lane,
between a groye and the woods above. It shows what the grove
would have been had it not been cultivated and put to this use.
That is the land immediately above it, full of chestnut timber.

This shows another point, showing on one side where the fire
just went through. It did not get into the grove. The trees are
dead, not from the blight in that case, but from the fire. It
shows on the other side chestnut grafted to Paragon, and the
four hundred acres is practically surrounded on three sides by
that same kind of timber.

There are other enemies. Meadow mice girdle the young
sprouts at times. The sprout shown in this view was girdled

Threshing Paragon chestnuts, Fall of 1911. (Machine designed by Mr. C. KX. Sober).

95

by a meadow mouse, By keeping them clean, however, cutting
the grass away and burning it over, the meadow mice are kept
down with the other enemies.

The seventeen year locust is another enemy. There is a brood
of them every three of four years, it seems. In 1903, 1906 and
1910 thousands of them,—iillions, I suppose,—came out. This
is one view, which I took looking up, pointing the camera into
the tree. These are the empty skins of the chrysalides as they
came out of the ground into the tree, the cicadas having crawled
out.

This view shows a little wild indigo plant, on which there
were two hundred and fifty cicadas. The injury comes when
they deposit their eggs.

The next view shows two branches recently stung by the
cicada. The eggs are deposited, making holes through which
fungi may enter. The wind blows then and breaks them off
at places, and the branches fall to the ground; but the cicada
has left holes and it is necessary to trim off the branches and
prune. This view shows a little tree that has been pruned. The
dead branches are below and of course there is not much left.
This interferes with the bearing of that trea. <A tree trimmed in
1910, in 1911 had no bearing wood on it; a loss of the huts, loss
of a year’s crop, because of the cicada. However, if the limbs
are not broken, they begin to heal.

You can see in this view where the ovipositor punctured the
wood. This was stung ip 1906 and the photograph was taken in
1910. They are slow in healing up, and form wounds through
which the spores of the fungi may enter.

This view shows still further the process of healing. Some
of them heal up entirely and apparently suffer nothing from
the injury.

This tree was stripped by the striped oak worm. There are
other enemies. Mr. Sober and I have been fighting enemies for
ten years. Nearly every one discouraged Mr. Sober. He stood
alone; but he is fighting them, and will continue to fight them.
In spite of the blight and in spite of everything, he expects to
see chestnut trees as long as he lives, and if we could come back
in two hundred years, I think we would find chestnut trees there.

One of the enemies that is most serious is the burr worm. At

96

the time the chestnut blossoms, a little moth lays an egg on the
young fruit. The egg hatches and a little worm burrows its
way into the burr. It seems to prefer living on the burr rather
than the nut. This view shows what I have called the “little”
burr worm. Here it is. It lives normally in the burr. Occa-
sionally it eats into the nut, but it does not like the nut, but
leaves an ugly hole and the nut afterwards frequently moulds.

This shows the adult moth, the Holcocera Sobertt. It is very
similar to the /Holcocera glandulata, but, according to Kear-
foot, of Montclair, New Jersey, it should be called a distinct
species, and it has been named in honor of Mr. Sober. This is
one of the worst enemies. There are two shown in this view, a
“little’ and a “large” one. This is the larger one. (Indicat-
ing). I have tried a number of times to get the adult of that, but
I have failed thus far. It is easy to get them in the larval stage,

—you get lots of larvae,—and they will make the cocoons.
Normally the cocoon is made in the burr and fortunately when
the burr is removed the cocoon is removed; but I have not been
able to get them to mature. IT do not know the adult of this
one.

This view shows the hole it makes into the nut. It is cut
away to show it. It has not gone in very far and this has re-
moved all the injury done. The other one is the injured one,
showing the spot, in the edge of the screen. This one is injured
here. (Indicating). If the nuts are eaten immediately or used,
they are scarcely injured; but if they are allowed to stand for a
time spores of various moulds get into them and the nuts soon rot
entirely. In this case this nut shown has cracked open, and
is full of black spores. I am not able to identify all the moulds;
some of them resemble very much the ordinary bread mould.

Insect traps were made by Mr. Sober in 1910 and placed
throughout the grove, and thousands of moths, many of them
belonging to the same genus, the Holcocera, were caught in these
traps. Lanterns were suspended from the trees beneath which
were these tin arrangements, and below was a pan of water on
which.was placed a little oil. That arrangement caught thou-
sands of moths. That is one method of controlling the enemy.

The grove is full of birds. There are many blue birds, and
nest boxes have been put up. Ido not know whether it is a good

Ps
THAN

or

AR 2

yn!

+ ye 5

Insect traps in chestnut grove. Largest trees are twelve years old,

97

plan to encourage the birds or not. The woodpeckers are there,
feeding on insects and the beetle larvae under the bark. It may
be a good chance to spread the chestnut blight, but they help to
control the moths. They feed on hundreds of them. You see
them hunting everywhere. The insect-loving birds are there.
You find the vireos, the red-eyed vireo especially; you find the
American redstart; you find warblers. They are there looking
for the moths and weeyils. Chickens were placed in the grove.
They search for grubs and everything they can find and, of
course, in doing that they destroy many of the chestnut weevils
and the grubs of other worms.

This view shows the chestnut weevil, the Belaninus, on the
burr. These can be controlled by removing the burrs imme-
diately, before they have time to come out on the nut.

This view shows them at work. Several females were placed
on this burr, which I have cut in two.

This view shows the long, beaklike proboscis. There is
another one, and another in the corner. There was another
one here, but it crawled around too much to be photographed.
How the eggs are deposited, I cannot say, but in some way, I
think through that long beak. They have two slim feelers,
with which they can take the eggs from the ovipositor to the end
of the beak. This view shows a big one. The weevil, as you can
see in the next photograph, never withdrew its beak. There it
is, in the picture. This was removed and in its place larvae
developed. I have taken out of one nut as many as fifty-five
erubs of the Belanius.

This view shows them maturing. In this one there were as
many as thirty larvae.

This view shows them in different stages; they are practically
mature. When they are mature, they come out through the
little hole in the nut and burrow in the ground. They remain
there until June or July, when they transform into pupae. The
next view shows six of them taken in July. In about two weeks
they mature. The next view shows six adults, three male and
three female. I think in some way the eggs are taken by means
of these appendages which will reach the end of the bill and

98

reach the ovipositor. I have never been able to see them do it,
but in some way I think the eggs must. be inserted by this
method.

The demand for the Paragon nut has come from all over the
United States, and it was necessary to start a nursery. Mr.
Sober, with the cleanliness he practices, will keep this going in
spite of the blight. He put away last fall three hundred
bushels of nuts, burying them, and now a little later they will
begin to sprout. When they are sprouted, in beds of sand,
they are taken out and planted. The method is before the nuts
are planted, to pinch the large tap roots off at this point, so
that a fibrous root is started. Otherwise this (indicating) is
what you get, and it is hard to transplant that tree and have it
live. To pinch off that root, or to put it in horizontal position,
will develop fibrous roots. This one was not pinched off, but
was planted with the tap root in a horizontal position, and you
see the result. This nut (another view) was planted and al-
lowed to develop for itself; and you see the difference between
the two.

The nuts are planted in rows, and here you see them after
the first summer’s growth in the nursery.

Here they are, two years old, ready to be grafted. Some of
the seedlings bear the second year and third year, but they are
not true Paragon. Some of them may be better. Last year
fifty seedlings, two and three years old, had nuts on them.

This view shows men engaged in grafting these seedlings with
the Paragon. This gives an idea of the size of one nursery.

This view shows one season’s growth after grafting on the
seedling. You see it is nearly five feet high,—one season of
erowth, grafted on a seedling two years old. It is then trimmed
back, of course.

There is one grafted one year, bearing a nut at that point and
two nuts at that point, and still others here. They are grafted.

Large trees can be transplanted, but not successfully. It is
' very hard to get.a tree that is five or six years old to stand trans-
planting. It does not pay to transplant the larger trees. Oc-
easionally they will live, but the others soon grow and catch up

with them.

Seedlings from Paragon nuts—to be grafted with Sober Paragon chestnuts.

Paragon chestnut trees,

9 years

after grafting on native sprouts.

oo

Now we will go to the barn and get our horse and go back to
the station at Paxinos. Good night. (Applause).

DR. MICKLEBOROUGIL: Will you permit a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: We will.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: LT would like to ask the Professor
if the blight has appeared in the Irish Valley?

THE CHAIRMAN: If you do not mind withholding that ques-
tion for just a minute, I want to make an announcement, and
then we are going to throw the doors open to discussion. At
the afternoon session you directed the Chairman to appoint a
Committee on Resolutions, this committee to include the Chair-
man of the Conference. The Chairman requested that persons
attending the Conference should offer suggestions as to who
should be included on this committee. He did not receive as
many suggestions as he would like to have had, but he did receive
a good many, and every person who was suggested has been
appointed. .

The committee as made up, is as follows:

lix-officio, Raymond A. Pearson, Chairman of the Conference.

BEING mss oe he ...--Charles E. Lewis.
New Hampshire, ;:.... Philip W. Ayres.
Massachusetts, .......F. W. Rane. ;
Khode Island, ....... Jesse B. Mowry.
Gennecheut, \...).):.2. George. BP: Clinton:
Wey. Mork!) x oer ostgntics G. G. Atwood,

H. P. Marshall,
George L. Barrus.
...---Melville T. Cook.
«ot sds G.. Williams;
Uarold Peirce,
W. T. Creasy,
Henry S. Drinker.
Delaware, ...........Wesley Webb.
Marylands 22.2 .+<:... ds By S: Norton,
William McCulloh Brown.
WIGS ay ass arose ss « reorge A. Kerr,
George B. Keezell.

New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,

100

West Virginia, ...... -N. J. Giddings.

OOF eet rcche acer A. (Di Selby:
H. H. Beehtel.

North Carolina, . 2.2.2 H. RK. Fulton,

MONMCSSOG. < ofdanicacsue. WV. Basher:

(AMAA ha .falosskta eee Dr. H. T: Gaussow-.

In a very rough way, it has been endeavored to have the num-
ber of members from the States indicate something as to the
number of persons who accepted invitations to attend this Con-
ference. The Chair will suggest that the members of the com-
mittee meet in the seats at the right of the Chair immediately
after adjournment this evening, for the purpose of organizing.
Now, according to the program, we are to have a general discus-
sion. The presiding officer almost feels that he should offer
you an apology, because he is not personally acquainted with all
the persons who may wish to speak. He appreciates that there
are some illustrious persons in the audience and that he ought
to know them; but, as he does not know everyone, he will ask
again that each person, on rising, whether known to the Chair or
not, will first announce his name and the name of his State
clearly.

The papers that we have heard are all before you for discus-
sion. It is yonr meeting. The Chairman is your servant, and
if you desire to have the course of procedure changed in any
way at any time, it is your duty so to state. We will now hear

the first question.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH, of Brooklyn: My question was, Mr.
Chairman, whether the Diaporthe parasitica had appeared in
the Irish Valley.

PROFESSOR DAVIS: Yes; it has appeared there, but in that
erove for the last ten years every sign of anything suspicious
has been cut out, and the nursery inspector who went through
the grounds found forty-four thousand and thirty-five trees that
are free from it. If there were some signs that were suspicious,
these trees were cut. If it is there now, it is practically under
control, and it is very, very hard to find it. We are not certain
always that it is there. There is one disease that follows up a

101

fire that so closely resembles it that it is hard to tell it. It is
sometimes doubtful. I have not, however, found any ascospores
there this fall. The nursery stock shows nothing at all. The
idea is to keep it clean, cut out everything, so we do not wait to
see whether it is there or not.

DR. J. RUSSELL SMITH, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman:
before the cutters-out and anti-cutters-out begin taking up the
questions of the afternoon, L want to speak about one point in
connection with the recent lecture. Mr. Davis stated, in pass-
ing, that the waste land of this State would feed as many pigs
as the whole State produces. We have lots of pigs, yet that
assertion as to the possibilities of the waste land is understated.

Man, in looking at the botanical realm, began at the wrong
end. When the human race looked at the hundred thousand
species of plants, it picked out little measley grasses, with a
grain or two of seed, from which it developed rye, corn and wheat,
while here were the giants of nature, bearing hickory nuts, wal-
nuts, persimmons, peaches, apples, and pears; yet very few of
them have been improved, for the reason that, for the annual
cropper, lis grains permit of easy improvement and the big
trees, With their slow generations, were very diflicult to improve.
Yet they are the potential heavy harvest yielders. Wherever we
find land put over to tree crops, it yields several fold the annual
crop. Chestnut-growing in Europe, as in Italy for example, is
an established industry. Official reports show an annual pro-
duction of chestnuts in Italy of thirteen bushels to the acre, and
J know, by examination of the orchards, that they are not in any
way in a high class condition or very carefully attended to in
many localities. We average at least that, with the American
standard of weight per acre, in the United States. I have not
a doubt that if some of those big Japanese chestnuts were bred,
selected, and hybridized, we could get varieties of chestnuts
which would yield fifteen or twenty bushels per acre on the aver-
age, of first-class pig feed. Furthermore, it permits the use of
land which is now entirely unusable for anything except forest,
which is a very low grade producer of annual cash value. For
example, to-day on the train between here and Philadelphia I
saw a block of ground which covers twenty-two thousand acres,

102

and is itself covered with stones. It is laughed at by the Lan-
caster county people, and it is rocky; but chestnut trees are
sticking their roots between the rocks which cover the surface
and reaching down into the good, strong clay beneath, and that
twenty thousand acres of good, strong clay is more potentially
productive than the tops of the Apennines, which are to-day
yielding thirteen bushels to the acre.

So in the chestnut we have something more to consider in po-
tentiality than mere timber. The time is coming when we
will put one hundred dollars in the breeding of tree crops and
get ten thousand dollars for the people of the next decade. — (Ap-
plause).

DR. MERKEL, of New York City: Mr. Chairman: I would
like to ask Mr. Davis a point that does not appear quite clear to
me. Was the blight kept out of the orchard, or out of the entire
valley and out of the surrounding country?

PROFESSOR DAVIS: It is in the valley, but just beginning,
apparently, to appear. I have hunted through there and hunted
days at a time without finding any evidence. Yet I have found
evidences of what apparently is the genuine Diaporthe, as | saw
it on Long Island; and I will say that I think I saw the blight on
Long Island in 1897, or 1898. It was at the time when the Long
Island road was building a log cabin near Cold Spring Harbor.
Mr. Jarvis was the carpenter building the cabin, out of chestnut
logs, and, when he pulled the bark off, under that was found what
we recognize now as the chestnut blight. Mr. Jarvis and I dis-
cussed it, and did not know what it was. It was in patches; on
some of the logs which were ten to fifteen inches in diameter, the
patches were as large as my hat, and I do not doubt in some
cases that the trees were girdled entirely and the trees were
dying. That was at Cold Spring Harbor, and I also saw some of
the same thing between Cold Spring Harbor and Huntingdon,
and especially back of Huntingdon, through the hills around
there. So I think it was in 1898 well established in those locali-
ties. Of course, I cannot prove that is what it was, but I have
seen so much of it near Cold Spring Harbor that IT think it is
the same thine.

103

DR. MERKEL: Then, apparently, the clean-cutting in this
case, unfortunately, is not a proof that the fungus can be kept
out, because it has not been present long enough; is that the
idea?

PROFESSOR DAVIS: Yes.

DR. A. K. FISHER, of the Bureau of Biological Survey,
Washington: Mr. Chairman: I would like to ask Dr. Stewart
what evidence he has to show that birds are important factors
in spreading the disease? Dr. Metcalf made that statement
in the Farmers’ Bulletin, that birds were one of the important
factors in spreading the blight, but, in private conversation
with the doctor, he stated that he had no positive evidence; but
that birds traveled here, hence, thence, and he thought it most
probable. Now the very birds which are accused of carrying
blight are the woodpeckers, which are more or less stationary in
their life history; especially the downy woodpecker. There is
no vay of telling just how far a bird will go from the nest in
which it was born, but there is pretty good reason to believe that
the downy woodpecker never goes over four or five miles from its
home. In fact, a woodland of a few hundred acres will hold a
pair or more of birds, which probably live there throughout their
lives. I know of one or two pairs near Washington that we are
reasonably sure to see at any time of.the year. It seems to me
that wind and weather, which carry other forms of diseases, are
very much more liable to carry the germs of this disease. When
wind will carry heavy articles a thousand miles and, it is said,
earry voleanic dust half way around the globe, it seems to me
that we do not have to look to birds or mammals, or even in-
sects, as the means of spreading the disease, when other known
factors are present.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fisher asks Dr. Stewart what evi-
dence he has that birds are responsible for carrying the chestnut
tree blight.

DR. STEWART: The evidence is largely inferential. This
should be considered: Many of the infections,—in fact, Dr. Met-
calf states a majority of the infections,—occur in the tunnels
made by borers. The borers are in those tunnels. Woodpeck-

104

ers go after the borers. Spores are produced in enormous num-
bers right around those tunnels. It is inevitable that the wood-
peckers will get the spores on their bills and on their feet and on
other parts of their bodies. Those birds, when they go away,
will carry those spores with them and leave them where they
alight the next time. If they happen to fall in a wound of some
kind and the conditions are favorable, the infection is going to
occur. That is the kind of evidence. It is inferential. As for
actually knowing that infections have resulted in -that way, we
have no evidence. Of course, it is exceedingly difficult, if not
impossible, to get it. As to the migration of the woodpeckers,
1 have it on the authority of a competent ornithologist that some

kinds of them do travel long distances.

DR. FISHER: There are certain forms of woodpeckers which
go south in winter, but those are not the birds which are highly
specialized which secure their food from the trees. They are
birds which seek their food like the flicker, which feeds largely
on nuts, and the redheaded woodpecker, which feeds quite ex-
tensively on grasshoppers and other insects, as well as fruits;
but our woodpeckers, our native, resident woodpeckers, are
rarely migrators. As to the injury to the trees, the nut gath-
erers, it Seems to me, produce very many more wounds than the
woodpeckers produce. They either jar the smaller trees with
stones that break the bark and.form places for the insertion of
the germs, or they use climbers which injure the bark, and enter
the wood very much further than the woodpecker’s bill does.

MR. DETWILER: [ have the report of a field agent who has
been investigating the relation of birds to the carrying of dis-
ease. This investigation has been in progress only about a
month, and the data is of an elementary character. However,
there are two paragraphs which have a bearing on this subject.
First, the field agent says:

“T can truthfully state that every blighted tree I have seen
since I have begun this study, has had its bark punctured by
woodpeckers, in most cases with scores of holes.”

The other pertinent observation is:

L05

“We were surprised by the large number of grubs we were able
to find in infected trees. They seemed, too, to be generally dis-
tributed throughout the bark of the tree.”

The inference being that the grubs attract the woodpeckers to
the blighted portions of the tree particularly.

PROFESSOR DAVIS: Mr. Sober wishes me to extend an in-
vitation to any of you, or all of you, to visit his place, when he
will show you this grove in person. I forgot to mention it in
the lecture, but he invites you to meet him at the Paxinos station
at any time.

THE CHAIRMAN: How early are the chestnuts ripe?

PROFESSOR DAVIS: The chestnuts are ripe in the latter
part of October.

DR. A. H. GRAVES, of New Haven: Mr. Chairman: There is
one thing that has been overlooked here, and that is that the
spores are very sticky in these exudations from the pustules.
They all stick together, and the wind would carry these spores
with great difficulty; so that the theory of the spores sticking to
the feet of birds seems very plausible, for that principal reason.
The spores might possibly be washed down the tree by the rain
and mingle with the dust at the base of the tree; but, as is said
somewhere by some authority, these chestnut trees do not usually
erow in the dusty places. The spores that are washed down the
tree would be covered up by leaves and there would be very lit-
tle likelihood that the wind would carry them. I think, Mr.
Chairman, the sticky nature of the spores should be considered
in this connection, with the dissemination of the spores by birds
and insects.

DR. W. J. GIDDINGS, of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman: I
want to say something more in regard to the means of control
of this disease; and I have one suggestion that has occurred to
me during the afternoon and evening sessions: That is the pos-
sibility, in states where they do not feel it would be wise to
inake the inspection a thorough inspection, to send out men to
do plot work,—I believe that is the proper term,—such as is done
in forestry. They can pick out a certain small section where
there are chestnuts, and determine the number of chestnut trees

106

there, and the amount of infection. Not only that, but they can
find out if there is old infection there. In that way we can find
out whether there has been infection in America for a number
of years, as has been suggested by some, and possibly get those
states interested, if the infection appears to be spreading. In
some places that I have seen lately there was evidence of the dis-
ease working on trees that were partly dead, but we should find
out more about that while the work is going on.

DR. J. W. HARSHBERGER, University of Penna.: Mr.
Chairman: Professor Stewart, in his communication this af-
ternoon, discouraged the work which is being done by the Penn-
sylvania Chestnut Blight Commission in the removal of trees
along the outposts of the disease. I would like to present my
view of the problem, because I think it is largely a question of
the attitude of the State of Pennsylvania toward these larger
questions of conservation which have agitated the country for
the past few years.

Pennsylvania is the Keystone State. She is so situated with
regard to the other states of the Atlantic Seaboard that she oc-
cupies a central position, halfway between the North and the
South. It would be to the lasting shame of Pennsylvania if she
would let the opportunity pass of taking some means of attempt-
ing to check the disease. The states to the south and west of
us, Ohio and West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee and North
Carolina, which are very largely concerned in this movement,
would point to Pennsylvania as having let the opportunity slip
of doing something to check the ravages of this disease. Two
hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars seems a large sum
of money to appropriate for the prevention of the destruction
of property; that is, it seems a large sum to use in the combating
of a single disease. Yet Pennsylvania is a wealthy State, and,
if we take the many millions of dollars which are at stake, the
amount of money which the State has appropriated is merely
a drop in the bucket, and it seems to me that the money is well
spent, because we are standing, as a buffer State, between the on-
spread of this disease from the locality where it started, and the
States beyond. In the future, when we look back on the history
of the conseryation movement in the United States, this move-

107

ment in Pennsylvania will be held up as an example of a patrio-
tic movement of the entire people in an attempt to prevent the
destruction of our native forests, which are going all too fast.
So this movement, it seems to me from my standpoint, is one
of the most commendable things which has been done by any
State in recent years and, even if no direct result is reached, we
can point with pride to the attempt which has been made to
check the disease.

At one point there occurred to me a little story that was told
in connection with the remarks of Professor Clinton this after-
noon, When the paper of Professor Farlow was read. Professor
‘arlow suggested that the chestnut blight came from Italy. <A
friend of mine, a botanist in New York city, said that he had
often noticed that around the settlements of Italians in the
neighborhood of New York and Brooklyn and Jersey City, these
smaller settlements that the Italians made outside the city, that
the trees always died or were killed, and he thought there was
some relation between the death of the trees and the settlement
of the Italians nearby. So he suggested rather a curious name

for this malady which attacked the trees—he said it was a form

of “Dagoeatis.” So perhaps, if Professor Farlow’s views are
correct, the trees which were killed on Long Island suffered from
a form of “Dagoeatis.” That, you may observe, has no scientific
relativity in the discussion of this subject.

MR. CHESTER EE. CHILD, President Lumber Manufactur-
ers’ Association of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman: I noticed on the
map presented this afternoon that it appears that chestnut trees
are practically dead in three-quarters of Connecticut. I noticed
coming down on the train, between New Haven and New York,
that there are a great many dead chestnut trees, and vet there
remain a great many that are alive. I know that along the
Connecticut River, where the blight is supposed to be working
quite freely, that in a tract of timber which was sold on account
of the blight being in it, it was stated that at least ten per cent.
of the chestnut trees were affected. I know two men about sixty
years of age who state that they are positive that they saw this
blight twenty years ago, or something that looked the same as
is shown in the blight to-day,—that théy saw the same thing
twenty years ago. I would like to ask, unless the information

108 ‘

is reserved to be given us tomorrow morning, whether there is
any data to show what the expense is to cut out, remove and take
up the infected chestnut trees where the blight is known to be
working.

MR. I. C. WILLIAMS: In answer to the gentleman’s ques-
tion, I would like to say that the Chestnut Blight Commis-
sion has no data at hand which will answer him directly. The
work of the Commission has not been specificially directed to
cutting out diseased trees, but has been in the direction of urg-
ing persons to do that. It has not been possible to follow that
work sufficiently closely to make an approximation of just what
that cost would be. The effort that is being made in Pennsyl-
vania will be more minutely described to-morrow morning, and
I do not feel that it would be fair to trespass seriously upon
that paper this evening; but what evidence there is, and what
knowledge we have on that subject, will be laid before you in
the morning in the first paper.

Some of the speakers this afternoon seemed to be utterly ap-
palled at the fact that Pennsylvania has thrown two hundred
and seventy-five thousand dollars into a rathole. Now it may
be of interest to this meeting at this time to realize that the
whole work thus far accomplished by this Commission has been
at an expense of twenty thousand one hundred and forty-three
dollars. That leaves a considerable margin of the two hundred
and seventy-five thousand dollars upon which we are privileged
to go until the first of June, 1915. (Applause).

This Commission is builé upon business principles. Tt is not
being dashed about wildly, like a potato in a tub, not know-
ing what it is doing or where it is going. It is trying to find
its way. It may be that it will get lost in the blighted chestnut
woods, but we are going to make an honest endeavor to get out
of the woods. Every known method, and a lot of methods that
care not known and about which we heard a good deal this after-
noon, will be tried. If there is any virtue in them, they will
be followed to a finality. Jf there is no virtue in them, we want
the world to know it,—the sooner the better. The mere fact that
somebody believes that something cannot he done is going to
have mighty little weight in the work of this Commission. (Ap-

plause). We do not care a rap what someone’s belief is. If he

109

has any facts to bring to us and lay before us, we are willing
to accept them. We want facts; we want knowledge. We have
heard a great deal about scientific inquiry. IL understand that
science is the pursuit of knowledge, and that its business is to
get facts. Science simply describes. It has nothing to do wath
explanations. Therefore, if science will describe to us the things
that we are trying to learn, we will be greatly indebted to science,
and we by no means are in a position, nor do we wish it to be so
understood that we attempt to turn our backs upon scientific
inquiry. The truth is that this Commission wants all the facts
it can get. It wants the help of every scientist in the land who
is interested enough to pursue a line of work and make dedue-
tions therefrom that are useful in a work of this kind. We want
to go hand in hand with everybody who can lend an iota of
strength to this work; but we do not care to join hands with
those who see simply gloom and failure, and are unwilling to
make any decent effort to determine whether or not a thing can
or cannot be done. The experiments that are being made by
the Commission are for the purpose of finding out. We heard a
great deal about the ineffectualness of the cutting-out method
of combating this disease, or checking its spread. I do not know
upon what foundation or upon what premises these conclusions
are drawn. We have attempted to follow the progress of this
inquiry and the knowledge on the subject as closely as possible,
and yet gentlemen tell us that it is absolutely ineffectual. Now
I would like them to tell us why it is ineffectual, and how much
cutting out they have done, and what real knowledge they have
derived from that kind of work. If it is going to turn upon
someone’s opinion, then I would like this meeting to believe that
probably one man’s opinion is as good as another’s. If it is not,
let us find out why. I would like to ask Mr. Stewart, in respect
to one sentence in his paper this afternoon, which you will re-
member was one continued negation, I would like to ask him to
tell us why in that paper he broke away from the negative atti-
tude and, in the very closing moments, took a positive stand in
that he recommended the restriction of the movement of nursery
stock. Now if there is no use in cutting out a diseased tree, if
there is no real effectual value in doing any work of any kind, if
we are simply to sit down and let things go and take their course,

110

if we are going to throw up our hands in impotent helplessness
and say “It is the will of Allah,” why would he restrict the move-
ment of nursery stock? If there is any real reason for that, let us
have it. I do not remember that the Professor stated his reason.
That is one of the questions his paper raised in my mind. I
do not wish to take more of your time, because these ought to
be only short discussions. If Professor Stewart would be good
enough to tell us why he thinks we ought to restrict the move-
ment of nursery stock and let everything else go wide open, I for
one would like to know it, and I believe thére are some others
who would be interested in hearing it. (Applause).

DR. STEWART: I will answer that question in this way:
That this diseased nursery stock may transmit the disease long
distances. In that way the disease may take long Jumps, clear
across the continent.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand from the Professor’s paper
that birds likewise take long jumps. What will he do with that
side of the case?

DR. STEWART: We can do nothing there.

MR. A. THALHEIMER, of Reading, Pa.: Gentlemen, I
rise to protect the woodpecker. (Applause). [ own probably
in small woodland patches, two hundred acres of chestnut. Since
this blight question first came up, I have gone through nearly
all my trees and I haye not found a single tree that was diseased,
with the exception of some near the city. I have about one hun-
dred and twenty acres near the city, and of course, the boys,—
maybe some of you have done that,—want to get the chestnuts.
They bump the trees and some of them are bruised in that way.
But my section is full of woodpeckers. They are not immi-
erants; they are stationary and they have not destroyed or in-
fected any trees. I think it takes a long time to get at the bot-
tom of it, and find what really is the cause. I desire to inform
you of a subject in which I took a deep interest,—one which
leads to this matter, During the war, in traveling through Vir-
ginia or through Maryland, you all know how scrub oaks are
scattered over all that country. A scrub oak is a very small tree
and does not bear any fruit at all. I often wondered where they

111

‘ame from, not having been planted there. In going from here
to Washington, or going anywhere, if I knew of any farmer who
lived in that neighborhood, L would ask him what he knew about
it, and none of them could tell me. I was anxious to know and
see if I could not get that information. I wrote to the Forestry
Department at Washington, and could get no definite informa-
tion there. One time in moving from one house to a new house
and in rearranging my library, L got hold of a book. The library
had belonged to a friend of mine, a lawyer, and I got some of his
books in remembrance. I looked through those books and I found
a book of birds, and among them I found a picture of a bird
called a “tree planter.” It gave a description how that bird
traveled from Maine to Florida, traveled from the north to the

south and migrated again north, and they had a committee,
I do not know whether it was a Committee of Thirteen or not,—
but they had a committee which would carry the nuts and plant
them for food on both ways. Then, down South, they shoot
these tree planters and utilize them for food, and I suppose there
are not enough coming back to pick up all the fruit which is
planted, and that this is the way it grows up into scrub oaks.
(Applause).

PROFESSOR W. D. CLARK, Pa., State College: Ladies and
Gentlemen: I came here to-day to this Conference because,
being a forester by training and by profession, I am vitally in-
terested in any movement which seeks in a practical way, to con-
trol or to eradicate the chestnut blight disease. I fully appre-
ciate the value and importance of the chestnut tree, both as a
timber producer, to enhance the aesthetic value of the landscape,
as a Shade tree and as a nut producer, and I heartily favor the
pursuit of scientific studies and experiments in order to deter-
mine whether or not there is a practical way, within the means of
human agencies, either to eradicate or control this disease. I
am, however, very solicitous lest, on account of the obviousness
of this disease, the directness with which it works, the quickness
of its results, and the generally common knowledge of the dis-
ease, we will become blind to two other diseases of trees which,
on account of their remoteness, their complex character and
their slow, insidious way of working, we are apt to forget. I

112

refer to the disease known as an unjust and unscientific manner
of taxing timber lands, and to the disease known as forest fires.
Here are two diseases which threaten to destroy not only chest-
nut trees, but all of our forest trees. These diseases threaten
not only to destroy our standing trees but to prevent, or make
useless, the planting and growth of any forest trees. These
diseases are not well-known diseases which are beyond our con-
trol. They are entirely within the control of human agents, and
JI would be grateful if I could impress upon the mind of every
member in attendance upon this Convention that if we could
only control the forest fires and bring about a just, sctentific,
and uniform system of taxing forest land, and then go ahead and
plant trees, trees immune from this dreaded disease, pine trees,
oak trees, hickory trees, poplar trees, valuable timber trees, we
would have so many timber trees flourishing in the State of
Pennsylvania that it really would not matter a very great deal if
we had no more chestnut trees. We could possibly get along
without them. (Applause).

MR. F. B. JEWETT, of Susquehanna county, Pa.: Mr. Chair-
man and Gentlemen: If came to the City of Harrisburg to-day
not particularly to attend this Convention; but, when I arrived
here and the programme was thrust before me, every other item of
my business stopped, and I have attended your meetings and
have been very much interested.

The first dollar that I ever remember of having in my life was
derived from the chestnut tree, half a century ago, when, as ¢
little boy, I picked up the chestnuts. I have been very much t1-
terested in every phase of the discussion, because, like the gentle-
man over here, I have several acres that have chestnut trees on
them. In this evening’s lecture there was thrown on the canvas
a view of the harvest of that chestnut orchard in Irish Valley,
hear Shamokin, and in the picture I noticed the green burrs
were harvested. The question that I wish to ask, if Professor
Davis is present, is, how they could get those green burrs off
from the trees without injuring them? <All those that have
knowledge from experience know that it is almost impossible to
get a green burr from its native branch until the frost comes
and kills the connection between the burr and the branch. I

115

rementber distinctly a few years ago, perhaps fifteen, I made
my first shipment of chestnuts to New York. IL sent them to a
commission merchant and L was surprised, although L knew that
it was early, to receive back in two days’ time returns. of twenty-
four dollars per bushel for that shipment of chestnuts, with this
advice: “Ship chestnuts as fast as possible. Your shipment
was the first that came into the City of New York this fall.”
I tried to get another shipment, but I could not get those burrs
open, and the last shipment I made to New York that same fall
brought me only $2.50 per bushel. I agree with the gentlemen
that have read these very interesting papers, so very interesting
to us, indeed; but so far as the spread of this disease is con-
cerned, [ am on the side of the woodpecker, because the wood-
pecker has been my friend from my boyhood up, and I have
learned to love the music of his beak. But let me tell you, gentle-
men, a few years ago I was out in Kansas, and on that wild
prairie, a heavily loaded team had passed over in the spring. It
was September when I was there, and across that unbroken
prairie were two distinct tracks and sometimes, when the for-
ward wheel had not run exactly straight, there were four tracks;
and in every one of those tracks was a thrifty growth of sun-
flowers. Can you tell me how those sunflowers came there? If
vou will tell me that, I will tell you what spreads the fungus on
your trees. It is nature. You know we all of us love up-to-date
stories; we do not care about the old “chestnuts” so much. But
in this case the chestnut is very important and, in closing, I
want to speak a word of commendation for Mr. Williams and for
the men who so wisely voted the appropriation of two hundred
and seventy-five thousand dollars to this work. I appreciate it.
Iver since I have been a boy, it has been grumble, grumble,
erumble about appropriations and graft, and*so on. New York
State can sympathize with us somewhat in the matter of Capi-
tol graft. You remember you got through with it in Albany. We
got through with it without as many vears of experience as you
did, but I remember very well, after the old Capitol burned here,
that five hundred and fifty thousand dollars was appropriated.
Why, that was a big sum; but vou know how that “chestnut”
grew, and we got out of it with thirteen millions. I am very

8

1i4

thankful that the “chestnut” of the old appropriation is improv-
ing; that we have the two hundred and seventy-five thousand
dollars appropriated, and that we are getting out of it with
about twenty thousand dollars as far as it goes now. So I think
that the State of Pennsylvania has done finely in taking the
initiative in this work. I pay tax on timber, and I want to pay
tax on timber-land. It is fair and square that we should pay it,
and let the gentleman that complains of it remember that none
of that tax goes into the State Treasury.

THE CHAIRMAN: We wish to hear Professor Clark’s reply
to the question, but there are a number of others who are pre-
pared to make remarks. The Chair would ask if you have any
instructions which you would give to govern our discussion
from now on. Do you wish to limit the length of the remarks?
I will entertain a motion, if it is your desire.

MR. E. A. WEIMER, of Lebanon, Pa.: Mr. Chairman: I
would suggest that we limit our remarks to the chestnut blight.
I would also suggest that the speakers be very careful not to
bring out facts without careful consideration. The man on my
left here talked about the spores being sticky. He did not con-
sider that the spores were sticky only during a certain portion
of their lives. Another man on my right talked about the wood-
pecker, but he did not consider the fact that the woodpecker does
not pull out the grub with his feet, and that is about the only
place he could get the spores on. We want to be very careful
when we are going to get at any facts, not to hunt up facts to
base our arguments on, but to base our arguments on facts. I
suggest in the future that we deal only with questions dealing
with chestnut blight, and accept Mr. Sober’s invitation to visit his
orchard when the chestnuts are ripe.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH, of New York State: Mr. Chair-
man, just a word with reference to the spread of the disease by
the spores: During the summer the conidial spores, those thread
spores which have been explained to us to-day, are produced
in myriads upon the diseased tree. The water, the rain will
readily dissolve those little sticky, pasty threads and, when they
are dissolved, it takes about eight or nine thousand, put end to

115

end, to measure an inch. They are exceedingly small micro-
scopic objects and they are readily carried by the wind, and not
very much by the woodpecker. That is my judgement of the case.
The wind will carry those very readily, and sometimes to a
considerable distance. I think we can account for the spread of
the disease, the carrying of the spores, by the wind. Railroads
are sinners to a certain extent in this matter. The trains, as they
sweep through the country, will create a great deal of draft,
and you will notice along certain main lines that the disease has
spread with a great deal of certainty and rapidity. Now these
spores, When they are lodged upon a chestnut tree, are washed
down by the rain, by the water, by the dews, and you are very
apt to find the disease attacking the tree in the fork of the limb.
You will find it there perhaps more frequently than any other
place, and there is a good place for the entrance of the spore.
Now, to digress from that for one moment, I think, Sir, that
Pennsylvania has done a magnanimous and great thing, and I was
very glad to hear from Deputy Commissioner Williams. We were
told by the Governor that the value of the chestnut stand in
this State, I think, was forty millions dollars. The Legislature
of the State of Pennsylvania did not appropriate one per cent.
of that which is endangered by this chestnut blight. In fact, the
Governor told us the estimate was based upon fifty cents per
tree. Indeed, if the statistics were carefully made, Pennsylvania
has not appropriated more than about one-half of one per cent.
to protect the value of a great chestnut growth. (Applause).

DR. GIDDINGS, of West Virginia: Mr. Chairman: I would
like to raise some questjons in connection with Dr. Clinton’s
statement. I infer two things from it: One is that the control of
the gypsy moth in Massachusetts was not a valuable expendi-
ture of money; another was that, by leaving off the control of
the peach yellows in Connecticut, it was to the advantage of
that State. I would like to ask if those inferences are correct
and if Professor Clinton has data to show that the dropping of
the peach yellows inspection has been to the advantage of Con-
necticut.

THE CHAIRMAN: Professor Clinton, can you answer those
questions in a word or two?

116

PROFESSOR CLINTON: I do not know that I made. the
statement that gypsy moth work in Massachausetts was not
effective. I said it meant a long fight and a continuous fight.
This chestnut blight, from the re-infection, would make the fight
a continuous one. You could not do it up and leave it there.
You would have to keep at it forever, provided the material con-
tinued. Regarding the peach yellows law, my statement was
that they dropped that. The reason it was dropped was because
it made so much trouble with the farmers, by going into their
orchards. You would find that same difficulty with the farmers
in Pennsylvania that you would in Connecticut.

DR. MERKEL, of N. Y.: Mr. Chairman: I have been on
my feet continuously ever since Mr. Williams spoke, and was
about to give it up. Some of the points I wanted to bring out
have already been brought out. However, I want to thank Mr.
Williams. I want to thank the great State of Pennsylvania for
passing that law. Pennsylvania has shown all the other States
in the Union what it is (> pass an unselfish law. If we could
only have a Federal law that would be as broad as the law of
Pennsylvania ought to be and could easily be made, by simply in-
serting the words after “the chestnut tree blight,” “and any other
fungous or insect pest,’ we would have no trouble with our fun-
gous or insect pests after a certain length of time. Sometime ago
1 wrote that only when we considered a tree that is dangerously
infected with an insect or fungous pest as dangerous as a person
infected with smallpox or as a rabid dog, will we get rid in our
forests of insect and fungous pests. [I was very glad to hear that
Mr: Williams and the members of the Commission have not. be-
come discouraged by the large amount of cold water that has been
thrown on their plans. I am sure that the two hundred and
seventy-five thousand dollars that the State of Pennsylvania has
appropriated will never be missed, even if no beneficial results
are obtained; but that the everlasting shame that the State of
Pennsylvania would suffer if she made no attempt to save her.
chestnut trees, should be enough not to discourage any and all

citizens from unselfish effort for their fellow men.

GEORGE G. ATWOOD, of New York: Mr. Chairman:
There is a little desk in Albany that has been open for about a

117

year, and in that desk is about everything that has been said,
or thought, or dreamed of, relative to the chestnut bark disease,
We have had the advice of our friend Stewart, who thinks as
Dr. Clinton does, along the same lines. What they have stated
here to-day we must accept as the honest statement of men who
know enough to make such statements. They know what they
are talking about, because they have investigated this disease and
they have investigated similar diseases, so that we must take
what they say with a great deal of confidence. They have been
talking to the point whether chestnut bark disease could be con-
trolled or eradicated. If I were to ask either one of those gentle-
men what they would do with a chestnut tree in their own yard
that was infected with this disease, they would probably say,
“Cut it out.” That gives us the keynote of what I think should
be done wherever there is a possibility that single trees, or small
infections, can be removed. That seems to be the simple thing,
and the proper, sensible thing to do. It may have to be done by
the force of statute, but a great deal can be done by advising
owners of chestnut trees that become slightly infected, asking,
urging, forcing them in every way you can, to cut that timber
while it is still alive and save it. If that were done in the State
of Pennsylvania, their entire two hundred and seventy-five thou-
sand dollars would be well expended. We are up against a
proposition in New York. We have probably two-thirds of our
chestnut timber still intact, and we want to save it if we can.
Now why should we not go out in the borders and carry on a
missionary work, or something stronger, and see if we cannot
cut a dividing line? Let scientific men go on with their investi-
gations. We need all the advice that their broad knowledge can
bring to us; but the other thing is a practical thing, a thing that
is at our doors, and a few hundred thousand dollars spent now
may result in a saving of that valuable property lying all to the
west and south of us. (Applause).

DR. J. RUSSELL SMITH, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman:
Professor Clinton advanced a very interesting point; that it
was the dry weather that made these trees amenable to blight.
The evidence was that people in Connecticut thought the dry
weather had killed other trees that died, if I remember the

118

gentleman correctly. It seems to me that that matter of the
drought would be much better tested by showing that, in loeali-
ties of low, moist, abundantly watered soils, the trees had not
had blight. There must be many such localities of chestnut in
Connecticut where even the recent droughts of past years have
not subjected many trees to a dearth of water.

THE CHAIRMAN: Can you answer that in a word, Pro-
fessor Clinton?

PROFESSOR CLINTON: I was giving the various things
that weaken trees. Drought is one of them. We have had severe
droughts in Connecticut, and I hold that the situations that
have been the most moist have been the regions that have suffered
most from the drought, because when a tree is trained to live in
a moist place, during a drought it will suffer more than a tree
on higher land which has been used to dry soil.

MR. CRANMER, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman: While
still well on the sunny side of life’s meridian, I distinctly re-
member, as a barefoot boy on a little farm on the eastern sea-
board of New Jersey, the advent of what was known then as
the Colorado beetle, commonly called the potato bug. As a little
boy about this high (indicating) I was put in between the rows
to catch those fellows and get them off the vines. Naturally
they appeared on the vines of other farmers in that section, and
many of the old fellows shook their heads in despair. They
said “We will never raise any more potatoes. The potato crops
are done in America.” My father did not feel that way, although
[ would have been pretty well satisfied if he had. He made me
hunt potato bugs, and then we later began to use the London
purple and the Paris green, and so forth. We are still raising
potatoes in New Jersey and other places throughout the United
States, with success. We still have specimens of the Colorado
beetle in the United States, but we expect to go on raising pota-
toes, and doing our best. So it seems to me, gentlemen, in rela-
tion to this chestnut bark blight, this chestnut tree disease, we
are not to hold up our hands in despair and listen to too much
of the expert advice and opinion that falls from the lips of our
university men. I come from a university myself, and I dare
say that. We have heard much to-day. There have been numer-

11)

ous expressions of opinions and of guesswork. We have yet
to hear from any person who tells us what he has done in a
practical way for the cutting out and eradication of this dis-
ease in any extended form and over any very large tracts of land.
JY am unfortunate in the fact that my chief, who is custodian of
all the property at Lehigh University, is not able to be here to-
night, Dr. Henry 8. Drinker, whose hame appears in the roster
of officials of the American Torestry Association, and who is
president of Lehigh University. He is custodian of a large tract
of land, adorned on its campus with many primeval chestnut
monarchs from eighteen inches to three feet in diameter, giants
of the old forest tract. In the rear of this campus we haye
some two hundred acres covered with a coppice growth of chest-
nut and various hardwoods of Pennsylvania. We were exceed-
ingly fortunate, some years ago, in having heard from the lips
of Mr. C. W. Levitt, an eminent landscape engineer of New York
City, the warning that our chestnut trees were likely to be visited
with an insidious enemy, which would destroy them all. It was
not, however, until the summer of 1908 that I as custodian of
those grounds, saw any unusual discoloration on either the
bark or foliage of a chestnut tree, except that which seemed to
be natural in the decay of any specimen of deciduous trees. Dur-
ing that summer I saw, on a small chestnut, this unusual dis-
coloration and the appearance of small red or brown pustules.
This tree was immediately cut down and portions sent, after all
other portions were burned, to Mr. I. C. Williams, Deputy State
Commissioner of Forestry of Pennsylvania, who placed it in
incubation and pronounced it the chestnut bark blight, or dis-
ease. I am not familiar with the scientific name. I was then
cautioned by the president to be careful, observant, and vigilant,
and to watch for any recurrence of this thing. To hasten from
that time on, through the summer of 1910, when it appeared,
and in 1911, we have done exactly as was recommended to us
by Mr. Williams and by Dr. Rothrock, who visited us during
this period of time and walked through our coppice grove of
chestnut. I am not able to say, after extended experience along
this line, that all trees which are treated by severe -pruning,
which have been touched by this blight, may be saved. We do
know, however, that we have tided trees over one year and two

120

years, that were striken with the blight, by removing all such
portions as were affected by it, treating them with a ‘composi-
tion of coal tar, diluted slightly with spirits of turpentine, so
that it might be easily applied with a brush, using it both as
a fungicide and insecticide; using it on bark, wood, and broken
places. Thus far we feel that our work has been successful
along this line. Last year it is true we cut out forty trees, all
of them less than ten inches in diameter. We have as yet lost
but three trees in all this large tract of land that were more
than this size. We have, as I said before, saved many trees by
severe pruning and trimming, cutting out all diseased places and
treating them with this solution of coal tar, ordinary coal gas
tar; so that we feel it is worth while to do something along this
line. We do not feel like the dear old lady who stood up on
the banks of the Hudson River when Mr. Fulton was about to
experiment with his steamboat, and said, as it was puffing and
* and when the
ropes were cast off and the boat moved out into the stream,

blowing, “It will never move, it will never move
: b)

she said “It will never stop, it will never stop.” We hope this
will be a suecessful work, prosecuted for the highest end by
this worthy and able Commission of the State of Pennsylvania,
and we, as representatives of Lehigh University, Dr. Drinker,
Professor Hall, of the Department of Biology, and myself as
custodian of the grounds, stand ready to help you with anything
we can do for you. We stand ready to listen to what you say to
us, stand ready to take your advice as a Commission, and go
with you hand in hand along this line. (Applause).

DR. H. S. REED, of Virginia: Mr. Chairman: Regarding
one of Dr. Smith’s questions, we have a few observations upon
the chestnuts in Virginia. Reference has been made this after-
noon to the blight in Virginia. It has been found there in some
instances,—probably there is more there than we think,—
but we have observed this that wherever it has been found, that
it was at an altitude of less than 800 feet. Most of the chestnut
timber that is healthy, and the greatest majority of it, is at an
altitude of more than a thousand feet, and on none of that which
is more than a thousand feet above the sea level has any trace
of the blight been found; but it is found occurring at altitudes
less than 800 feet and in regions where the rainfall is great.

121

THE CHAIRMAN: On account of the particularly interest-
ing address that we heard from Professor Davis to-night, the
Chair thought that there would be some questions directed to
him, but it seems that the discussion has gone along on somewhat
different lines. There is one question howeyer, which Professor
Davis has not answered, with reference to gathering the crop
while it is still green, if I remember the question. Will Pro-
fessor Davis kindly answer that question?

PROFESSOR DAVIS: In September, when the burrs are
green, you can shake them from the trees as you can apples,
and the entire crop has been harvested without frost. When
they are shaken off, they are allowed to dry a little while. When
you shake them off in September they color up brown and the
frost, I think, has nothing to do with it.

THE CHAIRMAN: This note has been sent to the Chair:
“Will you please ask Dr. Spalding, of the United States Bureau
of Plant Industry, what has been done in the vicinity of Wash-
ington, D. C., to prevent the spread of the chestnut bark dis-
ease?” Of course, it wiil be impossible now to go into that sub-
ject at length, but if Dr. Spaulding will tell us, in a minute or
two, something of what has been accomplished, and in a word,
the main features of the method, T feel sure it will be appre-

ciated.

DR. SPAULDING: [Tam not very familiar with the work that
has been done in the vicinity, because I have been working on
other problems most of the time during the last few years. I
simply know, in a rough way, that the method of cutting out
had been practiced wherever diseased trees have been found and,
as far as I know, that has been fairly successful. There are cases
where spores have been found on the stump of an old tree. In
many cases, | am sure from Dr. Metcalf’s statement, no special
precautions were taken to remove the diseased chips, or eyen to
remove the bark from the stump, so that certain cases might very
well be expected to have the fungus at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: It seems now, the time being half past
ten, that we had best do one of two things: either take a recess
until to-morrow morning at sharp nine o'clock, or decide to spend

122

the rest of the night here and finish this subject The Chair
learns that Mr. H. P. Marshall is not here and therefore cannot
serve on the Committee on Resolutions for New York. He will
ask Mr. Merkel to take his place. This Committee will meet at
the right of the Chair immediately after adjournment, only for
a minute or two.

MR. THALHEIMER, of Reading, Pa.: .Mr. Chairman: I
was listening to the gentleman from New York. I think he has
the proper theory, that is, that the spores are spread by the
wind blowing them from place to place, and just according to
how the wind blows at a certain time. Take the Orlansa tree.
It is called Orlansa in Latin, Lancewood in English and Para-
dise tree in German. It is a tree like a sumac. There is prob-
ably one out of fifty that has a seed on it, like grapes, and at
certain times of the winds they are blown for thousands of feet.
Some may land between the mortar, or between the bricks, of
a building, and a tree will grow there. If you go up Third street
from the ferry after you land there, you will see here and there
and everywhere in the front yards a nice little tree growing
there, if they have let it grow. You have all seen that, especially
in Washington. That seed is just like a leaf, and it is as sharp
as a knife, and the seed is encased in that leaf and that gets into
any crevice. I shave had some taken out of my wall that grew
there, and they would grow to a good size. I have seen them
grow out of a brick pavement, where there was not any sweep-
ing or any work done around.

THE CHAIRMAN: As President Drinker cannot serve on
the Committee on Resolutions, Mr. Green is asked to serve in
his place.

We will now take a recess until nine o’clock to-morrow morn-
ing to meet again in this room.

(Adjourned until Wednesday, February 21, 1912, at 9 o’clock
A. M.)

] wo

~~

MORNING SESSION.

Wednesday, February 21, 1912, 9 o’clock A. M.

THE CHAIRMAN: The meeting will please be in order.
We have a busy session before us and in.a few moments oppor-
tunity will be given for the presentation of such business as
ought to come up, and then we will proceed with our programme.
It has been suggested to the Chairman, and he very heartily ap-
proves of the suggestion, that we should start our morning ses-
sion with a good taste in our mouths, which would be provided
by hearing a few remarks from our old friend, Dr. J. T. Roth-
rock, who is recognized as the father of Pennsylvania forestry
conservation, and, if there is no objection, the Chair will change
from the established order to call upon Dr. Rothrock for a few
remarks at this time. (Applause).

DR. JOSEPH T. ROTHROCK: Mr. Chairman and Gentle-
men: This question of chestnut blight, although of course it is
a portion of the forestry work of the State, is somewhat foreign
to the line in which I have been most actively interested. I
would say, though, that it was my good fortune in 1880 to spend
nine months in the laboratory of Professor DeBarry at Strass-
burg, Germany. DeBarry at that time was recognized as the
leading fungologist of the world. I departed from the faith that
was in me then, not because of lack of interest in the field, but
because my eyesight gave out, and I drifted then into forestry.
So that you will see that I am not wholly without a knowledge
of the rudiments of this work that you are engaged in.

Now when a contagious disease breaks out among men or
among domestic animals, the first thing that is done is to limit,
as far as possible, the spread of the infection, or of the contagion.
Meanwhile, the laboratories of the land are doing all they can
to find out the causes and what is to be done to end the trouble.
The two lines of work are progressing side by side. When the
Peronospora invaded the vine-growing districts of France and
Germany, the laboratories of the Old World were busily en-

124

gaged in finding out how the fungus that produced the trouble
in the wine-growing districts found its access into the vines. I
had the pleasure of having Professor DebBarry point out to me
himself the first spore that I ever saw, sending its germ threads
down into the tissue of the plant. I do not know who discovered
the Bordeaux mixture, but I do know that that was very in-
fluential in limiting the spread of the disease and restoring the
wine industry to its normal and natural condition. I do not be-
lieve, however, that it was discovered by our scientific friends;
but they did discover the life history of the disease, which was
a most important, permanent contribution to the vine-growing,
Wine-producing industry of the Old World. Now it seems to
me that we are in a somewhat similar condition here. We have
with us a pest, which is destroying our forests. It seems to
me that the proper thing to do is to destroy every spore-produc-
ing specimen that we know is actively engaged in disseminating
and widening the area of the disease. That would seem to be
one commonsense remedy to adopt. It is along the line of what
we know in the treatment of contagious and infectious diseases.
In the meanwhile, let our laboratory men go on with renewed
energy and keep up the work. I think that every State in this
Union ought to have a laboratory of well equpiped scientific
men, men who follow their work not for their salary but for
the love of the work. Those are the men that give you the perma-
nent results. I would like to see every State in this Union
have a laboratory well equipped and well provided with all that
is necessary to produce effective work. Mark Twain on one
occasion made the remark that they had a queer way of dealing
with criminals out West. He said “They hang them first and
try them afterwards.” Now it seems to me that we have the
known criminal with us here. Let us hang him first and then
let our jaboratory friends try him in the meanwhile. (Applause
and laughter).

MR. HAROLD PEIRCE, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman:
I move that at 11.30 A. M., the Conference take a recess until
two o’clock, and at that time, 11.80 A. M., the Committee on
Resolutions meet in the House Caueus room. IT would also

move that no resolutions be received after 10.30, and that up

125

to that time, all resolutions that are desired to be brought to
the Committee on Resolutions be sent to the desk, to be presented
to the Resolutions’ Committee.

Seconded by Dr. Russell Smith, of Pennsylvania.

THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is that we adjourn this meet-
ing at 11.30, to reconvene at 2 o’clock, and that at 11.30, the
Resolutions’ Committee meet in the House Caucus room, which
is below this room, on the main floor, and that no resolutions be
received after 10.30 this morning, and that all resolutions should
be presented at the desk during the next sixty minutes. You
have heard the motion, which has been seconded. Are there
any remarks? If there are no remarks, we will call for a vote.

The motion was put and unanimously carried.

MR. PEIRCE: I have a letter that has been sent me, that
I think it would be well to have read.

THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Secretary read the letter.
Secretary Besley read the following letter, written upon letter

head of the Harrisburg Board of Trade:

“Dear Mr. Peirce:

It occurs to me to suggest that it might be well to haye Mr.
Pearson call the attention of the chestnut tree bark disease con-
ference to several things relating to the stay of the delegates
in Harrisburg.

1. The Capitol Building, itself easily one of the ten great
buildings of the world, with its appropriate and memorable art
decorations, is an exhibit worth looking at. There are courteous
guides at hand to explain to visitors its features.

2. The State Museum, loused in the Library building, just
south of the Capitol building, is almost unique in character.
It presents an epitome of the life and manufactures of Pennsyl-
vania.

3. The City of Harrisburg is a civic exhibit well worth the
attention of any visitor to the conference. It has in ten years
made more progress, in proportion, than any other city in the
United States, toward true civic improvement. Its two-mile-im-
proved water front, open to the public; its 55 miles of paved
streets; its great park system, including 749 acres, which last

126

year cared for more than a million and a quarter visitors; its
notably efficient and pleasing water filtration plant, open to
visitors, on Island Park; its dignified city entrance, at Market
Street and the river,—all make it worth a look from those in at-
tendance upon the conference.

I have instructed the secretary of our Board of Trade, Mr.
James A. Bell, to present this to vou and to proffer his assistance
in connection with any information about the city.

Congratulating you on the already apparent success of your
splendid work, and on the monumental and unique character of
this conference, I am

Yours truly,
J. HORACE McFARLAND,
President.”

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that if Presi-
dent McFarland will kindly do so, it would be most agreeable
if he would be in the ante-room at the close of this session, to
meet delegates who desire to secure further information or sug-
gestions from him. Certainly his letter is much appreciated.
Is there further business to be attended to at this time? One
of the first rules of physies is that two objects cannot occupy
the same space at the same time. The Chairman is reminded of
this rule when he looks at the programme and reflects upon sey-
eral requests that have come to him for other matters than those
mentioned on the programme to be presented in the short session
of this morning. The fact is, we have now just two hours, and a
programme which easily could occupy double that time. If mem-
bers wish to give instructions for the guidance of the proceed-
ings this morning, it might facilitate matters.

MR. SHEPPARD: Mr. Chairman: I move you that the
Chairman be empowered to confine all discussions to three points
upon this morning’s programme, and that all talks on these sub-
jects be limited to three minutes.

Seconded by Mr. Merkel, of New York.

THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is the discussion on this
morning’s session shall be confined to the three points on the

127

morning programme, It woud save a little time if Mr. Sheppard
would tell us just how he defines those points, there being four
papers.

MR. SHEPPARD: First, the Pennsylvania programme, the
third, the chestnut blight and the future of the forests, and the
fourth, the chestnut blight and constructive conservation. The
second item (reports of the State Foresters), is one that would
be so general that it seems to me we could hardly get very far
with it.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved, then, that we confine dis-
cussion to those three subjects, remarks to be limited to three
minutes, which, of course, would govern except by exception
being made by unanimous consent.

PROFESSOR CLINTON, of Connecticut: What is this?
A Pennsylvania Conference, or a Conference of the United
States?

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there other remarks?

PROFESSOR HOPIKENS, of Washington: It might be well,
Mr. Chairman, to state some additional subjects that are to be
presented this morning, to be taken into consideration along this

line. We would like to discuss the inseets before we are through.
Pen)

THI CHAIRMAN: There have been numerous suggestions

that we should give some attention to insects.

MR. PEIRCE: I think it would be well for that resolution
to carry this morning, not in order to cut off discussion, but
because the programme this morning was formed for constructive
work and for utilization; and I think it would be well if we would
carry out that line this morning. An opportunity will be given
this afternoon, I should think, for all other subjects to be pre-
sented. If we confine ourselves to the one thing that is specially
mentioned in those three subjects, I think we can get more effec-
tive work that if we try to have a diverse discussion this morn-
ing.

THE CHAIRMAN: If you observe the subjects on the pro-
gramme I think you will find that they would not confine discus-
sion to Pennsylvania questions. Are there further remarks?

128

MR. CASSELL, of Pennsylvania: Do you think it might be
well, under the circumstances, to make No. 2 on your programme
No. 4? Then, if we have time for it, it could come up and some
of our friends, who have come prepared to report under that,
would have their opportunity.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you offer that as an amendment?
MR. CASSELL: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: An amendment is offered, that question
No. 2 follow No. 4. Is the amendment seconded?
The amendment was seconded by Mi. Peirce.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to take any further action,
or suggest any further action? If not, we will put the amend-
ment first.

The amendment was put and carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: Now you have the original motion as
amended, that discussion be strictly confined to the three sub-
jects. Is there any desire to open up the insect question this
morning? If so, we should hear another amendment.

PROFESSOR CLINTON: I understand that Mr. Hopkins
has something to say, and I, for one, should like to hear what
he has to say. I move that, at sometime at least, we hear from
him. I do not care whether it is this morning or this after-
noon.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would be glad to entertain
an amendment.

PROFESSOR RANE, of Massachusetts: It seems to me that
we are losing a good deal of time on these amendments. I should
like to hear the papers, and then also hear Professor Hopkins

on the insect question.

MR. PEIRCE: TI would move that Professor Hopkins pre-
sent his paper at two o'clock this afternoon.
The motion was seconded.

129

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has one motion before the
House, to confine the discussion to three subjects and remarks to
three minutes in each case.

(The motion was put and carried).

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Peirce makes a motion that Profes-
sor Hopkins be requested to speak on the insect question at
two o'clock this afternoon.

The motion was seconded by Mr. I. C. Williams, was put and
duly carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: Having executed the criminal, we will
proceed with the trial, and ask Mr. Hopkins if that will be agree-
able to him.

PROFESSOR HOPKINS: I had planned to leave for Wash-
ington directly after dinner, at least at three o'clock, and I
am afraid that will interfere with my plans; but, if it is the wish
of the meeting, I will submit.

THE CHAIRMAN: It would be very kind of Professor Hop-
kins to remain over. It seems almost the unanimous wish. We
will proceed with the morning programme, the first paper being
“The Pennsylvania Programme,” by the first secretary of this
Conference and the executive officer of the Chestnut Blight Com-
mission, Mr. 8. B. Detwiler. (Applause).

THE PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAMME.
By 8S. B. DETWILER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PENNSYLVANIA CHEST-
NUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Although a deter-
mined effort to control and eradicate the chestnut bark disease
was made by a number of public spirited citizens, residing in
the vicinity of Philadelphia, it soon become evident that they
were unable through individual efforts, to save their valuable
chestnut trees from destruction. As a result, Pennsylvania
took up the fight against this destructive tree disease in earnest,
realizing the necessity for prompt and vigorous action on the

part of the Commonwealth. A Commission was appointed in
9

15¢

June, 1911, for the purpose of thoroughly investigating the
chestnut blight, to devise and apply ways and means through
which it might, if possible, be stamped out.

In 1909, according to the report of the State Auditor General,
there were 7,633,180 acres of forest land in Pennsylvania, of
which it is estimated that 21 per cent., or approximately one-
fifth, is chestnut timber. Allowing two poles, four ties, and
two cords of wood per acre, and allowing $2.00 per pole, 53 cents
per tie, $1.00 per cord for wood, the total value of the chestnut
timber in Pennsylvania would be $55,000,000, in round numbers.
If we allow $15,000,000 as the total value of the nut crop, and
orchard, park, and shade trees, the total value becomes $70,000,-
000. This does not consider the value of chestnut forests as
protection for water-sheds. By dividing the counties in the
eastern half of the State into zones, as shown on the map, on
the same basis as the above estimate is made, the value of the
chestnut trees already killed or affected by blight in Pennsyl-
Vania is estimated at $10,000,000. Of this amount $7,000,000
is the value of poles, ties, and other wood products, and $3,000.-
000 is estimated as the value of orchard, park, and shade trees,
the loss to nurserymen, and to real estate owners. It is believed
that $3,000,000 is a low estimate for the value of these trees, since
the loss to real estate owners and to owners of shade and orchard
trees has been particularly severe in the southeastern corner of
the State where the chestnut tree is of great importance in this
respect.

No reliable estimate of the annual income from the sale of
chestnut products in Pennsylvania can be given. The statistics
of the Forest Service, for the vear 1909, show that for the United
States, the value of the annual cut in that vear was approxi-
mately $20,000,000. Of this amount, about one-half was the
value of lumber, lath, and shingles, the other half representing
the value of poles, ties, and extract wood.

The Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission began
its investigations in August, 1911. The general plan adopted
by the Commission is that recommended by Dr. Metcalf in his
recent bulletin on the control of the chestnut bark disease. In
brief, this consists in first determining the exact range of the

Il

disease, especially the advance points of the infection. The dis-
eased trees of these spot infections are destroyed as soon as
possible after being located. Ultimately, it is planned to es-
tablish a zone free from the disease which will be constantly
patrolled for new infections. The portion of the State west of
this zone will be thoroughly scouted over at least once each year
and new spot infections eradicated as soon as found.

Kast of the immune zone no immediate attempt will be made
to eradicate the disease, partly because most of the energy will
be required to fight the disease in the immune zone and west-
ward, and also because of the poor market for chestnut pro-
ducts, especially cordwood, of which a large amount will be pro-
duced. It is planned, however, to place competent men in the
region of general infection for the purpose of encouraging tim-
ber owners to cut their diseased trees before they deteriorate, and
to assist them in finding a market for this material. In com-
munities east of the general advance line where the per cent. of
blight is not high and the owners desire to co-operate in cutting
out the diseased trees, the Commission plans to give all possible
encouragement and assistance.

At the risk of being tedious, I will give a resume of the pro-
visions of the Act which governs the work of the Pennsylvania
Conunission.

Section 1. A commission consisting of five persons, to serve
for three years, is created.

They are given power to use all practical means to destroy
the chestnut tree blight.

The Department of Forestry is directed to work in collabora-
tion,

Section 2. The Commission and its agents or employes are
given power to enter upon any property to determine whether
trees are attacked by blight. They are directed to co-operate
with owners for the removal of the trees and eradication of the
disease. The commission will furnish every owner with infor-
mation respecting the location of his blighted trees.

Section 3. If an owner refuses to co-operate with the Com-
mission in applying remedies or doing any act directed to be
done to prevent further spread, the Commission may give him

152

twenty days’ notice that it will proceed if he does not. At the
end of the period of notice the Commission may cause trees to
be destroyed and the cost of doing such work is collectible from
the owner; and if the cost be not paid within sixty days, the
Commission is directed to proceed by action at law.

An owner may appeal from the decision of a member of the
Commission or any of its agents or employes, within ten days
after receiving his notice. The Commission will then direct a
re-examination and accord a hearing to the person making the
appeal. Proceedings in the meanwhile will stay.

Section 4. The Commission is given power to establish a
quarantine or destroy trees not affected by blight, if so doing will
result in preventing spread of the disease. Good trees so de-
stroyed are to be paid for at current stumpage prices. In case
an owner be dissatisfied with an amount allowed him for the
destruction of good trees, he may appeal to a court for such
remedy as he thinks he may be entitled to.

Section 5. Violations of this Act or any of the regulations
adopted by the Commission, or resistance to an officer of the
Commission, are declared to be a misdemeanor, and upon con-
viction, the defendant may be fined $100 or imprisoned one
month; and the provisions of the Act are extended to corpora-
tions as to individuals.

Section 6. The Commission shall receive no pay but actual
expenses only. The employes of the Cominission are to receive
such compensation as the Commission may determine.

The superintendent of Buildings and Grounds shall furnish
them with suitable offices.

Twenty-five thousand dollars is appropriated for scientific re-
search and office expenses, and $250,000 additional for general
field work.

Section 7. Repeals all inconsistent legislation.

A quarantine on the shipment of chestnut nursery stock was
declared by the Commission soon after its organization. Regu-
lations were made requiring that all nursery stock prior to ship-
ment be inspected by an agent of the Commission and dipped for
several minutes in an approved fungicide, preferably Bordeaux
mixture, in the presence. ofan inspector. Nurserymen are pro-

hibited from shipping, and transportation Companies from carry-
ing chestnut stock not bearing the Commission's tag. Chestnut
nursery stock shipped into the State from without is to be held
at the border of the State for inspection. The nurserymen and
transportation companies of the State deserve credit for will-
ingly co-operating with the Commission to make this regulation
effective.

A field force of over thirty men has been organized and the
extent of the blight in the State has been determined approxi-
mately. The infected region in Pennsylvania occupies the east-
ern two-fifths of the State. The western-most line of general
advance may be shown by drawing a line from Susquehanna to
Williamsport, and southward through Huntingdon to the south-
ern boundary of the State, although there are scattered spot in-
fections west of this to near the Ohio State line, in the south-
western corner of the State. The field work done by the Com-
mission last summer and fall was largely scouting to locate the
extent of the disease. From January 15 to February 15, 1912,
1,552 infected trees on 87 tracts have been disposed of according
to the regulations of the Commission, and fully as many more
are in the process of removal. This is part of the work, in ad-
dition to general scouting and the holding of meetings for the
purpose of educational work on the part of the field agents.
During the summer months, when the work is carried on to the
best advantage, it is planned to increase the field force so that
the State may be thoroughly scouted and all diseased trees cut
out west of the advance line.

On the advance line and to the westward, the owner of the
trees marked for removal is required to burn the bark from
visibly diseased or cankerous portions of the trees. He is also
required to destroy the bark of the stumps of infected trees, either
by peeling the bark to the ground line and burning it, or
by burning the brush over the stump until the bark is consumed.
Iixperiments are being tried to determine if it is not practical
to cover the stump with kerosene, crude petroleum, tar, or some
similar material, to make the destruction of the bark thorough
and less expensive. <A trial shows that one man at this season of

Pvt m,
» es
ete)

ce .
Po > ial

134

the year can peel six stumps 10 to 15 inches in diameter in an
hour. That is a conservative figure.

It is the policy of the Commission to use every possible means
of securing the co-operation of Owners in cutting infected tim-
ber, before resorting to their power under the law. The power
that the law gives the Commission is sufficient to insure respect
for its powers, but we realize that the law alone is not suflicient
to make the plan of controlling this disease effective unless it
is backed by strong public sentiment in its favor. This is being
| accomplished by educating the public to recognize the symptoms
of the disease and to realize its serious character through lee-
tures, field meetings, circulars, newspaper articles, and other
work of an educational nature, such as interesting school chil-
dren and boy scouts in the movement. So far, no serious oppo-
sition has been met with in the work of eradication; on the con-
trary, we have had exceptional co-operation from all classes
of timber owners.

The Commission maintains a laboratory for determining
doubtful infections, and for conducting experiments in the con-
trol of the disease through the use of sprays, fertilizers, and medi-
cations. The Commission is giving an impartial trial to the many
remedies submitted, to determine their effectiveness. These ex-
periments are being pushed forward as rapidly as may be done,
but no remedy will be endorsed by the Commission until its
efficiency has been demonstrated beyond all doubt. Most of those
submitting remedies for the blight have in mind the size of our
appropriation rather than the practicability and efliciency of
their remedies to the public.

The Commission keenly realizes its responsibility to the pub-
lic for the proper expenditure of the funds placed at its disposal.
Yesterday's proceedings of the conference emphasized the great
need for comprehensive scientific investigation into all phases
of the blight problem. It is only by finding out all the facts
relative to the disease that we can hope to eradicate it, and it
is evident that many scientific facts of practical importance are
still unknown. Tor instance, it has not yet been definitely deter-
mined what agents are of primary importance in distributing the

spores, or to what extent the disease may be spread by the

135

transportation of barked and unbarked products of diseased
trees, two points which have a direct bearing on cost and
efliciency of control.

The woodpecker and other birds have been blamed for spread-
ing the blight, when in my opinion it is more apt to be the fault
of insects. Further investigations may prove this to be as much
a problem for the entomologist as for the pathologist. We feel
a sentimental interest in the birds. Nevertheless, this does not
free us from also investigating them to find out scientifically
their exact relation to the spread of this disease. In other words,
we must investigate everything, whether we believe one thing
or another. At the present time three field agents have been de-
tailed to make special studies of field conditions for the purpose
of securing further facts relative to several of these problems.
Many lines of co-operative investigation and experiment are in
progress and others are planned. Detailed knowledge of the
agents causing infection and the time of year when infection
occurs, Which will be obtained as the work progresses, will un-
doubtedly assist in making control more etfective and in cheapen-
ing the cost of the work of eradication, by pointing out the
simplest methods required to give satisfactory results. In the
meantime, however, it is our belief that sanitation is practical
and should give good results in checking the spread of this dis-
ease as it has done in the case of other diseases. Quarantine
measures proved successful in checking outbreaks of yellow
fever after the mosquito was convicted. It is more than prob-
able that by destroying the diseased bark of infected trees in the
eastern half of the State, we shall also destroy the agency
which spreads the disease.

In my opinion, the big problem which confronts us and which
more than any other will determine the success or failure of
our undertaking is the question of profitable utilization. <A
satisfactory market for the yarious classes of chestnut wood
which must be disposed of as a result of the cutting-out method
of control, appears to me to be vital to the ultimate success of
the plan. The active co-operation of chestnut owners cannot
be willingly secured if they must do the cutting at a loss. We
have found that owners who were reluctant to cut have been

136

willing to do so after they found a market for the product which
enabled them to follow our regulations without expense, or per-
haps at a profit. The Commission, by acting as a clearing house
to bring buyer and seller together, will be able to assist ma-
terially in solving this problem. ‘There are over thirty com-
mercial uses for chestnut wood, and it seems likely that all the
chestnut wood which will be produced can be utilized, provided
it can be delivered to factories and other consumers at a price
whieh will allow it to compete with other woods. The solution
of this problem seems to lie in lower frieght rates on chestnut
products. <All classes of chestnut products will probably become
more or less of a glut on the market, unless rates can be secured
which will enable such material to find a market over a much
wider territory than at the present. The greatest present diffi-
culty hewever lies in the disposal of chestnut cordwood.

Pennsylvania’s programme may be summed up as doing all that
can be done along the lines indicated to save the chestnut trees.
If successful, we shall be most happy; if we fail, after an honest
fight, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that it has been
money wisely spent. HKyen though we accomplish no more than
to secure the best utilization of the blight killed material, the
expenditure of money and effort is justified; and in addition, we
have the educational value along forestry, conservation, and
pathological lines; an object lesson to the State and Nation, of
which we must not lose sight.

Pennsylvania hopes for two great results from this conference;
first, the united effort of the states here represented in attempting
the control of the chestnut blight, and second, assistance from
users of chestnut products in devising ways and means of profit-
ably disposing of the products of diseased trees. The other thing
needful to ultimate success, that is, the complete scientific facts
of the disease, will be obtained in the course of time through sys-
tematic investigation, through the collection of facts, not through
hypotheses. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: The next paper is entitled “Chestnut
Blight and the Practice of Forestry in Pennsylvania,” by Dr.
H. P. Baker, Department of Forestry, State College, Penna.

THE CHESTNUT BLIGHT AND THE PRACTICE OF FOR-
ESTRY IN PENNSYLVANIA.

BY DR. H. P. BAKER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am glad indeed of
this opportunity of presenting a very informal paper, and I
wish you would consider it as an introduction to discussion only.
I feel like apologizing a little for presenting so short a paper.
In fact, I received a telegram in regard to it just as I was leaving
State College and have not been back to the College since, so
that what I have gotten together has been on the run and I am
afraid will not be facts entirely.

The Chestnut Bark Disease (Diaporthe parasitica), which was
first observed in this country in 1904 in the vicinity of New
York, has now spread through the hardwood forests of ten to
twelve of the eastern States. Up to this time the loss from de-
struction of chestnut trees of all ages has probably been more
than fifty million of dollars. (From Mr. Charles Marlatt, of the
sureau of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture
in National Geographic Magazine). The chestnut, because of its
sprouting capacity, rapidity and vigor of growth, and the natural
durability of its wood, is one of the most valuable hardwoods
of our eastern forests. It is especially valuable for farmers’
wood lots, because of the simplicity of management necessary to
produce repeated yields of posts, poles and ties, and that within
a shorter time than possible with any other common hard wood,
or wood of equal value. The length of rotation for pro-
duction of posts and poles may be made so short, with proper
care and protection of the wood lot, that the ordinary ery of too
long an investment for profit will not apply to the growing of
chestnut under simple coppice. By simple coppice we mean the
cutting of the forest and its reproduetion by sprouts from the
stumps. This method has been praticed by our wood lot owners
for a good many years. They have not called it simple coppice,
but it has been that just the same, and they have been practicing
it very successfully indeed.

158

[ cannot believe, in view of the great value of chestnut wood
and the rapidity and vigor of its growth, that we can get along
without it in our Pennsylvania forests, or in our eastern forests.
I am optimistic naturally, and I do not believe that we will ever
carry on forest management in this country without using chest-
nut.

With the possibility of the complete commercial destruction
of this valuable tree, it is indeed time that the foresters of the
country consider what the effect of the removal of this tree will
have upon the future of the forests and whether or not the intro-
duction of some special method of management may not make it
more difficult for the disease to spread or make it easier for the
tree to resist the disease by keeping it in the most healthful and
vigorous growing condition. These are not easy questions to
answer, because we have no precedent to follow, either in the
practice here or abroad. We have never had such a serious
enemy of the forest working in a well settled region of the coun-
try, and at a time when both the national and state governments
are so well disposed to appropriate sufficient funds for combating
the pest. In the State of Pennsylvania we are now carrying on
work against this disease which was undreamed of when we
were suffering earlier from special insect devastations in our
forests.

A very brief statement of the devastations of two similar pests
may help us to appreciate somewhat our problems in connection
with the blight. In 1882 the Larch Saw-fly worm appeared in
the native larch or tamarack in Maine, and during the next five
years did tremendous damage throughout northern New England
and New York. By destroying the needles of the trees it caused
their slow death and not until the territory had been pretty thor-
oughly covered by the insect and until certain natural enemies
arose did this insect finally disappear. Nothing, of course, was
done to combat the insect or prevent its spread. While it was
not possible to estimate the damages resulting from the work
of this insect, it must have exceeded several millions of dollars.
There was no serious re-occurrence of this pest until last vear,
when it appeared in the tamarack swamps of the Northern Lake
States. It is reported that Michigan is studying this pest with

139

the hope of being able to do some effective work against it. |
mention this pest because it practically wiped out the tamarack
in northern New England as a commercial tree, though after the
pest had passed there were single trees and also considerable
areas left that were not touched at all. We heard little of it,
because there was lots of timber everywhere else, and people
were not interested. It was not brought home to them as the
work of this chestnut disease is here in Pennsylvania. Yet the
tree was not wiped out entirely, and I cannot believe that, even
though this blight disease may spread ever so widely through
the Appalachians, that the chestnut will become extinct.

The second and better known devastation of forests by an in-
sect was that of the Nun or Spruce Moth which appeared over
considerable areas of the spruce forests in southern Germany in
1891 and 92. Bavaria alone spent over three hundred and
seventy-five thousand dolars in combating this insect and finally
by the use of bands or rings of viscous tar on the trees prevented
the upward movement of the larvae from the ground and thus
the pest was destroyed. Great areas of forests were clear cut
and the market was glutted with spruce poles and logs of certain
sizes. Dr. Iindres, the great forest statistician of Munich, re-
ports that even though there was an apparent over-supply of
timber from these clear cuttings, yet the market did not suffer
and a good average price was received for all material. The
methods followed in Europe for combating either insect or fun-
gous pests are hardly applicable here because of their denser
population, cheaper labor and smaller and more accessible for-
est areas,

Much was accomplished in Bavaria and the states of south-
western Germany by the clear cutting of the.forests in broad
strips. In replanting these strips some attempt was made to
replace the spruce by species not susceptible to injury by the
moth. This, however, was not followed out to any large extent,
because the spruce is the most profitable tree for southern Ger-
many. I believe that no system we may use in wiping out this
chestnut disease, if we are able to do it, will preclude the use of
chestnut in our future forest management. The forester is going
to grow the tree from which he can make the most money, if the

140

agencies of nature will let him do it. Of course, the agencies of
nature are against us now in this chestnut disease fight. Strips
of forest in Germany often a half mile wide were left while the
cleared areas ranged from a dozen rods up to a quarter mile in
width, depending both upon the age of the forest and topography.
The Government having the right of condemnation entered pri-
vate holdings at any time and forced owners to cut infested areas.
It is fortunate that the act appropriating money for the control
of the chestnut blight gives this same right. We must, however,
proceed with great care in condemning trees and timber so as not
to arouse the opposition of the people to the work of blight eradi-
cation and the introduction of methods of management which
will perpetuate best the remaining chestnut and other hard
woods.

The two pests described above are unlike, of course, a fungous
disease such as the blight. Insects are always more easily con-
trolled than fungous diseases. I mention this last one to bring
out especially the fact that Germany used a definite system of
forest management to overcome a great devastation of the forest
and that successfully.

Along the northern and western extension of the blight there
should be as clean a cutting of the worst infested areas as the
market will justify. The creation of a belt or zone in which
there is no chestnut is, probably, not practicable in combating
this disease, which is carried both by birds and insects. In lo-
calities where there are good markets for ties, mine props, acid
wood, and like small products, there will be no question as to
{he practicability of clean-cutting over considerable areas.
Where a proper market exists the possibilities of future returns
under the system of coppice will be most excellent in our hard
wood forests. The United States Forest Service, in a recent
statement as to the possibilities of this sprout land, estimates
returns as follows: -

“Good quality of oak and chestnut sprout land in the Appala-
chians can be purchased often for less than five dollars an acre.
Careful study shows that in fifty years these lands will yield
seven hundred cross ties to the acre. Assuming that two cents
an acre each year will pay the costs of efficient fire protection
and that a cent and a quarter per acre will pay the annual taxes,

141

the cross ties would have to be worth, at the end of the fifty-year
period required to produce them, eight and one-half cents on the
stump to return five per cent. compound interest on the entire
investment in land, protection and taxes. Any adyance in the
price of tie stuinpage within the fifty-year period would mean
that much profit over the percentage given.”

I have referred to those returns from sprout land simply to
show what can be done in the way of practicing simple coppice
effectively over our hard wood forests. We can, I believe, stimu-
late a market for certain forest products. I know that many
say we cannot help the present market conditions, but L am op-
timistic in this as great manufacturing concerns are stimulating
the market for certain special products. Why should we not be
able by showing fully the uses of chestnut stimulate its use to a
greater extent than at present, at least? We must emphasize
continually the utilization phases of the problem, it seems to me,
in seeking methods which will accomplish the greatest good for
owners of chestnut timber.

Simple coppice, which many of our Pennsylvania wood lot
owners have been carrying on, in a way, for years, is without
doubt the best method both for the perpetuation of the wood
lots and for keeping them in such conditien as to insure the
chestnut being as hardy as possible against the work of the
blight. That is, I believe we can accomplish a great deal by
putting our chestnut forests into a more healthful condition. A
tree in a healthy, rapid-growing condition, is going to be able to
resist the blight and other diseases much more effectively than
if it is in the condition in which too many of our wood lots and
chestnut trees are at the present time. Wood lots have been run
over repeatedly by fires, the humus is gone and the soil has been
depleted. The trees are just hanging on, we might say, and no
wonder they are susceptible to any disease that may come along.
We can accomplish a great deal by methods of control that will
put our chestnut forests into a better growing condition. Unfor-
tunately, a considerable proportion of our wood lots, in which
there is chestnut, have been cut very carelessly and little or no
protection given the developing sprouts from either fire or graz-
ing. There has been more or less complaint as to this method
because of the gradual dying out of the mother stump. A great

142

deal of our cutting is done carelessly. Too high a stump is left,
so that, when the sprout comes out, it is liable to be broken off by
wind; whereas, if the stump had been cut low, even though it re-
quired a little more bending of the back, the sprout would be
able to establish a root system of its own, and there is then al-
most no limit whatever to the life of the mother stump. If a
high stump is left and the sprout comes up six, eight, or ten
inches from the ground or further, we cannot expect anything
else than the gradual dying out of the mother stump; hence a
ereat deal can be done in properly cutting the chestnut which
we want to reproduce by sprouts. Another cause for unsatis-
factory results from reproduction by sprouts, and perhaps a jus-
tifiable one, in view of present markets, is the leaving of old mis-
formed trees and forest weeds. These low-growing, lhalf-trees
are usually very tolerant and shade the sprouting stump in a
way that prevents vigorous growth. <A certain amount of shade
is desirable, but, as a rule, in our wood lots the owner, or the
contracting cutter, does not pay much attention to these weeds
and leaves them. They take advantage of the space and so shade
the ground or the sprouting stumps that the sprouts are not vig-
orous. One or two cleanings to remove these undesirable trees
would make the competition for space and light much less severe
and no doubt would result in better formed chestnut and oak,
and the chestnut, because healthier, would be better able to re-
sist both insects and fungi. These cleanings can be made as re-
peated cuttings on an exceedingly short rotation, even though
(he product will be of value for posts and mine props only. I,
instead of this weeding out, so to speak, of blight-infested trees,
here and there, we might induce the owners to use a definite sys-
tem of cutting, [ believe we would be accomplishing more per-
manent results. If instead of this destruction of scattered in-
fested trees, which may be and probably is effective in the south-
eastern part of the State, on small tracts, if, in the place of this
weeding out process, I say, we could induce the owners to use
some such system as clear-cutting and planting with non-sus-
ceptible trees, or cutting so as to keep the forest reproducing
rapidly by sprouts, I believe we would accomplish very much
more for forestry in Pennsylvania. If we could in some way
bring about such market conditions as to justify clear-cutting

143

and repeated clear-cuttings until the blight has disappeared,
might we not only get rid of the blight, but in the process bring
about the introduction of definite forestry practice?

Tam not condemning entirely the method of eliminating blight
infested trees. That method may be used more successfully over
small areas of woodland such as occur in the southeastern part
of the State. When one thinks of the tremendous areas of wood-
land which the State owns and is owned priyately for instance,
through Centre county and on up into Clinton county, the propo-
sition of going in and cutting out infested trees is a hard one to
consider. If over such lands we can bring about the introduc-
tion of some method of cutting on as short a rotation as possible,
and as often as the returns will justify it, it is easy to see that
we will keep the forest growing rapidly and healthfully and that
we will do more toward keeping the blight out and perpetuating
the chestnut than going here and there through that great area
and cutting out infested trees. While this Commission, which is
doing such a splendid work, and work which will always redound
to the credit of Pennsylvania, is eliminating infested trees here
and there through the State, might it not be able also to intro-
duce a system of management. among our woodland and forest
ewners which will continue beyond the life of the Commission?
At the present time, by the practice of eliminating diseased trees
you are getting rid of those infested trees only. In saying this
J am not discountenancing or underestimating the tremendous
educational value of the work which the Commission is doing,
but if you carry on this method of eliminating individual trees
only, what have you done for the owner after you get through
with it? You may have stopped temporarily the blight, but if
at the same time you can introduce a system of management that
is going to put the whole wood lot into better growing condition,
I say you are going to accomplish more in the way of permanent
results and more in a forestry way in this country. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: The next paper is entitled “The Chestnut
Blight and Constructive Conservation,” by Dr. J. Russell Smith,
of the University of Pennsylvania.

144

oo

THE CHESTNUT BLIGHT AND CONSTRUCTIVE CON-
SERVATION.

By DR. RUSSELL SMITH, OF THE WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA.

“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!’ In these words
Shakespeare makes the defeated King Richard IIT express the
value of a certain piece of property, as he paced the field of. de-
feat, seeking flight,—not what the horse would actually cost in
the horse market; not what he would bring in the horse market,
was the basis of valuation, but what was going to happen to
Richard III if he had to go without him.

On that basis I question if the estimates of the value of the
chestnut species have been placed anywhere near high enough.
The United States, with a big timber cut, is within from one to
three decades of an era of timber scarcity which will put us in
the position of having to go raise timber, rather than go find tim-
ber. In the timber-raising epoch the chestnut comes to the
front. Taken altogether it is for the next sixty years of this
ration a tree without a peer, for no other tree can touch it for ail-
around efficiency.

1. It grows rapidly. No other good tree of the forest can
equal it in the speed with which it makes wood. By the time
the white oak acorn makes a baseball bat the chestnut stump has
made a railroad tie. Cut it down and it throws its shoots up
six feet the first year and keeps them going. This astoundingly
fast start, in connection with its record fast growth, makes it a
forest marvel.

2. The wood of no other tree is so generally useful. It is dur-
able in the ground as posts, a quality which makes it a standard
telegraph and telephone pole, and a good railroad tie or mine
prop. It is durable above ground, giving it many virtues as lum-
ber. It is also a beautiful, prized, and much used wood for in-
terior finish. Lastly, it is full of tannin, so that any chip, top,
slab or scrap can be digested for this valuable manufacture.

145
The Blight Threatens a National Loss. Who Loses?

If anybody thinks he is not a loser because he has not a chest-
nut forest all his own, he has another think coming.

(a) Do you wear shoes? If so, the chestnut interests you,
because we are just beginning to make tannin for leather from
the wood of the chestnut.

(b) Do you read? The pulp that remains after the tannin
is gone makes paper; also a new industry just starting.

(c) Do you rent a house? Chestnut wood is one of the most
satisfactory woods for finishing the plain man’s house.

(d) Do you use the telephone or telegraph? Chestnut makes
one of the best telegraph and telephone poles.

(e) Do you go a-trolleying? The chestnut is the tie-produc-
ing tree of the future, if we do not let the blight kill the species.

(f{) Do you own a farm or a town lot? Chestnut is one of the
great fence post trees of America.

Lastly in its list of virtues we should not forget its value, and
especially its possibility as a producer of food for man, and sheep,
goats, hogs, and possibly other livestock. Already the chestnut
orchards of Europe make rough mountain sides worth one hun-
dred and fifty dollars per acre. Compare that to American farm
lands. The chestnut forests of Italy are reported to make more
bushels of nuts year after year than the continuously cropped
lands of Dakota and Minnesota yield in wheat. Fully one-
fourth of the State of Pennsylvania, which is worthless for wheat
or corn, is better fitted for chestnut culture than any other use
now in sight. If we make them yield no better than the Italians
do, that would give us ninety million bushels of nuts, an amount
50 per cent. greater than our wheat and corn crops combined.
It would make this one of the greatest sheep and pig fattening
states of the country.

The stake in maintaining the chestnut species from destrue-
tion is large. The estimate of three hundred million dollars is
probably under, rather than over, the proper figure. In the ab-
sence of definite knowledge of the cure, how much are we justified
in spending in uncertain efforts? The problem is one of insur-
ance. Forty billion dollars’ worth of property in the

10

146

United States was insured last year against fire, at an average
rate of 1.14 per cent. or four hundred and fifty-six million dollaxs
for fire insurance in one year,

Now ninety-nine and one-third per cent. of that property was
insured against a fire that did not come. American property
owners are paying over one per cent. of the value of their prop-
erty to be insured against a chance of less than one in one hun-
dred and thirty-three. Now it is pretty generally agreed here
that the blight has a better than a one one hundred and thirty-
third clrance of winning out if we sit still. Therefore, business
analogy tells us that we can at least afford to pay an average in-
surance rate on the risk. Don’t forget that this fire has already
broken out. If we raise an average insurance rate, for a fight-
ing fund, we have about three million four hundred thousand
dollars per year coming to us. Thus far the whole American
nation has not spent over one per cent. even of that sum, and the
blight has already destroyed nearly or quite one thousand times
as much as we have spent to stop it.

If there is any such thing as constructive conservation, this
chestnut blight is blowing the whistle for us to come and con-

struet, and get about it quickly.

What Can We Do?

1. All agree that we can stop the movement of nursery stock.

2. All agree that we can go home and start careful and thor-
cugh surveys of actual conditions in our various States.

3. Every State can start scientific investigation to get more
knowledge of the trouble.

4. very State can try the cutting-out method of control, at
least on small outbreaks, if not on a larger scale.

Therefore every State that has any blight needs an appropria-
tion of ten thousand dollars to fifty thousand dollars for the
season of 1912, depending on the size of the State. The Federal
Government also needs a substantial appropriation. Altogether
this will make but a fraction of the common sense fund that
would be produced by a one per cent. insurance rate on the pro-
perty involved.

There is no evidence to bring out in proof of the final efficieney
of cutting as a cure, On the other hand, actual observation has

147
shown that when a forest fire jumps your fire line, you jump on
it while it is little and stamp it out rather than let it run while
you devise a theoretically sound method of attack.

We are indebted to the two gentlemen who have had the cour-
age to come here and tell us that we didn’t know. We don't
know. But at least let us exert ourselves to the extent of ayer-
age insurance cost. We don’t know, but neither do the courage-
ous Messrs. Stewart and Clinton. Their objections savor largely
on the temperamental. For example, Professor Clinton tells
us that he thinks drought and other climatic causes may be re-
sponsible. This is very reasonable, but it is astonishing that
the gentleman did not bring something that was at least near-
evidence. If drought is the promoting factor, there have been
abundant opportunities to Compare trees that were in different
relations with respect to water. Connecticut, with its many
infestations of blight has given great opportunity to find chest-
nut trees languishing for water on rocky, sandy, shaly, and other-
wise very dry knolls. These could be compared with trees grow-
ing near water tables, in moist coves, below mill races, and in
other moist locations. Such comparisons would be in the nature
of proof for what is otherwise an entirely unproved theoretical
suggestion. Mr. Stewart opposed the cutting-out plan, men-
tioning as evidence the fact that Metcalf and Collins had cut
out an infestation and two years later the stumps showed a fun-
gus and six trees nearby had the blight. Would it not be better
to note that, after informal and experimental cutting out, only
six trees had blight? Mr. Stewart also mentions as a cause for
despair the fact that an outbreak at Fontella, Va., had been go-
ing since 1903. A Virginia report states that this outbreak has
in that time spread to about an acre of woodland.

A Lesson From the San Jose Neale.

This miserable litthe bug with an umbrella on his back had
us scared nearly to death ten years ago because he killed our
fruit trees so mercilessly. Now any farmer can turn him into
soap and keep his orchard clean, and the scientists are now tell-
ing us to go at the chestnut blight; only there is this difference

148

—a man can go after the scale. It takes the State, and much
better, all of the States, to stop the chestnut blight, for he
travels faster than the scale.

A National Scientific Campaign, or a National Standup Fight.
An Haample from Africa.

We have national corporations, national parties, national ¢o-
operation to make a meal even, and now we have got to make a
national organization to fight a tree enemy just as we would to
fight a man enemy. The problem is big, but we know how if
we will.

We have a splendid example in the South African cattle
plague. It swept for hundreds of miles, taking all cattle before
it as frost does the flies. Then the South African Governments
drew a quarantine line around it and fought it to a standstill
right there. The United States should try the same with the
chestnut blight.

An Haumple from the Peach Yellows.

The peach yellows is a disease of which we know just two
things. The first is that it is a sure kill for trees, the second
that it can be controlled by rigid quarantine. Before we knew
the second fact, the disease had actually broken up communities,
as in the Michigan peach belt, and reduced land values from
one hundred dollars an acre to thirty dollars per acre. With
quarantine in operation, and the disease still unknown, these
same localities have more peach trees than ever and are again -

prosperous.

A Lesson from the Foot and Mouth Disease of Cattle in Penn-

sylvania.

The foot and mouth disease in this State,—which cost us the
life of one of the most efficient men we have ever had, namely
the brother of our Chairman, Dr. Leonard Pearson,—the foot
and mouth disease, which is, practically, sure and quick death,
and so contagious that a stableman can carry it miles in his
clothes, broke out recently in Pennsylvania in many places. Yet
this State jumped on it, and by a sharp, stiff, stand-up fight, it

149

was absolutely stamped out in a few weeks by the rigorous es-
tablishment of a dead line. I think this chestnut disease calls
for constructive conservation of just that kind. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Last call for resolutions: All resolutions
should be presented without delay at the desk.

We are now to hear reports by State Foresters. What is your
pleasure in reference to the time to be assigned to this part of
the programme? Do you desire to place any limit on reports?
We desire, of course, to have them unlimited but, in your judg-
ment is it necessary to place any time limit on these reports?

PROFESSOR HARSHBERGER, of Pennsylvania: I believe
we have a time limit of half past eleven, and it is now within an
hour of that time, so I believe we are obliged to have these re-
ports within the next hour.

THE CHAIRMAN: In your opinion, would it be well, then, to
limit the reports to say eight minutes, except by unanimous con-
sent for more time?

PROFESSOR HARSHBERGER: [ would imagine so; eight
minutes with two minutes leeway, making it ten minutes in all.
T make that motion: that ile papers be Umited to eight iniautes,
with two minutes allowance.

The motion was seconded and carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: The motion prevails. It can, of course,
be excepted to under unanimous consent. Is the State Forester
or a representative prepared to report for Maine? (No re-
sponse). New Hampshire? (No response). Massachusetts?

PROFESSOR RANK; Is the idea of this report to give some-
thing along the line of work being done in the State

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will read the subject as stated
on the programme: “Reports of State Foresters or other officials
on the present extent of the bark disease; an estimate of the
present and possible future losses.” In answering Professor
Rane’s question, it would seem desirable to the Chair to discuss
this subject from the standpoint of his own State, if that answers
your question.

150

PROFESSOR RANE: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Convention: In so far as Massachusetts is concerned, we have
this chestnut bark disease and we have also gone at it in what
seems tO us a practical way. I simply wish to give you an idea
of how we are tackling the problem. In the first place, the dis-
ease Was found scattered here and there. I made arrangements
with Dr. Metcalf, because I considered he was the man of the
hour to give us instructions and ideas, to go forward and carry
out this work. Dr. Metcalf came on to Boston and we went over
the whole proposition, and finally arranged to have a man come
on Jast spring and go over the whole State. He spent the
months of June, July, and August, visiting on a motoreyele all
the forest sections of the State, to study the problem, and we
found that the disease was far more prevalent than even Dr.
Metcalf realized. Now when the report came out from Dr. Met-
calf’s assistant, the first idea he conveyed to us was that the
State of Massachusetts should call upon its Legislature for a
large sum of money. Most of you know undoubtedly that we
have been tackling the gvpsy and browntail moth problems, and
that these depredations, which have been pretty much confined
to Massachusetts, and more recently New Wampshire and
Maine have incurred much expense. Now we have been tackling
problems more or less of this sort and, as State Forester, I cer-
tainly did not wish to make the mistake of plunging into this
chestnut disease problem before I was sufficiently familiar with
it. We have a pretty thorough organization in Massachusetts
from the forestry management standpoint, and of the papers and
discussions that have come up here, the one that pleased me per-
haps most was the talk that was given by Professor Baker of the
State College. Gentlemen, it seems to me that in spite of the
question of our needs for plant mycologists and specialists, that
the necessary thing is to get further at the root of the trouble, and
that is to introduce a better organization in this present develop-
ment of our forest states and nation, a more definite forestry
management from a fundamental standpoint. The whole prob-
lem, it strikes me, of insect and fungus depredations, is one of
looking at it and studying it from the broader viewpoint, namely
that of the system of forestry management. We have had the
gypsy and browntail moth work in Massachusetts, more or less

151

similar ina general way, to this chestnut disease. We are spend-
ing in Masachusetts practically a million dollars every year on
these insects. Furthermore, if Massachusetts had not taken hold
of this problem as it did, undoubtedly these moths would have
been into Pennsylvania by this time. But we have taken hold of
it and we have methods and we understand more about this prob-
lem than We possibly could without this large appropriation.
The business-like way in which the State took hold of it has
commended itself. The State of Massachusetts is greatly in-
terested as we have been discussing the pro and con as to means
and ideas with regard to this blight disease. It is the same
thing, going through the same thing only of another kind that
the gypsy moth fight in Massachusetts has been. Even some of
the best entomologists of the country seemed to think originally
‘that the attempt to destroy the moths was money thrown away,
but the people living in the infested country have appreciated
the importance of it and we realize to-day that the money has
heen well spent. We have spent practically seven millions of
dollars on these insects. On this chestnut blight disease, there-
fore, we do not care to go to a big expenditure in Massachusetts.
What I have done thus far with this chestnut disease is to en-
deavor to systematize the work and carry it out along the same
line that we are carrying out our gypsy and browntail moth de-
predation work and our general forestry work. Forest fires have
been mentioned. The economic importance of putting a stop to
forest fires came along after the moths came. One thing has
evolved into another. At the present time I veritably believe
that in certain sections of Massachusetts the gypsy moth has
been a blessing to those sections. Why? Because formerly
there was no system of forestry management and little forest
education developed. We have gone in, cleaned up stumps,
dead wood and debris, selected better species of various trees,
that are now protected, and in twenty to twenty-five years I
veritably believe the product will pay for all the expenses we
have been to up to the present time.

Now this question of the blight disease again: As I have looked
upon it,—my observations may not be very keen,—but as I have
looked upon it in my own mind, we find it where the conditions
are unbalanced, That is here appears to be the worst condition

152

we have. IJ was out with a man owning seven thousand acres in
the western part of the State last Friday. The disease was the
worst where thinnings had been made and a few trees allowed to
stand because they were not large enough to cut into ties.
These forests were unbalanced and the air and sun allowed to
get in. The blight was on the southern side; the cankers showed
up largely there. But in the stands where we had normal con-
ditions, we found only a diseased tree once in awhile. There is
an unbalancing condition again where forest fires have raged
through the State year after year and the trees are abnormal
and only half alive anyway. There you find the disease seems
to travel more rapidly than it does where the trees are under
normal conditions and have a forest floor where there is plenty
of moisture and the conditions are more favorable. I have gone
over it with some of our best practical men, lumber men, and
they seem to think that it is a problem that is going to solve
itself. They are good, practical men; they have been in the
business a great many years, and are reluctant to believe that we
will lose all our chestnuts. The way that we are endeavoring
to solve this problem in Massachusetts is this: I have a forest
warden in each town, who is appointed by the officials of the
town, subject to the approval of the State Forester. JI am en-
deavoring to educate these men so that they will know this
disease. We have notified all of our papers throughout the State
that it is up to the people that own chestnut trees that they
become familiar with the disease; otherwise they are likely to
lose their chestnut stand. We are sending out literature. We
have just sent out a recent bulletin. The idea of the bulletin
was to show photographs so that a man could take the bulletin
and go out and determine whether the disease is present or not.
We send men from the office, at the expense of the State, to
assist anybody in cutting out, at the same time giving them
ideas as to better forestry management; and with that the idea
of education, endeavoring to make the work self-sustaining, so
that the people will attend to it themselves and without neces-
sitating State expense. I believe the first law is preservation,
self-preservation, and I believe we ought to educate, ought to
put out more practical publications that people will read. If
boiled right down to the essence of the work, farmers will look

153

after their own trees, and I think forestry management will
ultimately solve the problem as much as anything. There are
lots of ideas that 1 would like to suggest; for instance, the com-
parative conditions as between insects and fungous diseases. We
have had a great time in handling the gypsy moth; but in their
case we can see the egg clusters, while, when you come down
to a fungous disease, it is quite another proposition and a propo-
sition also that it seems to me we cannot begin to fathom so
quickly as one can in the handling of the insect. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to ask one short ques-
tion of Professor Rane?

PROFESSOR CLINTON: JI understand when they began
the work in Massachusetts, they were going to locate the disease
and cut it all out, and that Professor Rane had the authority
to send men into private woodlands of the farmers of the State
and destroy those trees, if he saw fit. He has not done that.
Why?

PROFESSOR RANE: As for the question of cutting out
the chestnut tree, that was our plan when Dr. Metcalf sent
his man in, and we went all over it. I selected one of our best
woodchoppers and he was to follow along and whereyer the ex-
pert found a tree,

we expected to find one in about every other
county in Massachusetts,—he was going to cut it out. This
fellow started out with an axe, and when we came to some old
trees that were about ten feet in circumference, and there was
some question as to whether the disease was there or not, but
they thought they had better cut it out anyway, this man did not
feel as if he was equal to the occasion. It was practically im-
possible to do anything along those lines and the trouble was
that, even among the experts, there was quite a discussion as to
whether the disease was prevalent or not. It is an impossible
problem to cut out under our conditions. The forestry manage-
ment end of handling the wood lot, and taking it out where you
can, I think is the practical solution.

THE CHAIRMAN: Connecticut.

PROFESSOR CLINTON: We have no appropriation in Con-
necticut to fight this trouble or to stop it. We have merely

154

carried on our investigations with ths usual appropriations of
our State. We are asking for no special fund.

I have a paper which I desire to present, and I want to state
that it is signed not only by myself as botanist, but also by Mr.
Spring, State Forester:

CHESTNUT BLIGHT SITUATION IN CONNECTICUT.
First Reports.

The first specimens of chestnut blight from Connecticut were
sent to the Experiment Station in November, 1907, by I. V.
Stevens of Stamford, who had found the disease doing consider-
able damage in his region during that summer. He also stated
that he thought he had seen the disease in one or two other towns
in the state. Since that report, others have stated to us that
they had seen the disease earlier, but had not known its nature
at the time. For example, Mr. G. H. Hollister, who is here to-
day, states that in the summer of 1905 he found a tree on the
Edgewood Park Estate at Greenwich that he now believes to
have had the blight. Our forester reports that a farmer in the
town of Easton also noticed the disease as early as 1905. These
three towns are all in Fairfield county, next to New York State.
In the winter of 1909, Mr. Newton J. Peck brought a specimen to
the Station from Woodbridge, New Haven County, and stated
that he had noticed the disease in his forest for four or five years.
So far, then, we have no information of the presence of the dis-
ease in Connecticut before 1905.

Subsequent Reports.

In the report of the Connecticut Experiment Station for 1908,
we noted the disease in twenty-two of the twenty-three towns
of Fairfield County, in eight towns of New Haven County, and
we had an unverified report of its occurrence in New London
County, in the eastern part of the State, making thirty-one towns
in all.

In the Station report for 1909-10, we listed the disease from
all the twenty-three towns of Fairfield County, twenty-one towns
of New Haven County, fourteen of Litchfield, seven of Hart-
ford, two of Middlesex, three of Tolland, one of Windham and
one of New London County. Thus we found the disease present

155

in all of the counties of the State, amd in seventy-two of the
towns. Of these only seven towns were east of the Connecticut
River, but this region had not been carefully examined. At the
Albany conference, held October 19, 1911, we reported the dis-
‘ase present in one hundred and twenty towns of the State.
To-day (February, 1912) we have records of its presence in 164
of the 168 towns of the State (all but Ashford, Kastford, Put-
nam and Haddam), and we have every reason to believe that a

careful search would reveal its presence in these four towns.

Present Situation.

The present situation in Connecticut, then, is that we have
the disease in more or less abundance in practically every town.
We are surrounded on three sides by states that have the disease
more or less abundant in their different counties. On the south,
we are separated by Long Island Sound from Long Island, which
also has the disease.

In Fairfield County as early as 1907, the disease was doing
considerable harm, and by 1909 it was very serious, while to-day,
from fifty to seventy-five per cent. of all the chestnuts are affected
or dead. New Haven County began to show evidence of trouble
in 1908, and at present the disease is present in most of the
forests and serious in many of them. Litchfield County did not
begin to show the trouble until 1909 and 1910, but last year it
was doing considerable damage there. Hartford and Middle-
sex counties also last year began to show its presence in their
forests, in some places very prominently. These counties are
all west of the Connecticut River. East of the river the trouble
is not nearly so general or abundant, but in some places in 1911
it Was causing considerable damage.

The year 1911 more than any other seemed to be favorable
for the spread and injurious effects of the fungus. This we at-
tribute to the unusual drought of that year, lasting from early
spring until the last of July. This is the fifth and most severe of
a series of drought years that we have had since 1907.

Control Work.

Our work in the field, besides locating the disease, has been
along the following lines:

156

(1) Studying the progress of the disease on marked trees.

(2). Setting out seedling chestnuts, including a few culti-
rated varieties, in infested forests, to see how the disease will
affect them.

(3). Attempting control in a badly diseased private forest by
the cutting out method. This did not prove of value, and after
two seasons we have discontinued the work. Opening up the
forest there seemed harmful to the chestnuts left, especially on
south and west exposures.

(4). Attempting control by the cutting out method in a state
forest where the disease was not conspicuous. This work has
just been started in our forest at Portland. Previous to 1911,
only a few diseased trees had been seen in this forest. Our pre-
liminary survey this winter, however, has shown it now present
more abundantly than we expected. On account of the time it
took to locate the diseased trees and the labor and cost of cutting
them out, we cannot advocate this as a practical method for
general use in the State, even if it proves successful, which we
doubt, since the disease is generally present in the neighbor-

hood.

Recommendations.

In Connecticut we are not asking the legislature for any
special appropriation to fight this disease, and do not expect to.
We are taking no concerted action to control it and we do not
think this feasible. We are only occasionally advising cutting
out, when the disease first appears, as a possible, though not a
proved method of control. Where a wood lot as a whole is mer-
chantable, and the disease is present, we advocate that, if market
conditions are favorable, it be cut and disposed of in the ordi-
nary way. Where the trees are not as a whole of marketable
size, and the disease is present, we advocate the removal of the
dying trees, and their disposal as poles, ties or cordwood, as
their size may permit. We have no uniform recommendations
for treatment of sprout growth too small for market purposes.
We are trying to prevent a glut of the market by discouraging
wholesale cutting of the forests, and as yet we have noticed no
general glut and drop of prices except for cordwood in certain
towns, and for 7 x 9 ties, for which the demand on the part of

157

the railroads has evidently gone down. On the whole, however,
there has been more timber cut than usual. We have no small
factories for the utilization of waste products, such as bark and
wood for tannin. The brass factories and the brick kilns use up
most of the chestnut cordwood in their vicinities, thus preventing
much of a glut. Lime kilns also utilize considerable of the cord-
wood. <A relatively small amount is made into cliarcoal.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Professor
Clinton?

MR. CHESTER E. CHILD: I would like to ask Professor
Clinton what was the result of the cutting out of the infected
trees on any tracts or estates he knows about; where the affected
trees were removed, what was the result on the trees that re
mained?

PROFESSOR CLINTON: That was on the estate of one of
the wealthiest men in Connecticut, so he had money enough to
cut them out if he wanted to. It was on the southern exposure of
a hill and we found that, where cut out, the trees left seemed
to suffer more from drought, ete., and be more injured by blight.
We also found that by cutting out the trees and not removing
the bark from the stumps, about thirty per cent. of those stumps
Showed the disease present on the bark that was left. Up to
last summer the forests in the same region, on the northern ex-
posure, had not suffered much from blight. This gentleman
said that he would go on if we wanted to continue the experi-
ment, but he thought, as far as he was concerned, in the future
he would prefer to cut the trees as they died. That was not
a thorough, careful experiment like they are going to conduct
here in Pennsylvania, by cutting every diseased tree down and
burning the bark and all that, but it was about the way a prac-
tical man would do it.

THE CHAIRMAN: There is time for one more question, if
anyone desires to ask one.

MR. THALHEIMER: Have you found out whether the con-
ditions differ between low and high ground and the exposure, on

158

the southern, northern, or eastern and western sides; that is,
whether you found any infected trees on the eastern side of the
mountain?

PROFESSOR CLINTON: It shows most frequently on the
eastern and southern side and around to the western and south-
ern side of exposed trees. That is, the more northern slopes are
generally less affected, in our experience. Examine the chestnut
trees in Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, and see if the blight
does not come out more on the western and southern side. Look
at your trees and see if you do not see injuries on that exposure,

that is, before the trouble becomes general.
THE CHAIRMAN: New York State.

MR. G. L. BARRUS, of the Conservation Commission: Mr,
Chairman: Tirst of all, 1 want to say that the commissioners
and Superintendent Pettis hoped to be here for this Conference,
but were unavoidably kept away, and I regret to say that we
have not any definite statistics to give as to the value of the
chestnut or the amount that has been destroyed. IL think this
question has brought up the need of such statistics; if it has
not done anything more, it has brought up that need. We haye
been confining our efforts in New York, been confining this forest
policy to sixteen counties, which include the Adirondacks and
Catskills. About six million acres of forest land are included
in that area. Outside of that, there is another six million acres
of farm wood-lot land ,which has had little thought in the past
as regards forest management. This question of chestnut bark
disease has brought our attention to this other six million acres
of land. If it has not done anything more, it has done that, and
we are now concerned in finding some way of branching out, tak-
ing care of and giving management to this portion of the forest
land of the State.

As to the distribution of the chestnut, IT might say that we
sent about four thousand circular letters throughout the State,
asking if the chestnut was found in the towns where these differ-
ent persons resided, and asking if the chestnut bark disease was:
present. The public showed their active interest in the subject
in the way they replied. We got over a thousand answers to
those letters, from all parts of the State, and in that way we are

159

enabled to give a rough map of the state, showing where the
chestnut is found and, to a certain degree, where the chestnut
disease is found.

We find that the chestnut belt of New York State covers forty-
six per cent. of the total area of the State (approximately 25,-
000 square miles), and on that area I think it is conservative to
say there are thirty million dollars worth of chestnut timber,
The diseased area, or I might say the chestnut belt, includes the
Hudson Valley and the southern part of the western half of the
State. The Adirondack region has no chestnut, and the same
may be said of the Catskill region. The diseased area is confined |
primarily to the Hudson Valley, and includes one-quarter to one-
third of the chestnut belt. West of the Catskills, the chestnut
bark disease has been found in one case in Tioga County, on
the Pennsylvania line; one case in Broome County, near the
Pennsylvania line, and in two or three cases, in Delaware
County; a matter of from one to twenty trees in a batch. That
is the best information we have at the present time.

The loss due to the chestnut bark disease cannot be estimated,
inasmuch as we have not had the time and the money to put
men in the field in that portion of the district. We have con-
fined our attention to the outlving districts where the disease
Was spreading, and I dare say there is at least ten million dol-
lars worth of timber that is already destroyed, or will be de-
stroyed before it can be utilized. The problem of utilization is
a big one in New York State and, in order to do something in
this way, several conferences have been held in connection with
the Eastern Foresters’ Association, and it was found that little
could be done to develop new markets for the chestnut. The
leather market and the tannic acid market seem to be flooded,
and in such a condition that it would not encourage any new
industries in the tannie acid business in New York State, the
tannie acid plants preferring the southern chestnut in most
cases rather than the New York chestnut. I do not think that
the chestnut is so much of a glut on the market at the present
time that it is necessary that New York State people should cut
out their trees and sell at a sacrifice. The poles have been taken

160
out gradually, and that market is not flooded at the present
time. There is also a good market for cordwood in most portions
of the State.

I just want to say one other thing in regard to Professor
Clinton’s attitude toward this question: It seems to me that it
is an encouraging fact, if the points he has brought out are
found to be true; I think it is a most encouraging statement;
I think that if favorable weather conditions are going to help
to bring the chestnut back to increased vitality, so that it may
be able to resist this disease, I think it should encourage us to
eliminate as much of the infectious material as we can at the
present time, and thus aid nature in anything she can do to
restore the chestnut to vitality. In New York State we have
had several articles in the newspapers, bringing this subject be-
fore the people. We have gone about the work of finding out where
cur chestnut stands are, and have had the wood-lot sections, as
I say, outside of the previously reported preserved area, brought
to our attention. It occurs to me, who should get the credit for
bringing out these points? Who should get the credit for this
Conference here to-day? Who should get the credit for calling
several conferences relative to the utilization of the chestnut,
and were those conferences worth while? It seems to me that it
should be given to the men who were willing to stake their scien-
tific reputations on something that could be tried, rather than to
give it to the men who were afraid to stake their scientific repu-
tations, and who say, “It cannot be done.” (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any inquiry regarding the New
York situation and methods?

MR. J. W. FISHER, of Tennessee: I would like to know
what per cent. of old timber, as against young timber, is infected
by this disease; whether or not the young timber is the princi-
pal timber that is infected.

MR. BARRUS: In those sections of New York State where
the chestnut disease is present, most of the marketable timber
has been cut out, fire has gone through the remainder, and, as
the result, there is a great majority of the chestnut which is
sprout growth of small dimensions. I should estimate that

161
one-fifth of the chestnut is of merchantable size and perhaps,
in the district where the disease is, more than four-fifths is under
merchantable size.
MR. FISHER: Does it not appear that the several years of
scant rainfall which the whole eastern country has endured, to-

gether with frequent fires in this young timber, is not this pos-
sibly one of the greatest sources of the disease?

MR. BARRUS: I believe that is a question touching on the
technical and scientific side, and perhaps Professor Clinton

THE CHAIRMAN: As we are confined to State reports now,
we will ask Mr. Fisher kindly to let that question go until we get
into general discussion. The next is the State of New Jersey.

DR. MELVILLE T. COOK: Mr. Chairman. I regret that
the State Forester of New Jersey is not present.. I have been in
the State only a short time, and so cannot speak first hand.
However, as most of you know, the State of New Jersey, being
close to that point where the disease is supposed to have origi-
nated in this country, has suffered probably more than any other
State, in proportion to its area and the amount of standing chest-
nut. The disease has swept through the State (excepting the
southern part), and has proved extremely destructive. We have
no special appropriation for the study of the disease or for fight-
ing it, and I believe that you will all agree with me that such
a campaign as is being carried on in the State of Pennsylvania
would be absolutely impossible in the State of New Jersey at the
present time. We are, however, continuing our scientific investi-
gation, so far as possible, and wherever we receive inquiries from
farmers who are timber owners, reporting the disease present
on their properties, we advise them to turn their chestnut into
cash as quickly as possible, and to clean up as thoroughly as pos-
sible. We also advise persons contemplating planting chestnut
not to do so. We also advise the nurserymen to discontinue
handling chestnut stock at the present time. So far as possible,
we are stimulating the market by advising builders to use the
chestnut for interior trimmings.

IT cannot say anything more in regard to our campaign in
New Jersey. However, I wish to give just one or two ohserva-

aN!

162

tions which I have made upon this disease: So far I have been
unable to confirm the observations of Dr. Clinton in regard to
the weather conditions. His observations may be absolutely cor-
rect, so far as the State ef Connecticut is concerned, but in the
territory which I have examined it has been impossible to con-
firm them. I have on two occasions, found the disease in dense
timber on the sprouts, down under the heavy, large growth, when
it was impossible to find it in the tops of the trees or at any point
near the one on the ground line. I do not know how much
that observation will be worth to you, but undoubtedly the sur-
rounding trees in the vicinity were not so infected as to make it
noticeable in walking through the timber and making careful
observations. The only points where we could find the disease
at all were close to the ground, and the sprouts there were badly
infected.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will now hear from the State of
Pennsylvania. We will call on Deputy Forestry Commissioner
I. C. Williams.

MR. WILLIAMS: In speaking for Pennsylvania, I think
probably the subject has been well covered and that I should
say little. I want to say something, however, about the appear-
ance of the blight in the forest reserves. The Pennsylvania forest
reserves to-day are included within twenty-six different coun-
ties and aggregate nine hundred and seventy-two thousand acres.
The line of reserves on the west approximately follows the dark
line on the map, extending somewhat west of it on the north.
Beginning with Potter county, which is at the middle of the
northern line, and dropping a line southwestwardly to western
Clearfield and then southwardly to eastern Westmoreland, you
will include east of such a line all the forest reserve counties.
The chestnut blight has appeared in the forest reserves equally
as it has appeared on private tracts. In the westernmost re-
serves, the foresters and other officers are busily at work seek-
ing it out and destroying every infected tree they find. The
Pennsylvania Department of Forestry proposes to take no
chances in leaving an infected tree stand, out toward the west.
That tree comes down. If we can sell it, well and good; if not,
it is converted into ashes to fertilize the ground. That is a method
that I think we shall continue to pursue.

1638

I would like to say a word further with respect to the cutting-
out method. We have heard considerable in this series of meet-
ings about the importance of our doing things. Whenever I
hear a man talking about “impossibilities,” then something be-
gins to boil. I do not believe in “impossibilities” that are simply
guessed at. It was no impossibility for the Pennsylvania lumber-
men to sweep over this State from the Delaware to Ohio and
take down every merchantable tree within the State; and that
has been so completely done that Pennsylvania has figuratively
been combed of her merchantable forest trees. If it is not im-
possible to do a thing when there is a money reward behind it,
why is it impossible to do it when there is simply some altruistic
thing behind it? This method of dealing in impossibilities is
mighty misleading business, and I want you to know that we
believe it is so. The cutting-out of this diseased stuff in the
forest reserves, then, is going to continue. We propose to find
a market for it if we can; but if we cannot, it is going to be
destroyed. To that extent the Department will contribute its
small share to do what it can, to stop the westward advance of
this scourge.

Let us not talk about impossibilities until we know we are up
blank against the stone wall. You have well gathered from the
uncertainty which has pervaded these meetings with respect to
methods and means, that it ought not to lie in the mouth of any-
body to come here and talk about impossibilities, especially with
regard to things that are not half way investigated. Let us in-
vestigate and work: not investigate first and work afterwards.
Let us get busy all along the line and, when we have utterly tried
out every method and are absolutely and abjectly defeated, then
it is time to talk about impossibilities. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any inquiry?

PROFESSOR SMITH: I should like to repeat the question
of Mr. J. W. Fisher, because I believe Mr. Williams is in posi-
tion to throw some light on it. We have had a great deal of
trouble with fat lands near Philadelphia, on the lands of rieh
men, where forest fires are unknown. What has been the testi-
mony there with regard to this climatic matter?

164

MR. WILLIAMS: I happened to be in charge of that Main
Line investigation, and probably know something about it. We
found there all conditions of forest growth. We found that ma-
ture forest giants, running up in diameter anywhere from five
to seven feet, and we found the tiny sprout coming out of the
stump. We found the infection attacking trees of all sizes. It
seemed not to prefer any particular age or size of tree. I have
in mind to-day a splendid old tree belonging to a gentleman
living near Philadelphia, that was worked on by a tree doctor.
He punched it full of holes with his climbing spurs, and in a
few months afterwards that tree was infected from top to bottom
in those punctures. That was a tree, the owner told me for which
he would not take a thousand dollars if it were possible to save
it. In working on a tract to the north of Philadelphia, near
Jenkintown, we found large timber prevailing in the area. There
were some three hundred and forty trees in the tract. The trees
probably averaged over a foot in diameter. We found that in
the top of the largest trees there was occasionally a single dead
branch, and that always, of course, excited_attention; but the
minute investigation that was made of the tree was at the ground
line, about the trunk; and almost invariably, in those big trees,
when we found any suggestion of infection in the top, we found
pustules nearly at the ground line, and it made no difference
what the size of the tree was. We likewise found sprouts no
thicker than a straw badly infected, and from that size up to
the giant forest tree. Frequently we found pustules at the base
of large trees, but were unable to find anything in the crown
of the tree. With the strongest spyglasses which we carried
with us, we could pick out nothing; but getting down on our
knees and going around the base with a hand magnifier, almost
invariably, where the disease was in the neighborhood, we would
find a pustule or two on the base of the tree, and of course that
classed it as infected. I take it that this disease shows no prefer-
ence in trees, and, while it is probably true that it will attack
somewhat more readily the young, sappy sprout growth and kill
it much more quickly, it is equally certain to do its work with
the older trees.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does that answer the question, Mr.
Fisher?

165
MR. FISHER: Yes, sir.

DR. J. M. BACKENSTOE, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman:
I would like to ask the speaker with reference to the treatment
that was given to these thousand dollar trees.

“MR. WILLIAMS: We came in contact with a good many
interesting propositions down there, and we were visited by tree
doctors from the day we arrived until the day we left. When we
went in they implored us, and when we went out they cursed
us. One of the methods of treatment was that they would
prune off every infected piece of bark or branch, and cover the
wound with some dressing. But in the process of doing this
work, they used telephone linemen’s climbers. This they thought
was the proper thing, so they did it. We discouraged that and
finally broke it up. We did not think that method of treatment
was good. Then we were iet with the idea of throwing some
chemical on the ground, in order that when the rains would dis-
solve this material, it would enter the soil and be taken up by
the roots. Generally, we were met with a proposition to buy
some of the material and try it ourselves. It was most infre-
quent that we found these things were being tried by the people
who recommended them. Then there was the idea of introdue-
ing into the sap of the tree some medication. There was an-
other idea, with respect to watering the tree. The plan adyo-
cated by gentlemen engaged in the business was, that they would
take a large chestnut tree, say three feet in diameter, and after
some examination conclude, just empirically, that it was suffer-
ing because of lack of water. That may have been entirely true;
but the method of treatment was to run down a series of two-foot
lengths of two-inch gas pipes, or one-inch pipes, as the case
might be, at a short distance from the trunk of the tree, and then
turn a hose into the pipes and moisten the ground. I believe if
those pipes had been put down at the proper place, good results
might have followed. Water might have been introduced into
the feeding roots of the tree. But it is of little value to intro-
duce water under the tree near the trunk, where there is little
absorption from the ground. There were other methods of treat-
ment advocated. I do not remember them all now, but they
have been tried out there pretty generously. Men who are

166 '

owners of trees of that character, wishing to preserve them if
possible, have paid large sums of money to allow treatment to
be applied, but I do not know of any instance yet where it may
be said that any particular treatment has been a complete suc-
cess. Occasionally, and very frequently of late, we have been
reading about methods of treatment in the newspapers, where
men say they have just the thing. Tor instance, we had a letter
the other day from a gentleman in northern Ohio. He-said
he had a preparation that would kill the chestnut blight and he
wanted us to buy it right off. Now, there is no chestnut blight
in Ohio, and I take it that this man had never seen a blighted
tree and does not know what the chestnut blight is; yet there he
has the remedy all prepared. Much of this remedial business
is just of that character. I believe also there is an opportunity
to try out a lot of remedies and get some results, but there are
no results of value to be had from jumping at conclusions and

5

saying “This thing will do the work,” or that thing, until we
know it actually has done it. Therefore, the Commission is
giving all reasonable latitude to these gentlemen who have ary-
thing of the kind to offer, and every opportunity to try out their
methods, in the hope that something will be found that will do
some good. That is part of the Pennsylvania proposition, to let
nothing be untried, even if it does not produce results.

THE CHAIRMAN: If that does not fully answer Mr. Back-
enstoe’s question, we will ask him to bring it up later. The
question was with reference to the treatment of thousand dollar
trees.

MR. WILLIAMS: AIl trees down there are thousand dollar
trees.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delaware.

PROFESSOR C. A. McCUE: The chestnut grows naturally
in the two northern counties of Delaware. It is found in the
southern county only here and there, and mostly in plantations.
The disease is common over the entire State. While I do not
say that it would be impossible to quarantine against this dis-
ease in the State of Delaware, I do say that, considering the
way we have the disease now, it would not be a good proposition
in the State. I am not in favor of the State of Delaware ap-

e

167

propriating any public money for methods of eradication of this
particular disease. I think the disease is scattered too generally
throughout the State. We have no need of a quarantine line
on the east, because we have the Delaware River and the ocean,
nor on the west because our friends over in Maryland already
have the disease. The Chesapeake Bay does not seem to have
stopped it on the west. I think our solution of the problem,
if we have any, lies in the question of management, and I am
rather loath to believe that even the chestnut is entirely doomed
in the State of Delaware, even where the infection is as general
as it is, as I believe,—I am optimistic in the matter,—that with
proper management, brought about with proper educational pro-
paganda, we will be growing chestnuts in some manner, a great
many years hence. We have many chestnut plantations in our
State. We are not advising our growers to plant chestnuts for
nut culture, neither are we advising the planting of chestnut
trees in our forests. But we believe that, by cutting out dis-
eased trees, especially the larger trees, as soon as their useful-
ness passes, and putting them upon the market,—that is, when
the annual increment falls down below the amount of damage
done annually by the disease,—that in this way, the disease may
be gradually eliminated, to such an extent, that in certain locali-
ties, finally all the diseased chestnut trees will have been taken
out, I believe, that there will still be left a number of chestnut
trees that have never taken the disease. By proper management
and by encouraging people to take out trees as they become dis-
eased, I believe that in years hence, we will still find a great
many chestnut trees growing in our Delaware forests.

There is another point regarding infection, which I have
not heard spoken of here, that has come under my observation.
I have noticed that where hunters are allowed in young coppice
growth that a great many of the young sprouts are injured by
the shot, and that in areas infected by the chestnut disease that
every shot hole offers a point of entrance for the disease. Hunters
should not be allowed in young chestnut coppice.

Having, as we do in Delaware, a number of chestnut orchards,
it throws a rather interesting light upon the question of drought
as a predisposing cause of the chestnut disease. Those orchards
are under cultivation the same as our apple orchards. They

hahe »

168

are not suffering from drought, neither are they suffering from
a scanty food supply. They are in good, thrifty condition. We
find that practically every chestnut orchard in the State is in-
fected with the chestnut disease. In Delaware, at least, I am
not inclined to believe that drought plays any part whatever in
the chestnut disease problem.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any question?

PROFESSOR NORTON: I would like to ask if the blight is
equally bad on the Japanese chestnuts?

PROFESSOR McCUE: It would be rather hard to answer
that question definitely, because I do not know whether we have
any simon-pure Japanese chestnuts in Delaware or not. We
have a lot of varieties called Japanese, but the probabilities are
they are natural hybrids with the American; yet we have found
infection in the so-called Japanese chestnuts the same as in the
American.

MR. WILLIAMS: What is Delaware doing to prevent the
shipment of infected stock beyond the borders of the State?

PROFESSOR McCUE: With the permission of the Chair,
I will refer that question to the secretary of the State Board of
Agriculture, Professor Webb, who has charge of the nursery
inspection work of the State.

THE CHAIRMAN: Professor Webb, will you please inform
us what Delaware is doing to prevent the shipment of infected
nursery stock beyond the borders of the State.

PROFESSOR WEBB: I believe at the present time we have
no nurseries growing chestnut trees, but, if diseased chestnut
were found in them, the trees would be destroyed.

THE CHAIRMAN: Maryland. As one of the secretaries of
the Conference, we have present Maryland’s State Forester, Mr.
F. W. Besley.

MR. BESLEY: As far as the chestnut bark disease is con-
cerned, I think all eyes are on Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has
established, as it were, a great experiment station for the treat-
ment of the chestnut bark disease, and we are all looking with

|

r- Spee pp ee: ‘ wanda eieae'
i y : P ? AGA ae Ta PS) Me

C

i MAP |

OF

MARYLAND

SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION

OF

_ CHESTNUT BLIGHT

| | RSS 5% OF CHESTNUT TREES DEAD OR DISEASED

Ha WY 1 Yo OF CHESTNUT TREES DEAD OR DISEASED

169

a great deal of interest to the results which may be accomplished
through this work. I came up here for the purpose of listening.
I want to hear what has been done. I hoped that we might have
some definite cases where the chestnut bark disease had been
eradicated from specific spots. It should be remembered at
this time that, Pennsylvania has only taken it up recently. There
has been less than a year’s operation of the new law and of
course, we cannot expect very extensive results, but it seems to
me, and it has already been pointed out by a number of speakers,
that there is the necessity at this time of treating individual
trees and of keeping an accurate record of them, so that we will
know exactly what we may expect in the way of eradicating the
disease. Professor Clinton has spoken of certain diseased trees
that were cut out, and he mentioned the fact that the bark was
left on the stumps. We know absolutely that where the bark is
left on the stump of a diseased tree, in which the spores very na-
turally work down the tree we are pretty apt to find them around
the base; so, of course, we cannot consider that a very effective
way of treating the tree, or a fair test of the cutting-out process.
What we want to find out is where somebody has treated a tree,
cut the tree out, then destroyed the bark, and kept a record of
that for some years, two or three years, possibly, to see if there
is any recurrence of the infection. I was talking with Dr. Met-
calf sometime ago along that line and he says that, in the vicinity
of Washington, they have for the past two or three years carried
on a rather extensive campaign for the detection and eradication
of the disease, and I think I am correct in the statement that he
has located certain spots, cut the disease out, and there has not
been a recurrence of the disease. I should much prefer to have
that statement come from Dr. Metcalf, or somebody from the
Bureau of Plant Industry; but, if that is the case, this Confer-
ence ought to know about it, because it seems to me there is a
ray of hope there that we may be able to combat this disease.
There is, of course, as shown by this Conference, a general in-
terest in this bark disease, and I cannot help but believe that a
Conference of this sort is going to lead to very productive re-
sults. The interest in Maryland is a very important one. We
realize that it is necessary for us to do something nov, if we are
going to do anything at all. We find that the disease has spread

170
over the eastern and northeastern sections of the State. Per-
haps one-fourth of the State has been generally invaded. Prob-
ably about five per cent. of the chestnut trees in the area is lost
up to the present time, and I may say this is based on an investi-
gation of last summer to determine the extent of the damage
caused by the chestnut bark disease in Maryland. I might say
also that this investigation was prompted, at least, by the very
excellent example that we have in Pennsylvania, because we felt
that we might use it as data, not only for the State of Maryland
in trying to control the chestnut bark disease, if it is possible to
do so, but for other States in co-operation with the State of Penn-
sylvania. We found that the amount of damage up to the present
time was about thirty thousand dollars, that is, the stumpage
value of the chestnut trees, and in the area of infection that the
stumpage value of the chestnut was something like six hundred
thousand dollars. The disease appears to be spreading very
rapidly. The total stumpage value of all the chestnut in Mary-
land is something like two million dollars. So, if there is some
way by which we can control the chestnut bark disease, it is
going to mean a great deal to the forest interests of the State.
What we propose to do,

and we have already started the ma-
chinery going, but the results of this Conference are going to
determine very largely the manner in which we are going to
press that,—we thought it might be possible, by establishing
a sort of dead line just outside the area of infection to prevent
the spread of the disease. Now I do not know whether that is
practicable or not, but it seemed to be the only solution offered
at the time, and in carrying out that idea we have introduced a
bill, which is practically a copy of the Pennsylvania law, into
the Legislature of Maryland, now in session, carrying a small ap-
propriation for the purpose of putting this work into operation.

Now we have had several people speak about the management
of the chestnut as being perhaps the solution of the difficulty.
It seems to me that where a man has the chestnut bark disease
in his woods, it would be simply commonsense business policy to
cut out those diseased trees and utilize them wherever possible,
and I think we can depend on the individual land owner to do
that. Now whether it will be possible for us to go much further
than that in recommending the prompt cutting out and utiliza-

171

tion, where possible, of the diseased chestnut trees, | am not pre-
pared to say. I doubt whether it will be possible to go any far-
ther than that, but it seems to me, outside of this area of general
infection, if we can establish a sort of quarantine zone beyond
which we can protect the rest of the chestnut trees in the State,
that the work will be well worth while, and that is the line along
which we are proceeding at the present time. Now as to the
question of management, I think that simply by cutting out dis-
eased trees and by a coppice management of the chestnut, I
do not see how that is going to eliminate the disease, because we
know definitely that the stumps are more apt to be diseased, and
this infects the sprouts as soon as they come up. I have seen
that time and time again over the State of Maryland, that those
sprouts become immediately diseased, and the whole tree dies
very quickly. What has been done-has furnished the basis of
the proposed work, and I hope that we will be able to evolve from
this Conference some definite programme, which other States can
adopt with some hope of ultimately controlling the chestnut
bark disease. I realize that it is a very big proposition, and we
are not going to do it all at once; but I think by concerted action
and a definite policy, we will certainly be able to limit the de-
struction by this disease, which has already done such an im-
mense amount of damage in the northern States. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions?

MR. BRAUNBERG, of Pennsylvania: Are those’ approxi-
mate figures you gave of the damage already occurring in the
State of Maryland to the chestnut trees? You made an approxi-
mate estimate of the damage to the chestnut trees, also an ap-
proximate estimate of the value of the chestnut trees. May I
have those figures?

MR. BESLEY: The present damage was estimated at fifty
thousand dollars, based on a stumpage basis, and the total stump-
age value of the chestnut in Maryland is about two million dol-
lars.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Detwiler will comment on one point
raised by Mr. Besley.

172

MR. DETWILER: Mr. Besley asked for some definite facts
concerning the efficiency of the cutting-out method. I have
some facts, which are not conclusive, but may be of interest.
Mr. Peirce, Secretary of the Commission, cut several hundred
trees on his property, near Ardmore, last year. The stumps were
barked to the ground and the sprouts came up abundantly.
Two weeks ago I sent one of our fields agents to investigate thor-
oughly, and he reported being unable to find a single sprout dis-
eased, and those sprouts are now a year old. It may be that
after two years they will be diseased, but at the present time
they are still sound.

THE CHAIRMAN: Virginia.

DR. H. 8S. REED: Mr. Chairman: The Experiment Station
has studied the chestnut blight in a small way, since we have
had, up to the present time, very little complaint of diseased
chestnut in the State. We have heard, though, from several
here at this meeting, that there are a few centres of infection in
the State. We know the disease is present just across the Poto-
mae from Washington, and we know it is present in Bedford
county, at Fontella. We have reports, however, which have not
been fully verified, of the disease in Albemarle county and also
in Henrico county, near Richmond. I went over the last named
territory with Dr. Metcalf last fall, but we were unable to find
the disease in the field. We have, however, in the State, a dis-
ease whieh has existed for about twenty years and has caused a
very considerable destruction of chestnut timber, south and
east of Lynchburg. I visited this region about ten days ago
and found there a fungous disease, of which we have not vet been
able to determine the exact nature. Some of the gentlemen who
are here have found the Diaporthe fungus near Lynchburg. — If
the Diaporthe fungus has been there for the last twenty years,
it is evident that it is acting somewhat differently from what
it is act'ng in the North. We have this question under observa-
tion. The diseased areas are at present confined to the Piedmont
district; none has been reported from higher elevations in the
Blue Ridge or Allegheny mountains in the State. There is a
bill before the Legislature now in session, asking for a small ap-
propriation to be used against this disease, which will not per-

173

mit of any extensive eradication, but we hope to use it in getting
a good survey of the damage which has already been done and to
get a basis for future recommendations.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any inquries regarding the
situation and methods in Virginia? The next State is West Vir-
ginia.

PROF. GIDDINGS: I will make my remarks brief, because
we have done but little in West Virginia in regard to it. So
far as we actually know, there were three infections in West
Virginia. Those were scattered through the State; one in the
central part, one in the northern part, and one fairly well south
in the State. One of them came from nursery stock. The tree
was purchased from a nursery, set out by a lumber man, and he
discovered that there was something wrong. That tree has been
destroyed. One of the other diseased areas, in the northern
part of the State, we believe has been destroyed through lumber-
ing operations which have been going on there, as I understand
the infected trees could not be found last fall. We undoubtedly
have more of the disease, especially along the northern border
and near the Pennsylvania line, as there is considerable infection
in the southwestern portion of that State. We hope to get some
work done during the coming season. I know that a number
of interested parties will make a very strong effort to have at
least a small amount of careful work done in West Virginia to
determine the prevalence of the disease in certain sections of the
State. We cannot hope to do much, but our Legislature will
meet a year from now and if conditions warrant, there will, I
am sure, be no trouble in securing funds to continue the work.
The possible losses in West Virginia are considerable. I have
secured several estimates as to the chestnut stand in the State.
One firm which is reported as doing the largest lumbering busi-
ness in the State, dealing in timber land and well acquainted
with the subject, places the present stumpage at ten billion feet.
As proof and in support of their statement, they gave me reliable
data in regard to the chestnut stand in some regions of the
State. A stumpage value of $2.50 per thousand, which they
quoted, would make twenty-five million dollars for the chestnut

174

in West Virginia, and certainly some effort will be made to deter-
mine the extent of infection and the best methods of handling
the disease in the State.

MR. BESLEY, (acting temporarily as Chairman): Are
there any questions to be asked Professor Giddings? The next
is Ohio; is there anyone to represent the State of Ohio? (No re-
sponse).

North Carolina. Is there anyone to speak for North Carolina?
(No response).

We will next hear from Tennessee.

MR. J. W. FISHER: Mr. Chairman: As far as I know,
there is no infection in Tennessee. We are extremely interested
in the matter, because we have such a vast area of chestnut forest,
and a very large amouut of-it is the original forest. We have
very far-sighted Congressmen down our way, who have been for-
tifying, or are about to fortify, us against such infection, by hay-
ing a bill passed through Congress appropriating one million dol-
lars, to establish forest reserves in western North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee, known as the Appalachian Region. Just last
week the Government purchased eighty-five thousand acres near
me, in eastern Tennessee, for a forest reserve, and will continue
to purchase large areas, so that we will have the backing of the
Federal Government in the fighting of this disease in the future.
I shall, however, call the personal attention of the Governor to
this matter, so that we may take it up ourselves, as a State,
and I trust that, when the matter comes to our attenion per-
sonally, we shall have some means that will help to battle with
the disease, if it should occur. I am very much interested in
listening to these discussions, and I think I shall go home very
ereatly profited. As I am a tanner and an extract man, I am
personally and financially interested in the prevention of any
loss of chestnut timber. I might say to you, for your information,
that a large number of the trees in our country are very old.
The Federal Government inspectors who have been in those
forests have placed the age of those trees from two hundred to
four hundred years, and some of them range as high as eight
feet in diameter,—immense trees. The area is so large and the
chestnut timber growing so thickly that it affects us, or would

175

affect us, vitally in a number of directions. The water supply
or water sources will be vitally affected if this disease should
get the better of us and cover very much of our vast territory.
I assure you that none of you are more vitally interested in this
matter than the people of Tennessee, for the great reason that
we have so much chestnut.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any inquiry from Tennessee?
The next is Canada, Dr. Gussow.

DR. H. T. GUSSOW: I do not think I need to take up the
time of the meeting this morning. I have already expressed my
observation that the disease is not present in Canada, and that
we have very few chestnuts. I have come here to profit by your
information, which I am grateful to say, I have been able to do.

THE CHAIRMAN, (Mr. Pearson): The Chair committed a
slight error in suggesting that President McFarland would be
available to make suggestions regarding seeing the city. He
should have mentioned Mr. Bell, who was mentioned by Presi-
dent McFarland, and who will be available after this meeting.

I have been requested to make the following announcement :
Please inform this meeting that a good photographer will be at
the main entrance immediately after adjournment to take a group
photograph,—at the main entrance where the statuary is. The
size of this will be 11 x 14 and the price one dollar per copy
for those who desire to get copies. It is urged that each one go
at once to the main entrance, so as to be in this photograph,
whether you choose to buy it or not.

Deputy Cominissioner Williams will present a communication
from the President of the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: The following letter accompanied by cer-
tain documents, has just been received by Governor Tener, and
I am requested to present it to this meeting:

“White House, Washington, February 19, 1912.
My dear Governor:

I herewith enclose a communication from the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture, in which he gives all the infor-

176

mation which is available in his Department upon the question
of the chestnut bark disease which is to be considered in a pub-
lic meeting in your capital to-morrow.

I hope that this communication may contain certain informa-
tion of value to your people in fighting this very destructive
enemy of one of our most beautiful trees, and you have my very
earnest sympathy in your efforts to accomplish the desired end.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed ) We ran

(Applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: This is accompanied by a letter of Secre-
tary Wilson, transmitting the information requested by the
President, a copy of Bulletin No, 467, and a statement of the
present status of the chestnut bark disease, signed by William
A. Taylor, acting chief of Bureaw.

It was moved and seconded that the communication be re-
ferred to the Committee on Resolutions.

The motion was put and carried.

The letter of Secretary Wilson, referred to above in the letter
from President Taft, is as follows:

“Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, February 19, 1912.
Dear Mr. President:

Our experts in the Bureau of Plant Industry have given the
chestnut bark disease situation much attention for some time
past, and are convinced of the urgency of the present situation.
They have prepared the inclosed memorandum which indicates
the present status of the chestnut bark disease and the import-
ance of prompt action, if its further spread is to be prevented and
serious loss to the people of the entire Appalachian region is
to be averted.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed) JAMES WILSON,
Secretary.

To the President.”

The communication referred to in Secretary Wilson’s letter
to the President, indicating the present status of the chestnut
bark disease, is as follows:

177
United States Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Plant Industry,
Office of Chief of Bureau.

Washington, D. C., February 19, 1912.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY.

Regarding present status of chestnut bark disease.

This disease, which was first recognized as serious in the
vicinity of New York City in 1904, appears to have been present
on Long Island as early as 1893. Its origin is unknown, but
there is some evidence to indicate that it was imported from
the orient with the Japanese chestnut. In southwestern Con-
necticut, southeastern New York and northeastern New Jersey
a majority of the chestnut trees are already dead from the bark
disease. Outside of this area in western Connecticut, eastern New
York, western New Jersey, southeastern Pennsylvania, northern
Delaware, and northeastern Maryland the chestnut trees are
practically all infected. Outside of this area from the northern
border of Massachusetts and from Saratoga county, New York,
southwestward to the western border of Pennsylvania and the
southern border of Virginia, scattering areas of infection are
known to occur and may be expected at any point. So far as is
known the disease is limited to the true chestnuts and chinqua-
pins. It is not certainly known to occur on oaks, beeches, horse
chestnuts, or other forest trees.

The bark disease appears ultimately to exterminate the chest-
nut trees in any locality which it infests. The financial loss
from this disease in and about New York City was estimated
three years ago at between five and ten million dollars. A conser-
vative estimate made in 1911 by the experts in the Bureau of
Plant Industry indicates a loss in the states infected, up to that
time, of twenty-five million dollars. The heaviest damage thus
far has been to chestnut trees in localities where this species
is grown chiefly for ornamental purposes, rather than for lum-
ber. It has now reached a point in its spread where the entire
chestnut timber belt of the United States, comprising portions

12

178

of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massaclit-
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New, Jersey, Peun-
sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio,
Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are likely to become involved.
As the disease is spread from tree to tree by spores of the fun-
gus which causes it, the spread is usually rapid after a single
tree in a locality is infected.

There is evidence that the spores are spread through short dis-
tances by rain; through longer distances it appears possible that
it is spread also by birds, insects and rodents, such as squirrels.
The disease is carried bodily for considerable distances in tan
bark and in unbarked timber derived from diseased trees. It
is also frequently transported on diseased nursery stock.

No method of immunizing individual trees is yet known and
no method of treating or curing them when once attacked is
certain in its results. This being the case, so far as the chestnut
forests are concerned, the only practicable method of dealing
with the situation is that of prompt location of isolated centers
of infection in advance of the main line of the disease, coupled
with the prompt cutting out and destruction of such scattered
diseased trees. This method has been tested sufficiently to in-
dicate that it is practicable to control the disease where the
situation is effectively attacked before a general infection has
resulted. In addition to this it may be found necessary to es-
tablish an immune zone by destroying all chestnut trees, diseased
or healthly, in a belt ten to twenty miles wide, or possibly less,
in advance of the main area of infection, with a view to barring
its progress. A regional quarantine of chestnut products likely
to move from the area of complete infection to protected terri-
tory may be found necessary. This is now a subject of con-
sideration in the investigations that are under way.

The disease having already done much damage in eastern Penn-
sylvania and northeastern Maryland, but not having appeared
to a destructive extent in the states farther south, it is peculiarly
important at this time that effort be made to stay the progress of
the disease before it reaches the heavily timbered chestnut areas
of Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and the mountain regions
farther south. The fact that the State of Pennsylvania has ap-

179

propriated $275,000 for the eradication or control of the disease
within its borders is an indication of the importance with which
the matter is regarded there. Congressional action with a view
to making possible effective co-operative effort to control the
disease by Federal authorities in co-operation with the authori-
ties of the several states interested, before it is spread to a point
beyond control, appears to be of the utmost importance.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) WM. A. TAYLOR,
Acting Chief of Bureau.

NOTE.—The accompanying document sent with the Presi-
dent’s letter, “I’armers’ Bulletin, No. 467,” is not reprinted here-
in, but may be obtained without charge upon request, from the
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
This Document is entitled “The Control of the Chestnut Bark
Disease,’ by Haven Metcalf and J. Franklin Collins. Issued
under date of October 28, 1911.

THE CHAIRMAN: The programme now calls for coming to-
gether at two o'clock, and the first paper will be by Dr. Hop-
kins, on the insect question. No one can regret more than the
Chairman that the general discussion has been crowded out this
morning. Would it seem wise to begin our meeting this after-
noon at a quarter before two, in order that we may have a little
more time?

MR. WILLIAMS: I make that motion.

The motion was seconded and duly carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: I am asked to announce that the pro-
fessional foresters,—all professional foresters, are invited to meei
in this room at 1.30 P. M., fifteen minutes before our meeting
time, for some general purpose.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to announce that the Committee on
Resolutions will meet in the House Caucus room, immediately
beneath this chamber, after adjournment, this morning.

The Chairman announced that the Convention stood in re-
eess until 1.45 P. M.

180

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Wednesday, February 21, 1912, 1.45 P. M.

THE CHAIRMAN: The meeting will please be in order.
We are to have first this afternoon, a paper by Dr. A. D. Hopkins,
who is in charge of forest insect investigations, Bureau of Ento-
mology, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

DR. HOPKINS: Mr. Chairman: I regret exceedingly that
the insects are interfering in this trouble, and making more of
it. Heaven knows they are making enough trouble of their own
all over the country. They are killing the merchantable sized
pine in the Rocky Mountains and on the Pacific Coast at a
greater rate than that by fire alone. They are killing the pine
in the South. They are killing the hickory, they are killing ti:
oak and the hemlock, and now they are interfering in this dis-
ease. They are also killing chestnut on their own account.

Mr. Chairman, I have two papers here, both about the same
thing. One is an abstract which will take about ten minutes,
the other is the whole paper, which will take about half an hour.
I presume you would like to have the abstract, which will take
less time.

THE CHAIRMAN: I presume it would be better to give us
the abstract, and then, if there is more time available, let it
be spent in general discussion. Will that meet with your ap-
proval?

DR. HOPKINS: Yes; that is what I intended to do.

Dr. Hopkins read the following paper:

While the history of the discovery of the chestnut blight dis-
ease and its spread from a local to an interstate problem is well
known and much interest is manifested in the subject, the history
of extensive dying of chestnut from various other causes is not
so well known.

When we review the history of extensive dying of chestnut
during the past half century in Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia,
South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, it is surprising

Pe

ES

sot
SS

SS fF

a

RSS Scotteres “rections

Gyo. le

CUM Ls: or MAES ~ g
t

SS

Map showing range of the chestnut tree, and comparative percentage of the
chestnut bark disease.

181

that there are any living trees left. In fact, there are not many
left in some sections of these States where the tree was abundant
and healthy fifty years ago.

It appears that there are a number of agencies of destruction
other than this new chestnut blight disease, and that these agen-
cies have been in operation in the area affected by the disease as
well as in areas where this disease is not known to occur. There-
fore, they must be taken into consideration and investigated
before the problem of protecting the chestnut can be solved.

There appear to be other diseases and we know that there are
insects which have been directly or indirectly the cause of the
death of a large percentage of the chestnut over extensive areas.

One species of insect, the two-lined chestnut borer, is perhaps
the most destructive insect enemy. It has been investigated
and methods of controlling it determined and demonstrated,
and there is no lack of published information on the subject.

There is also a combination of insects and the chestnut blight
disease. Investigations by forest pathologists have revealed the
fact that the spores of the chestnut blight find their way into the
living bark through some wound and that the majority of such
wounds appear to be caused by bark-boring insects.

Recent investigations by forest entomologists tend to verify
this general statement, and that a large number of species of
insects are involved.

Inasmuch as the insects make a primary attack and the dis-
ease is largely dependent upon insects to continue its destructive
work, it is also plain that we have an insect problem of perhaps
equal importance to that of the blight itself.

It is also plain that this interrelation of insects and disease
presents a new and complicated problem which will require a
great deal of exact scientific research by the forest entomologists
and the forest pathologists before we shall be warranted in ar-
riving at definite conclusions, or in giving specific advice on
methods of control and prevention.

Considerable work has already been done on the general sub-
ject of chestnut insects by the West Virginia Agricultural Ex-
periment Station and the Bureau of Entomology of the U. 8.
Department of Agriculture since 1893. The published and un-
published records of these studies show that three hundred and

182

fifty-four species of insects were found to inhabit the chestnut.
We find that other observers have recorded one hundred and
sixty-four species. By eliminating all duplications, the total
is four hundred and seventy-two. So you see that the chestnut
is pretty well inhabited by insects. This is only a beginning.
There are many more insects to be found on the tree and a great
deal to be learned about them as a basis for practical conelu-
sions and action. .A more specific and comprehensive study of
chestnut insects is now being carried on under a‘special project
of the Branch of Forest Insects of the Bureau of Entomology.
This investigation will be extended into all parts of the country
where the chestnut is, or has been, an important forest tree, and
especially in those States and sections where the people represent-
ing the private, municipal, and State ownership manifest a
special interest in this phase of the problem. We are assured of
the co-operation of the Commission and other State officials in
the work carried on in Pennsylvania and we hope to have the
co-operation of other States in any work done within their boun-
daries.
Possibilities of Control.

You will note that I am not discussing the control of the dis-
ease, because I do not pretend to know anything about that, but
that, as the insects are related to the trouble and the primary
cause of the wounds, we must consider control of the insects as
a primary measure.

In the consideration of the possibilities of controling depre-
dations by the insects, it may be stated that under certain con-
ditious of public interest, with facilities for utilization of the
affected product, and with a knowledge of the fundamental facts
and principles relating to the depredators and their control, it
is entirely possible and as a business proposition it will pay.

On the other hand, it has been forcibly demonstrated in a
number of cases that have come under our observation that any
direct attempt to combat an insect depredator without a knowl-
edge of essential facts and principles will result in failure and
a waste of energy and money. It has been shown that a few hun-
dred dollars expended in practical application after the essen-
tial facts have been determined will accomplish more than many
thousands of dollars expended without such knowledge. In

183

other words, practical application must follow and not precede
scientific investigation and expert advice, just as legislation for
the control of forest insects to yield good results must follow
and not precede education on the principles and methods of con-
trol.

The steps toward the successful protection of forest trees from
their insect enemies are:

1. Investigations to determine the essential facts about the
principal insects which are capable of killing the trees.

2. Concentration of the investigations on the most import-
ant species to determiie their seasonal history and habits, and
the most economical and effectual methods of preventing serious
depredations by them.

3. Dissemination of authoritative information on the essen-
tial facts and principles of control and prevention, by means
of circulars, press notices, lectures, special field instructions, and
field demonstrations.

4. Practical application of this information by the owners
of affected and threatened timber, under a strict adherence to
the recommendations.

I might pause at this point, to make it clear, that we are con-
ducting now aiid have conducted a number of practical demon-
strations to prove that our recommendations will work, and we
have proved it in a number of cases. In one case last summer,
involving the cutting of over twenty thousand trees, over a very
large area in Oregon we demonstrated the practicability of con-
trolling one of the worst insect enemies of western forests. In
one locality in Montana over ten thousand trees were cut by
private owners, smal! owners. They cut the timber and worked
it into fuel and burned it during the winter and stopped insect
depredations which had been going on for twenty or thirty years
and killing an enormous amount of timber. The timber stopped
dying the next year. I had a letter informing me, just before I
came here, that over one hundred Indians were cutting and bark-
ing timber according to our recommendations in an Indian reser-
vation in eastern Montana. This is a demonstration project, and
the Indians are so much interested that they have authorized the
expenditure of ten thousand dollars, and they are cutting the
timber and barking it themselves. This, we believe, is almost

184

certain to be a success, and we will be prouder of it than any-
thing else we have done, because it shows that, if the Indians ean
do it, anybody else can do it.

Continuing my paper,.in conclusion, I want to say that in
our general investigations and practical demonstrations, we have
recognized that the State and Federal governments can render
the greatest service through investigations and the dissemination
of information and that it is the owner who should make the
practical application. Therefore, this chestnut problem is the
people’s problem and especially that of the people who are owners
of valuable natural or cultivated growth. It seems to me that the
only way the successful protection of the chestnut resources of
the country can be brought about will be through individual and
co-operative action by the owners. They are the ones to be di-
rectly benefited, financially and otherwise. I am sure that, as a
rule, they are anxious to do everything they can afford to do,
if someone will show them how and demonstrate to them that, as
a business proposition, it will pay. They will then not only try
to protect their own timber but they will realize that there is
a common interest involved and will be impelled to help their
neighbors, their county, and their State.

I have some photographs here which IT took in 1903 in North
Carolina, showing the extensive dying of chestnut there. The
chestnut, practically dead as far as you could see in every direc-
tion, the white, barkless trunks appearing as ghost trees in the
forest. I have also a list of the insects found on chestnut, which
of course you do not want me to read.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hopkins has some photographs here
illustrating some of the insect pests, and [ am sure he will be
glad to show them to those who are interested, after this session
is over. The paper of Dr. Hopkins is open for discussion. I
know he will be glad to answer questions that may arise pertain-
ing to the relation of the insects to the chestnut bark disease, or
any other questions that may come up in relation thereto.

Dk. MURRILUE, of New York: I would like to ask Dr. Hop-
kins how far these beetles which attack the chestnut have been
known to go from tree to tree in a forest?

185

DR. HOPKINS: That is not known. We have no way of
determining how far they will go. But they have wings and can
fly. There is no reason why they should not go long distances.

DR. REED, of Virginia: I would like to ask how many of
these insects are borers in the chestnut that would inflict any
wound in the bark which would be large enough to allow infec-
tion by a fungus?

DR. HOPKINS: There are a number of insects which may
cause wounds which will give entrance to the spores. When the
insects hatch from the eges, they are almost microscopic; there-
fore, the burrows made going into the bark will hardly give en-
trance to the spores unless there is a flow of sap from these smal]
wounds, which sometimes happens. My observation in Virginia
and the seetion south of Washington indicates that there is <
disease, possibly a bacterial one, which does get into these minute
wounds, on account of a small amount of the sap oozing out,
and in that way it works into the cambium. This is only a pos-
sibility which has been suggested time and time again to me by
my observations; perhaps it acounts for the fact that great num-
bers of dead trees in the South, do not show any traces of insects.
The trees die and the bark falls off and yet they show no eyi-
dence of insects. Of course, the majority of dead trees do show
such evidence. We have had a man down in North Carolina in
1903-1904 studying the insects, and trying to determine the cause
of the extensive death of the timber in that state, and there was
no doubt that a great many of the trees were killed by insects,
but that insects were not the cause of all of the trouble.

DR. REED: Is there any part of the tree which is invariably
attacked by these insects, or does it occur generally on the
tree?

DR. HOPKINS: The principal point of attack, the most vital
part of a tree, is the middle trunk. We have found, in the study
of insects which kill trees, that they attack the middle portion
of the trunk. They girdle the tree at that point. The two-
lined chestnut borer does this especially. Other insects attack
all parts of the tree including the leaves, and some of them are
associated with the chestnut blight, as has been determined by
Mr. Craighead, who has been carrying on work under my instruc-
tion here in Pennsylvania.

186

MR. BARRUS, of New York: I would like to ask: Is there
any case where the larva of the insect is found under the bark,
and the mycelium of the fungus is found radiating from the
burrow of that insect? I would like to know whether that is
known to Dr. Hopkins, and whether that means anything rela-
tive to the spread of the disease? Would it be possible that the
spores of the fungus were deposited at the same time the insect
was deposited there in the egg, and a mycelium growth had gone
on parallel with the development of the larva?

DR. HOPKINS: That is a problem yet to be solved. It is
a problem in which we will have to co-operate with the forest
pathologists. We are studying that feature of the problem. We
find insects undoubtedly associated with the disease. We find
them going into the perfectly healthy bark of some trees and we
find the disease following them. We find also that insects go
into the healthy bark or other trees, and the disease does not
follow; so that it is one of the complex problems to be worke:l
out. I think it is absolutely necessary to work out a few of these
problems before we can do much towards control. I think it will
save money. We certainly ought to know something about what
we are doing.

MR. BARRUS: A number of articles have been sent in for
identification, reported as the work of insects which had not
worked in healthy trees, and I wondered whether it was meant
by that whether those insects would work on a tree after it had
lost a certain degree of vitality, even before the tree had died.

DR. HOPKINS: It depends on the species. There are very
few people who can recognize the different species of insects in
the larval stage. We have specialists working on this now. The
identification of species from the larval stage is something the
general entomoligist cannot do. Any assumption, from the larval
form alone, that certain insects will do so and so, is mere guess-
work. Some species of insects will bore in the living bark. Others
can not possibly exist in the living bark but must bore in the
dying, dead or decaying bark. There are many species, as this
list shows, over four hundred and seventy-two species, and out
of those there are only a very few which attack perfectly healthy

187

trees. So that the others live in various ways. If a lot of in-
sects is found in a diseased tree, we must know which of these are
the insects that attack the living bark and which come in after
the bark begins to die, or after it is dead, and whether or not any
of them can carry spores after they transformed into the adult
stage and come out. I doubt whether the relation of insects is
as important a factor as has been suggested, because as a rule
when insects develop to the adult or winged stage, and emerge
from the bark, they fly away very quickly, as if to escape some
enemy. They do not as a rule crawl about over the bark before
they fly.

MR. W. HOWARD RANKIN, of Ithaca, New York: Can you
tell us whether in your estimation, the Leptura’ species of borer
precede infections of the blight, or follow it?

DR. HOPKINS: ‘That is a problem we are working on, but
we are not ready to form an opinion on it. It will require a sum-
mer’s work before we can state definitely just what relation they
have to the disease and the dying of trees.

MR. RANKIN: I would also like to ask the Doctor if he is
acquainted with some chestnut trouble in Otsego county, New
York? There is a lot of chestnut dying in that locality from
what I took to be insect trouble.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Rankin calls attention to apparent
losses caused by insects in Otsego county, New York

DR. HOPKINS: The matter has not yet come to my atten-
tion.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further questions?

PROFESSOR CLINTON: I would like to ask Dr. Hopkins if,
during the past few years, the insect troubles of trees in general
have been on the increase or decrease, over the previous ten or
fifteen years?

DR. HOPKINS: I have been studying the subject in rela-
tion to dying timber for the past twenty years, or since I started
to study forest insects, and the question of climate has been one
to which we have given considerable attention; because every
time trees start to die someone comes up and says they are dying

188

from drought, or if it is a wet season they claim they are dying
from wet weather. We have demonstrated conclusively, I think,
that insect troubles do not depend on drought. In fact, the
most destructive insects work better under moist conditions.
So far as the relative abundance now and formerly is concerned,
it is the habit of all destructive insects to be very destructive for
a series of years and then practically disappear. This is, under
natural conditions they go in waves. There is no particular
period, but whenever the conditions, whatever they may be, are
favorable for their rapid increase, and their enemies are not
present in numbers, they start another invasion and sometimes
kill off nearly all their host trees. The most striking example
of the complete extermination of an insect throughout a vast
area was in 18938. In 1891 and 1892 the pine throughout West
Virginia and Virginia was dying at an enormous rate. We
found that it was being killed by the southern pine beetle, which
was threatening the total destruction of all the timber in those
two States, and did kill from seventy-five to eighty per cent. of
the best merchantable timber. In the winter of 1893, in January,
it was twenty-five degrees below zero in many sections in this
area. The next spring when we went into the woods to continue
our investigations, we found all of the broods of this beetle dead,
and as we continued the investigation we found them dead all
over the area. Since that time to the present, there has not been
a single specimen of that beetle found in the area mentioned.
This is an example of climatic influence. If we could have some-
thing of that character come along and clean out the chestnut
blight, it would settle all this trouble; but we can not depend
on such things to happen. This killing of the southern pine
beetle by cold was due to the fact that it is a southern insect
which had worked its way northward during mild seasons, so
that when the extreme cold came it was exterminated. This
cold did not kill any of the local insects that were working in
the bark with it. The same insect is now threatening the de-
struction of the timber throughout the southern States. Our
work in the south during the past summer has led to the exten-
Sive cutting of infested trees by the owners in carrying out our
recommendations, and I think the beetle will be controlled.

189

THE CHAIRMAN: You will all be pleased to know that
Governor Tener very willingly accepted an invitation to come in
and say a few words this afternoon before our final adjourn-
ment.

This morning, after considerable labor, we formulated some
rules to govern a discussion that never occurred. It occurs to
the Chairman that it might be well to open up the subjects of
the morning session, in connection with the one subject pre-
sented this afternoon, under the rule adopted this morning and
continue along that line until the Committee on Resolutions is
ready to report. If no objection to that proposal is made, it will
be understood that it is the wish of the Conference so to pro-
ceed, haying the paper presented by Dr. Hopkins and the papers
presented before us this morning for discussion on a_ three-
minute rule.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH, of Brooklyn: Mr. Chairman and
Gentlemen: I have given some four years of study, more or less,
to this fungous disease causing the death of the chestnut trees.
A great many of you have seen the pamphlet which I wrote for
the State of Pennsylvania. I am indebted for my first knowl-
edge of this subject to the gentlemen just in front of me, Dr.
Murrill, of New York. My attention in 1907 was called to it in
Forest Park in Brooklyn. Let me say a word or two to those
who are using the microscope. I think perhaps one or two errors
may have been stated here, and I want to call attention to the
spores that are developed by this fungus, the Diaporthe para-
sitica,

This fungus produces four kinds of spores. The two most
abundant and generally found are the sac spores in the winter
stage and those other spores in thread masses called conidial
spores, and which are present in the summer stage. Besides these
there will be found in some specimens, numerous small spores
(or cells) which are developed in a flask or perithecium called
a spermagonium. These very minute spores (or cells) of the
spermagonium are called spermatia. Besides being very small
they possess great motility. There is a fourth kind also de-
veloped in a flask or perithecium which is called a pyenidium.

190

The pycnidial spores (or sporules) are from two and a half to
three times the length of the conidial spores. The sporules are
borne on pedicels and are not contained in saes as are the winter
spores. A pyenidium may properly be called a stylosporous
perithecium. These four kinds of spores, vary in size and are
of a different origin. The condial spores are the only kind not
produced in perithecia or flask-shaped bodies. The conidial
spores are borne on filiform, simple hyphae. The sac spores
are called sporidia, the thread mass are conidia, the minute
spores (or cells) are the spermatia, and the pyenidial product are
the sporules.

THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor, I think I will have to ask for
unanimous consent, because we have now gone to the limit of our
rule.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: I would ask consent that I may
be able to present a statement that I think is of some importance
in the work which I have been doing just lately.

THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give us an idea of the time?
DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: I will take Just a few minutes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Mickleborough asks unanimous con-
sent that he proceed for a few minutes to complete this state-
ment. It seems to be necessary to ask that, because we are work-
ing under a rule. Is there objection? If not, the consent is
given.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: I will take up the other feature.
I have had under consideration all forms of sprays and cutting
and things of that kind, and have examined the cuttings in many
parts of New York State and also in Pennsylvania. I want to
make this statement, not to produce any sensation or create any
false impression: Within the last five months I have had as- .
sociated with me in this work an experienced bacteriologist, and
last Friday I called upon my associate and I asked him to give
me the language that I might use as to what we had accomplished
up to this time in trying to find an entirely different remedy for
the chestnut tree blight. I will read you the words that he ap-
proved of last Friday; that was February 17, 1912:

191

“The work has advanced sufficiently to state that temporary
immunity is assured to a certain degree.” That means over
certain areas and over smaller things with which we have had
to deal in the bacteriological laboratory. “And spore develop-
ment in affected areas has been arrested.”

Now we have started out largely with the idea that dog will
eat dog and that we will have to meet this from the bacteriolo-
gical standpoint. Ido not know; and I do not promise success.
We are going ahead with this work and many experiments will
have to be preformed this spring. I am not sure that we are
going to be successful, anl I am not going to tell you whether it
is going to be a toxin or an anti-toxin, as we might call it, or a
serum which can be used.

MR. STEVENS: This is a very interesting paper and we
enjoyed it; but we have taken up so far in our Conference the
negative side of the question and, with the limited time left, I
think we have all we can do to consider ways and means of pro-
cedure. I think it should be the sense of the meeting that we
should give the remaining two hours of time to positive work,
in the procedure of the work of this Conference.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: I have no desire to prolong this
discussion at all against the wish and the unanimous consent of
the Conference, and I am not wishing to create a false impres-
sion. What we may be able to produce I do not know. I do
know this, that it is something that ought to be encouraged,
just as much as when the sleeping sickness in Africa killed a
million of the tribes of Africa. The white man did not say, “Let
them die” but rose up, as a man, the rebel in nature, and said
“T will not die, but I will destroy that which is destroying me.”
and I am taking that position now. We are trying to see if there
is not something that can be done to destroy the chestnut tree
blight. I yield to the gentleman; if there is any objection, I do
not wish to continue.

THE CHAIRMAN: The matter before us comprises the
papers of this morning, with their various bearings, and the
paper of the afternoon. There are four distinct subjects.

DR. SMITH: There has been a manifest desire that all pos-
sible information be given here of the experiments of Dr. Metcalf,

192

whose publication has raised the hope that the dead line is to be
effective. Possibly Dr. Crowell can tell us something about it,
or some other member of the Department.

THE CHAIRMAN: That would be eminently proper under
the rule guiding us at the presene time. We would be glad to
here from Dr. Crowell for three minutes, and extend the time,
if the Conference desires; either Dr. Crowell of Professor Col-
lins will speak.

PROFESSOR COLLINS: Mr. Besley made the remark, I
do not remember whether it was this morning or not, that he
would like to have some positive statements. I am prompted to
say a few words about the matter. I should have said them
before, only the discussion seemed to be so close on to the time
limit that I thought perhaps a little more favorable opportunity
might occur later.

In reply, if we can regard it a reply to the question of Mr.
Besley and Professor Smith, I would like to say a few words in
regard to the cutting-out experiment around Washington. You
must remember that in the Farmer’s Bulletin which has been
published, the statement is made that those experiments were
conducted chiefly by the senior writer, which is Dr. Metcalf.
We are all sorry that he cannot be here to tell you more about
this. Unfortunately I have visited only a few of these places
personally. Here is a statement, however, which I would like
to read in connection with that:

In Farmer’s Bulletin 467, p. 11, we made the following state-
ments regarding certain experiments which had been performed
at that time to test different methods of controlling the disease
by cutting out advance infections:

“The country within approximately thirty-five miles of Wash-
ington, D. C. was chosen in the fall of 1908 as preliminary ter-
ritory in which to test this method of control. This section has
since been gone over fairly thoroughly once a year. As will be
seen by Fig. 1, fourteen points of infection were located and the
infected trees destroyed. Most of this work was done by the
senior writer. The largest infection was a group of nursery
trees that had heen imported from New Jersey; the smallest, a
single lesion on a small branch of a large forest tree. In one

193

case eleven forest trees in a group were infected, the original
infection having been two trees, dating apparently from as early
as 1907. Up to the present time (June, 1911) the disease has not
reappeared at any point where eliminated and the country with-
in a radius of approximately thirty-five miles from Washington
is apparently free from the bark disaese, although new infections
must be looked for as long as the disease remains elsewhere
unchecked. It is therefore believed that this method of attack
will prove equally practicable in other localities, and if carried
out on a large scale will result ultimately in the control of the
bark disease.”

Since June, two new points of infection, dating probably from
1910, and a third suspicious point have been discovered within
this area. This was expected, as above. If the results of legis-
lation this winter show that an effort will be made to control the
disease in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia,
these points of infection and any others that may be found will
be destroyed in the spring. Otherwise the experiment will be
abandoned, except for keeping a record of previous cuttings.

Since Christmas six of the fourteen points above referred to
have been visited. In one case where only diseased limbs were
removed and the balance of the tree left standing, the tree has
become infected. This was expected; we have always recom-
mended complete destruction of diseased trees. At two points
the diseased trees were cut, but the stumps left unbarked. This
we believe to be bad practice, but in spite of this the stumps are
still with one exception unaffected. In the other three cases
the trees were entirely destroyed, and the disease has not reap-
peared in the vicinity. The regular inspection of all fourteen
points will be made again in May and June, after the leaves are
out, as has been our previous practice.

Only indicative conclusions can be drawn from the above ex:
periment until at least six more years have passed. It should be
borne in mind that this is an experiment, not a demonstration.
The experiment should in any case have been duplicated in var-
ious parts of the country. It is not too late to do this now; even
in States where it is too late to attempt general control, local

13

194

cutting-out experiments can be made, and the end will give re-
sults of great value, on account of the difference in local condit-
ions.

DR. MURRILL, of New York: Mr. Chairman: I wish to
speak just for a moment in reply to the preceding paper, and
I wish to speak very briefly and plainly, as to why the chestnut
canker cannot be controlled by cutting-out method proposed :

1. It is impossible to locate all advance infections, these not
being apparent even under close inspections.

2. It is practically impossible to cut and burn all infected trees
after their discovery.

3. Even if these trees are cut, it is impossible to discover and
eradicate the numerous infections originating from millions of
spores produced on these trees and distributed by birds, insects,
squirrels, wind, and rain.

4. Kven if it were possible to cut and burn all affected trees,
for ten or twenty years afterwards numbers of sprouts would
erow up from the roots of these trees and continue to die from
the disease and to spread the infection.

5. Supposing that it might be possible to eradicate all ad-
vance infections, What method is proposed that is at all feasible
for combating the disease in its main line of advance? All of
the foresters connected with the United States Government and
the entire Army of the United States would be utterly powerless
to oppose its progress.

6. Although the chestnut canker has been known and experi-
mented with since 1905, there is not a single instance where an
individual tree or a grove of trees atfected by the disease has
been saved. If it is impossible to combat the canker under the
most favorable circumstances, how would it be possible to sue-
eeed with an extensive forest? The published account of the
extermination of the chestnut canker in the vicinity of Wash-
ington, D. C., upon which experiment the requests for state
appropriations are said to be founded, cannot be relied upon.
The trees most conspicuously affected there have been cut and
burned, so that the presence of the disease is not readily appar-
ent, but with each season additional trees will be affected and

195

the attempt to stay the disease will be abondoned, especially
when the main line of advance, which is now in northern Mary-
land, reaches the Potomac River. (Applause).

MR. CASSELL, of Philadelphia: I wish to say to Dr. Murrill
that I will be glad any time to show him trees that have been
treated for two years and are alive to-day and apparently quite
healthy. (Applause).

PROFESSOR STEWART: Mr. Chairman: I wish to speak
of two points mentioned by Professor Collins in connection with
the Washington experiment. I think that he has left the im-
pression that those points of infection discovered after June,
1911, could be regarded as new infections. Now, one of them,
which we examined, Professor Collins says must have occurred
in 1910, and I quite agree with him that it occurred as early
as that, and perhaps earlier. That certainly cannot be regarded
as anew infection. Another point: Professor Collins states that
in those two cases where the trees were cut and the stumps left
unbarked, that the disease has not reappeared. Perhaps he did
uot put it quite that way; I believe he said, “they are not now in-
fected.”” Now on the 380th of December last, when we examined
them (Dr. Metcalf, Prof. Collins and others being present), we
found the fungus on the bark of one of those stumps, and also at
the base of an adjoining tree, as stated in my paper.

MR. I. C. WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman: I wish to direct the
attention of this Conference to the character of some of the
scientific investigation that is going on with respect to chestnut
blight disease. I think we have a right to know what some
scientists are doing, what they are saying and what they are at-
(tempting to do. It is for that purpose, therefore, that I have
brought before you a copy of the report of the New York State
Museum, and I wish to read you a short paragraph therefrom.
On page 7 of that report it is written as follows:

“While there (referring to a locality which was visited)
my attention was called to a diseased chestnut tree. It
Was a young tree, with sickly looking foliage and a few dead
branches. It was suffering from the chestnut bark disease,
caused by a parasitic bark fungus. Both branches and trunk
were affected by the fungus, the latter dead few feet above the

5 cme %

196

ground. It was my first opportunity to see a tree affected by
this disease, about which much that appears to me to be over-
drawn and needlessly alarming has recently been published in
magazines and newspapers.”

This is dated Albany, May 15, 1911. You will bear in mind
that the writer admits having seen but one diseased tree from
which he draws that conclusion; and (to Dr. Murrill), if my
friend will just bear with me a moment, he will get an oppor-
tunity when I am through.

THE CHAIRMAN: The three-minute limit having expired,
we will understand, unless there is objection, that Mr. Williams
has unanimous consent to continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hold before this meeting that it is a case
of ridiculous and absurd foolishness for a man to come out in
a public print of that character and, as a reputable scientific man,
wishing to be taken seriously, say that because he has seen one
diseased tree he regards this thing as needlessly alarming, and all
trumped up and in the air. If that is the kind of scientific aid
we are getting, then much of our scientific work is us:less.
Much of it is just as useless as the conclusions that were drawn
here yesterday from some of the papers read. They are simply
guesses in the future, strokes in the dark; they amount to noth-
ing. One man can guess at something as well as another. If
the practical men of America are to pin their faith to guesswork
resulting from the cursory examination of one tree, then I say
it is pretty nearly time to call off the scientists and let us look
to somebody else.

PROFESSOR CLINTON: The politicians.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, they will help. You will find that
when a politician sees something good, he goes for it and
eenerally gets it. He, at least, has courage enough to try.

In regard to the article just read before you, I happened to have
a copy of that in my hand. TI suppose the gentleman who read
it is somewhat mystified as to how I got it; but if he desires to
know, the information may be had. It may be interesting to
this meeting to know that it was one of his pre-Convention efforts
in some way to cook up a sentiment, or an apparent sentiment,

197

against what possibly might be done at this meeting, and was
accompanied by such a letter as | rather expected would never be
written.

The first statement is: “It is impossible to logate all advance
infections, these not being apparent even under close inspection.”

I deny the assertion. Advance infections can readily be found
if the man looking for them knows his business. In time every
tree will develop to such a stage in its infection that it may
readily be detected. There is no hidden mystery about this
disease. All you have to do is to know it and find it. It takes
probably repeated searching, but when you go out for a thing
you search until you get it. You do not look for it in a des-
ultory way and then say “It is impossible to find all advance
infections.”

“It is practically impossible to cut and burn all infected trees
after their discovery.”

Who for a minute will believe that it is impossible to burn a
tree if you cut it down?

“Even if these trees are cut, it is impossible to discover and
eradicate the numerous infections originating from millions of
spores produced on these trees and distributed by birds, insects,
squirrels, wind and rain.”

If we cannot eradicate, we may check. We may do something
that will be beneficial, and if it is impossible to do as stated in
paragraph 3, then let us do the next best thing. Let us not
quit because some one thinks that it probably is impossible, but
let us go ahead and do the best we can. I[ question the pro-
priety of anyone engaged in work of this kind and in relation to
this disease being ready to give up after the first effort.

“Even if it were impossible to cut and burn all affected trees,
for ten to twenty years afterwards numbers of sprouts would
grow up from the roots of these trees and continue to die from
the disease and to spread the infection.”

I would like to know whether that observation is based upon
facts, or whether it is a mere guess, an assumption. An incident
was cited to you this morning where a number of infected trees
were cut out of a grove near Philadelphia. The bark was care-
fully taken from the stumps, burned, every infected portion of
tree that could be found was destroyed, and the sprouts from

198

those stumps have come up in a fine, thrifty manner. To date
they show no infection. That is not complete evidence, of course,
but it is an indication. It is an indication that these stumps
will sprout again and they may possibly be kept free from infec-
tion. How much easier it is to go back to the stumps and cut
the small sprouts than to search for the disease on tall forest
trees. “Supposing that it might be possible to eradicate all ad-
vance infections, what method is proposed that is at all feas-
ible for combating the disease in its main line of advance? All
of the foresters connected with the United States Government
and the entire Army of the United States would be utterly power-
less to Oppose its progress.”

I would like to ask how that was arrived at. By what process
of calculation has that statement been derived? I would like to
ask what method they propose. Do they have a method? Is
there any method that is worth anything at all? Now if there
is, let us use it. If there is not, let us look for one. We are in-
terested in looking for one. We claim no method that is of great
virtue, but we do claim that we are interested in looking for a
method, and that is the thing we want to do.

“When an appropriation is asked for, it is customary to point
to some good reason for hope of success provided the appropria-
tion is obtained.” In other words, vou must solve your prob-
lem before you get the money to solve it. If that is the way the
States of the United States are doing business, then I think
they had better reform their methods of business quickly. If
that is the way the scientific men of the United States do their
work, I think it is well for them to get wise.

Now Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be misconstrued. I
want to be fair to these gentlemen, and I am fair. But I doubt
whether it is just the thing for them, in this present uncertain
state of our knowledge, to stand as they do, utterly oblivious to
any decent attempt to do anything, to relegate that all to the
shades and simply conclude, as a matter of a priori inference,
that this thing cannot be done, and therefore drop the whole
business.

IT would like to raise another question. I would like to ask
the gentlemen from around the neighborhood of New York city

199

whether, if they had been really active and alert and on the firing
line when this thing was discovered in 1904, might they not have
accomplished some real thing which would have redounded to the
benefit of the other States, as Massachusetts has done in her
gypsy moth fight? (Applause). If instead of sitting down
and nursing their hands in idleness and allowing this scourge
to go on, simply because they could not originate sufficient in-
terest in their States, they had gone out and done what they
could, this thing would probably not have come upon us. The
assumption is quite as valid as many we have heard from the
other side.

Now Mr. Chairman, in work of this kind I think it just and
right that those who are interested in it should all pull together.
If we do not agree upon methods, if we are not agreed as to our
conclusions, why not each work out these conclusions for him-
self? Why not each interested person, State, or organization,
endeavor to do what he or it can? We would regard it as
our everlasting shame and disgrace if we had sat down and per-
mitted this disease to sweep on without raising a hand against
it. We have the finest kind of illustrations of success in work
of this kind. Did the United States Goverment cease to pursue
its investigations and its practical work in the eradication of
yellow fever simply because it took a hundred years to get to
some tangible result? I*inally they have solved the yellow fever
problem. They have done it with the aid of the scientist, and
we welcome his effort, but we want it to be on scientific grounds.
New Jersey has been plagued with mosquitoes since time imme-
morial, I presume; but have the citizens of New Jersey ever failed
to screen their windows against mosquitoes because the scientists
of the State have not succeeded in working out a method of
eradication that is effective? There is a lot of homely illus-
tration of effort where we are engaged in doing what we can in
an endeavor to find out something that will be really useful,
tangible, and effective.

That is the keynote of our work here. I would like this Con-
vention to carry away with it the idea that we are in this work
just for what ever result we can accomplish, and we do not care
in what direction the inquiry goes. That makes.no difference
whatever. What do we care whether this fungus went on a

200

foreign trip Some years ago and then came back in disguise and
is now setting up business at the old stand? The thing is with
us, is before us, and we want to deal with the concrete present.
The other is interesting historically, but let that be as it may.
The thing to do is to deal with the problems that are with us;
and when we have dealt with them to the best of our knowledge
and then failed, we have used our whole effort and I think we
have discharged our duty to the public. (Applause).

PROFESSOR SURFACE: Mr. Chairman: I should like to
direct our thoughts to a subject which I think has, in part, es-
caped our attention in discussing the excellent paper of Dr.
Hopkins. He has brought our attention to the fact that there
are four hundred and seventy-two species of insects known ta
attack the chesnut tree, and a great number of these are borers.
He has brought our attention to the fact that those borers make
two holes in the tree, one as the young larva forces its way in and
cne as it comes out as a mature beetle. It has been shown that
the fungus germ or spore enters where the bark is injured or punc-
tured. Thus we see that each insect boring in the tree makes two
places of injury where the spore germs can enter, and thus it
makes a possibility of damage at two places, although as a rule
they are not far apart. Now let us remember that the natural
and chief enemies by all means of these borers are the wood-
peckers, and the natural enemies of these four hundred and
seventy-two species of insects are the birds of the forest. It
has been said that the woodpeckers carry the disease germs;
but let us not infer for a minute that the woodpecker should
be exterminated for so doing, for, were all the woodpeckers
utterly destroyed, there would practically be just as much dis-
semination of these disease germs as if the woodpeckers were
all present. These germs are earried readily by the wind. In
the same way the robin, for example, has been accused of spread-
ing the San Jose scale. If all the robins were destroyed the San
Jose scale would be carried just as much as if the robins were
present. The fact that in passing from one injured place to
another there may be some germs on the bill of the woodpecker
does not argue against that beneficial bird of our forest. I
wish to go on record as saying that one of the most efficient

201

methods of fighting this blight is to preserve the birds and par-
ticularly the woodpeckers, which destroy these borers. I have
before me sections of branches that have been bored by insects
and woodpeckers having been taken out, showing their beneficial
work. It appears to me, then, that the impression should be
corrected as to the possibility of preventing the spread of the
germs by destroying woodpeckers. Preserve the woodpeckers
and other insectivorous birds and prevent the spread of the in-
fection. (Applause)

DR. MURRILL: Mr. Chairman: I have been accused of
using “pre-Convention methods.” I had no intention whatever
of that purpose. I am nota politician at all. When I got back
from the Pacific Coast I found there had been a Convention or a
Conference, in Albany, and I found that New York State, my
own State, had made certain recommendations for an appropria-
tion. I deemed that unwise, that is, to ask fora large appropria-
tion, so I immediately took steps to write to the Governor and
to write to some of the representatives and I took the matter up,
entirely as a citizen of New York State. It was my duty to the
State. Later I heard something about an appropriation in the
Legislature of Virginia, my native State, and at once took the
matter up with the Governor of that State. It is a copy of this
letter which the speaker before (Mr. Williams) had for discus-
sion.

As to sitting down and doing nothing, for twenty years I have
been working on diseases of trees. [or the last seven years
I have known this fungus. Immediately when I found it, when
the affected trees were shown me by Mr. Merkel, I began the
most industrious investigation of it, and I venture to say that
many of those present have been guided to a knowledge of it
through my extensive correspondence on the subject.

Now for a programme, I have that also. I do not believe in
butting our heads against a wall and wasting the public money
uselessly. I believe in carrying on investigations a little fur-
ther and, if possible, in finding some rational method, so that
we can use our funds to much better advantage. I should say,
keep in touch with the disease in every Stage; survey and locate
it, but do not locate it with reference to eradication, because I
deem that impossible. Devote this year, at least, to scientific in-

202

vestigation. The papers of all the delegates have referred to
being on the eve of some great discovery. Now let us give them
another year and let the Commission devote its best energies
tc scientific investigation along certain lines which I have here
marked out, which may be used if vou wish them. I will not read
them.

(The speaker handed a paper to the Chairman, which ap-
pears later on the record of proceedings).

Let them be forest tests, and also orchard and laboratory
tests. Those forest tests may embody your immune zone, your
eradication of diseased trees in a section. Let that be a scien-
tific, thoroughly scientific test, under this Commission, and,
after the season is over, let us have a report and decide what
further must be done with this magnificent appropriation which
the State of Pennsylvania has so generously made. (Applause).

PROFESSOR RANE: I simply rise just to make this point:
It seems to me that a discussion is what brings things out. Now
I am sure everybody that is attending this Convention at this
time feels that the State of Pennsylvania is taking a splendid
stand in this work. I am also of the opinion that some have al-
lowed the little financial end to step in, thinking perhaps that
the State of Pennsylvania is throwing away some money. After
all, this is insignificant. I feel that the responsibility upon a
Commission that has money to expend in this work is likely to
bring those men out, and put them in a position that we will
all look forward to, and we cannot secure this unless that re-
sponsibility is placed in such a way. I think that is the beauty
of the gypsy moth work in Massachusetts. We have had a great
deal of money. When it was placed under my Department, I
wondered how in the world to spend that amount of money and
really derive the most benefit from it. That was the problem that
worried us most, and I doubt not that is the same problem that
is worrying this Commission most. I am sure we are not here in
any way to criticize, and I hope at least we do not fall into that
attitude of mind. I[ am inclined to think that some have the
wrong impression. We are heart and hand with this Commis-
sion in Pennsylvania, and I believe that with money and with
responsibility, they are likely to bring things about. We have
brought results about in the moth work in my state in improv-

203

ing spraying machinery alone that I believe will be sufficient
importance in the future to the whole broad United States to
pay for the expenditure. Also, no one could estimate the value
to the world of the use of arsenate of lead for spraying purposes,
for which the gypsy moth work in Massachusetts is responsible.

Again, another point that I wish to emphasize. We are es-
tablishing positions, State Foresters and other State positions
along different lines. I think that we want to get into the habit
of having a well directed forest policy, so that the current may
flow along well defined channels. The great trouble I think,
as I look upon these forest pathologists and entomologists is
that there are constantly new outbreaks in new places, and a
few good specialists on each problem are better than each state
working it out independently.

I should like a system, and it seems to me that the State
foresters, if there is such a position in our various States, ought
to be closely knit together and that this work should go along
that channel and be well directed, not only, as I brought out,
for these individual things but for the problem as a whole, so that
in the long run we will get definite results.

MR. STEVENS, of the Lehigh Valley Railroad: Mr. Chair-
man, it is now three o’clock on the last afternoon of this session.
I came here for two purposes: One, to get additional information
regarding this fungous pest, and another, to get some idea of how
we can best co-operate in combatting it. Now a large share of
this meeting has been given up to one side, the analytical side
of the question, and it seems to me we should give some attention
to the constructive side. We are agreed in some things, and one
is, that a better system of forestry, carried out through the East,
will tend to control or help control this fungous disease. I think
there is no dissenting voice on that at all. This has been the
the history of a good many pests which we have met. I have in
mind particularly such a one as the orange pockweed.

“The Devil’s Paint Brush.” We may not have known how to
eradicate it, but the introduction of that weed has brought about
a better rotation of the crops, which makes orange pock-weed a
negligible quantity. So it seems to me here, if we could appoint
a committee or in some way formulate a plan for a more rational

204

control of our forests, we would be doing something upon which
we could agree and work together, and thus not only control this
fungous disease, but do wonders to the forests of this section.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stevens will probably be pleased to
learn that the Committee on Resolutions will have something
of a constructive order to suggest.

MR. STEVENS: Then may we proceed as quickly as pos-
sible, so that we may discuss that?

THE CHAIRMAN: That is the next order on the pro-
gramme, and before calling for a report by the Committee on
Resolutions, if you will permit a word from the Chair, I will
beg your indulgence. A few moments ago, doubtless in a spirit
of fun, the word “politician” was introduced into our discus-
sion. Now I wish to say that I have made careful observations
-—as one may of the work in one State from another State—
of the work that is being done in the State of Pennsylvania
along this line. Thus far I have failed to see the first sign of
what might be regarded as political methods, and I claim to be
somewhat expert in detecting the presence of such methods.
(Applause). I have inquired of two gentlemen of Pennsylvania
who are well posted, one of them being a member of the Chest-
nut Tree Blight Commission, as to the political faith of these
five men, and I have been unable to find out yet what their
political faith is. (Applause).

The members of the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission of
Pennsylvania are serving without compensation. They are
men of large business interests and also altruistic interests.
They are glad to give their time to the subject because they
believe they can help the State to solve a great problem, and,
so far as I have been able to size up the situation in Pennsyl-
vania, from the papers and the discussions which have been
offered here, 1 should say that the Pennsylvania plan, in a word,
is to seek the truth and when the best course is found, then to
follow that course. What else can we consider to be the policy
in this State? Remember that the Legislature of Pennsylvania
has appropriated two hundred and seventy-five thousand dol-
lars, and we heard yesterday that only twenty thousand dollars

205

has been expended. That money is being used, it appears to
me, to determine which of various methods is the best, and the
very fact that such a large balance of the money is still held in re-
serve is the strongest proof that the authorities of this State
are waiting until they are fully satisfied as to which is the best
course to pursue. It seems to me, gentlemen, that when we
say there is danger of wasting public money uselessly in con-
nection with the work which has bee reported here, we are
attacking a phantom and, as I think there is some little danger
of the wrong impression getting out from this meeting, I desire
to make these remarks to assist in clearing up the situation.
Good work is being done in this State and in other States.
Here the problem is perhaps greater than in any other State,
and here the State has made magnificent provision for both
studying the problem and carrying out effective measures.
( Applause).

DR. MURRILL: I just want to concur heartily in every-
thing the Chairman has said, and entirely disclaim any refer-
ence to the Commission in any way or any shape that the Penn-
sylvania State Legislature has so generously provided for. I
just wanted, when called a politician, by using pre-Conyention
methods, to disillusionize you of that statement.

PROFESSOR CLINTON: I used that word “politician.”
Why did I use that word “politician?” Not because he is a
Democrat or a Republican or anything of that sort—I do not
care what his politics are—but for this reason: The convention
at Albany and the convention here, to my mind, is called largely
for a moral backing for this Chestnut Blight Commission in
Pennsylvania. They want that backing and they are going to
get it, and I am not going to object to it. You can pass any
resolution you want, and I will not object to it. I came down
here to present facts as I know them and to give them to you,
and the moment Mr. Williams is speaking, he is trying to throw
slurs at science, and especially at science outside of Pennsyl-
vania. He attacked Professor Peck, and Professor Peck at
Albany was the one man that—not the one man, but he was a
man—that said he was in favor of their work in fighting the
chestnut blight. He quotes him to disparage him, and he is the

206

man that is backing up their work. l’rofessor Peck is a good
scientist in his way. There are a lot of good scientists that are
doing good work outside of this State, as well as in it.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will now proceed to hear the report
of the Committee on Resolutions.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to preface the report by say-
ing that I have no intention of disparaging any man.

What I said was not with that intention in mind, but to call
attention to what I claim are inadequate methods, methods not
well thought out. I have no quarrel with any man whatever.
I admire a good, lusty antagonist, and I respect his opinion. I
am also most profoundly grateful that we have had an explana-
tion from our good friend, Dr. Murrill, as to just what his
programme is. We have wondered a long time what it might
be and we are in the dark no longer, now that he has made the
explanation; and we are glad for it.

In presenting the resolutions which have been drafted by your
Committee, appointed for that purpose, and as the Chairman
of the Committee, it beeomes my duty at their direction to report
as follows:

WHEREAS, This Conference recognizes the great importance
of the chestnut tree as one of our most valuable timber assets,
having an estimated value of not less than $400,000,000; and

WHEREAS, A most virulent fungous disease has made its
appearance in wide sections of the chestnut timber region, and
already many millions of dollars of damage have been sustained,
and the total extinction of the chestnut tree is threatened by
the rapid spread of this disease; and

WHEREAS, We recognize the importance of prompt action;
therefore, be it

Resolved, That the thanks of this Conference are tendered to
Jovernor Tener for calling it, and for the courtesies he has
shown.

That we appreciate the interest of the VPresident of the
United States, as evidenced by his communication to Governor
Tener, showing, as it does, that the head of the National Goy-
ernment is not unmindful of the great danger presented by the

Chestnut Blight problem.

207

That the Commission appointed by the Governor of Penn-
sylvania be commended for the earnestness and diligence they
have shown in the conduct of their work.

That we urge the National Government, the States, and the
Dominion of Canada to follow the example of Pennsylvania,
which is analogous to that of Massachusetts in starting the fight
against the gypsy moth, and appropriate an amount sufficient
to enable their proper authorities to cope with the disease
where practicable.

That we favor the bill now before Congress appropriating
$80,000 for the use of the United States Department of Agricul-
ture in Chestnut Bark Disease work, and urge all States to use
every means possible to aid in having this bill become a law at
the earliest moment.

That we believe trained and experienced men should be em-
ployed in the field and laboratory to study the disease in all its
phases.

That we believe definite boundaries should be established
where advisable, in each State, beyond which limits an earnest
endeavor should be made to stamp out the disease.

That we believe an efficient and strong quarantine should be
maintained; and that it should be the earnest effort of every
State, the Federal Government, and the Dominion of Canada
to prevent the spread of the disease within and beyond their
borders. In accord with this thought we strongly commend
the efforts being made to pass the Simmons bill now before
Congress.

That we believe strong efforts should be made in all States
to stimulate the utilization of chestnut products, and in order
to do so, we recommend that the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion permit railroads and other transportation companies to
name low freight rates so that chestnut products not liable to
spread the disease may be properly distributed.

That we recommend the National Government, each State,
and the Dominion of Canada to publish practical, concise, and
well illustrated bulletins for educating owners of chestnut
trees.

208

That we believe further meetings on the line of this Confer-
ence advisable and we hope the Pennsylvania Commission will
arrange for similar meetings.

That we thank the State of Pennsylvania for its intention to
publish immediately the proceedings of this Conference.

That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Presi-
dent of the United States, to the Governor of every State, to the
Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, and the members
of the Federal and State Legislatures, with the request that
they do all in their power to aid in checking the ravages of
this dread disease.

I respectfully move the adoption of the resolutions.

Seconded by Dr. J. Russell Smith.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any remarks?

DR. MURRILL: Possibly I have taken too much of your
time, but I have a message to these delegates of the other States,
and I feel sure that they are willing to listen to me for two
minutes. The question is, what will you say to your States
when you return? What programme will you recommend in
your States? First: Survey to keep in touch with the progress
of the disease, so that you may be able to acquaint timber
cwners just when to cut and utilize their timber to the greatest
advantage. The State should have this knowledge. ‘Then
also pay heed to science and further investigation.

THE CHAIRMAN: What you are giving is undoubtedly of
great value, but it occurs to the Chair that it is not directly in
line with these resolutions, and the Chair would ask if you
would not be willing to bring it up after we have acted on the
resolutions, unless you have something in mind further than
has been developed. Is there any discussion of these resolu-
tions?

The motion to adopt the resolutions was put.

THE CHAIRMAN: The resolutions seem to have passed.
They have passed.

DR. J. W. HARSHBERGER, of Philadelphia: Mr. Chair-
man: Just one suggestion that I want to make that has oc-
curred to me during the proceedings, that I think is in line with

209

suggestions looking toward some practical outcome of these
meetings. We, as wise men, should provide for any contingency
that may arise in future years. If the chestnut tree is doomed,
then the fungus which attacks the chestnut tree is doomed with
it. My suggestion is this: That the Chestnut Blight Commis-
sion send to some out-of-the-way part of the world, where the
chestnut tree will grow, nuts which have been thoroughly steri-
lized, with a suggestion that these nuts be grown under the
care of some forester; you might say in southern Germany, or
eastern Germany, Wherever they think proper, in case that the
American chestnut tree is exterminated by the chestnut blight
in America; so that we can draw upon that supply to re-forest
our hillsides and our slopes with our native chestnut tree. Just
as the man in the western states provides his shelter against
the cyclones, so we should provide a means of re-stocking our
forests with the chestnut tree, by sending these chestnuts to
some out of the way part of the world, which is immune, or
where the chestnut blight disease will practically be cut off from
reaching the chestnut trees. That is merely a suggestion, in
line with future operations connected with this blight disease.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair should have extended an
opportunity to Professor Murrill at once, after passing the reso-
lutions, for his statement.

DR. MURRILL: Just a minute, and I will feel that my duty
will have been done: The State’s programme, then, would be,
first, to survey, to locate, and keep in touch with the progress
of the disease, not a rigid inspection, but such an inspection as
the State Forester and State Pathologist could take charge of,
possibly with a slight appropriation. Second, await results of
scientific investigation for one year at least. We are having a
magnificent experiment here, one we are glad to have made
along scientific lines, and under the leadership of a Commission
above reproach in every way. Now, can we not wait a year
and continue our experiments and then act upon the evidence
that we get from this year’s work?

Just a word to timber owners: Forest management is not
a cure for the chestnut blight. The chestnut blight is a good
feeder. The better the chestnut tree, the better it grows on it.

14

210

It is a mistake to say that forest management will eradicate
blight. It will eradicate most other diseases, insects, and so
forth, but it does not affect the blight.

Utilization is the real issue; the practical use of the lumber,
and that is in the hands of those who own chestnut timber. The
present is yours. You have the chestnut timber as it is; tomor-
row, next generation, you may have it not. Be business like and
stand for your own rights. The opinion of one man may be
worth a thousand times the opinion of another. You see that
in every walk of life. Take the opinion of hardheaded, scien-
tific men, who know about this trouble, just as you would the
opinions of hardheaded business men. I thank you for your at
tention. (Applause).

THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no objection, a statement
prepared by Dr. Murrill upon “Questions for Scientific Inves-
tigation,” handed in to the desk a few minutes ago, will be

including in the proceedings, together with his personal views.

The paper submitted is a follows:

QUESTIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.

1. The viability of the spores, both summer and winter forms.

2. The vitality of the mycelium in the bark and wood.

53. The vitality of sprouts and their bearings on the ques-
tion.

4. The food of the fungus; the decomposition of tannin by
ferments.

5. Distribution. <A large subject, involving experiments and
observations over wide areas and dealing with winds, rain,
insects, birds and their migration, squirrels, the transportation
of wood, railway ties; rate and direction of distribution; nur-
sery stock; trees in foreign countries; effects of coppicing.

6. Origin. Nothing is known at present. Is it native or for-
eign?) Why was it unknown until recently, and then why so
violent?

7. Will it attack other trees besides species of chestnut?
Much depends on this. Trees nearest the chestnut should he
used for experiment.

211

8. What is the future of the disease? Will it run its course
and disappear? Will it become less virulent? Will resistant
varieties appear? Can such varieties be made by selection, hy-
bridization, ete.? Can chestnuts be grown with safety beyond
the Mississippi river? Tlow long after death of all our trees,
may chestnuts be again planted with safety?

9. Can we expect natural enemies to arise? If it were an
insect disease, this might be looked for with more hope.

10. Can a method of control be discovered by further scien-
tific research? Most remedies suggested by unscientific persons
are known at once to be valueless and need not be tried. One
thing is certain, the more one knows about a disease, the more
liable one is to discover a remedy. If none is possible, the

sooner this fact is known, the better for all concerned.

THE CHAIRMAN: It has been suggested to the Chair from
two directions that, as we have in this audience a number of
men of large commercial interests, the opportunity should be
extended to them to make remarks. The Chair is pleased to
accept that suggestion. Mr. Thalheimer.

MR. THALHEIMER, of Reading: Mr. Chairman: In Penn-
sylvania, in those counties that I know, most of the farmers
lave five, ten, and some of them fifteen acres of timber land that
has come away back from their forefathers, and I think it would
be proper for this Commission to get the names of those farmers,
or their representatives, and keep them posted on how to take
care of their timber and caution them of the danger they are in
of losing it, and let them assist vou in looking after it. Attract
their attention, and you will get many good points for this Com-
mission to act on which you would not get otherwise.

If you will allow me one minute, I will tell you something
which I observed myself. It may be interesting to some of
you. I stopped otf at a corner of a lane to wait for a car and
while I was waiting, I looked on the ground and there saw gypsy
moths. I never saw them as large in my life. They were yel-
low and blue with big horns, worse than the Massachusetts kind.
They were about two inches long and about a quarter of an inch
thick. They walked along the track, and I looked at them and
followed them. My car came along, and I went down town and

coming back, while waiting for another car, I wanted to take
a seat. There was a walnut tree at the corner of the lane,
and I wanted to take a seat on a bench under the tree. When
I came to take that seat, it was literally covered with those
gypsy moths, coming off of that tree. What I want to say to
you is this: I watched and noted that there was a little fly,
which is like a comparison of a guinea hen to an ordinary
chicken—they were just that shape—and one or two would fol-
low a moth and they would get on top of the moth and just
sting it and jump off again. I kept on investigating, and it took
me two hours to watch them. As soon as they would touch the
gypsy moth at a certain place back of the neck, they would kill
it every time. That was an accidental investigation. I spoke
to several professors about it, and asked them to look it up, and
see whether they could not propagate that fly.

MR. STEVENS: Where was that?
MR. THALHEIMER: In Reading, Pa.

MR. STEVENS: May I ask Dr. Murrill a question? He
made a statement that good forest management would not help
to control chestnut blight disease. I would like to ask his au-
thority for the statement.

DR. MURRILL: My own experience about New York State,
over a wide area, for several years.

MR. STEVENS: In forests?

DR. MURRILL: In forests, over dense, almost full grown
chestnut forests. The disease occurs without reference to ill
or Well trees, and I have noticed it on vigorous trees as well as
on trees diseased from other causes.

PROFESSOR RANE: In construing that term “forestry
management,” it seems to me it might go further than just ap-
plying it to chestnut trees. As a matter of fact, our forest
management as regards the moth situation is to eliminate those
trees and bring in others that would take their place. Forestry
management means, therefore, the elimination of the chestnut
with the idea of bringing in other species; so we can bring that
thing out in a practical way, from a different standpoint than
just thinning the chestnut.

213
DR. MURRILL: I heartily commend that.

MR. CRAMER, of Lehigh University: In reply to the gen
tleman at my right, Dr. Murrill said his observation was based
on many years’ experience of his own in and about the forests.
i would like to submit the question to this gentleman as what

those experiments were,—actual work, or scientific experiments,
actual work in removing these infected trees, or examining

them?

DR. MURRILL: Both. We tried various experiments.
When the disease first appeared, we tried the cutting off and
cutting out, but not the cutting of the stumps. Some of the
stumps were burned, and we found that the sprouts sprung up
from several inches below the ground and that the disease went
into the roots some distance. It also went beneath the bark
into the wood and re-appeared, so that it was impossible to cut
it out. We have had a number of observations and experiments
about New York to show that forest management, so far as
clean culture goes, has no effect whatever on the eradication or
on the control of chestnut blight.

MR. ZIEGLER: I am concerned with the management of
about twenty thousand acres of forest, which is largely chest-
nut coppice. I want to tell you about a condition existing
there, and to ask Dr. Murrill’s opinion as to what should be
done. We have chestnut blight in those twenty thousand acres
in about ten spots, the largest of which is about ten acres, ex-
isting there for two years. The first year’s attack killed merely
a few trees here and there. The second year’s attack shows
the death of trees in a radiating direction from the central
focus, vou might call it. I would like to know what action
should be taken; whether he would recommend cutting out
these few acres at once and thereby trying to reduce the number
of spores produced, to the degree of say one one-hundredth, at
a very small cost, or whether he would leave those trees go a
year longer and await some other measure?

DR. MURRILL: I have received hundreds of letters of that
same nature, and now I must answer all of them in this way:
To save, utilize, and market your timber is the first considera-

214.

tion, when the disease has entered a forest of that extent. There-
fore, cut your timber that is likely to go to waste first. Cut it
first, if favorable, and later, as the disease encroaches, cut other
timber and use it and market it, so that you may not glut the
market.

MR. ZIEGLER: May I suggest that that is practically along
the line that is being followed by the Penna. Blight Commis-
sion, so far as | have been able to learn of it, and that is the line
we hope to follow, following their advice.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: Dr. Murrill, have you been cut-
ting the chestnut growth up at the Bronx Garden?

DR. MURRILL: We are now cutting down the last trees.
lt has cost us five thousand dollars to cut down fourteen hun-
dred trees in fifty acres of the Bronx Park.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: T would like to ask Dr. Murrill
another question, and that is, in the early stages of the disease
on western Long Island, where it is in the most malignant form,
if it was not his suggestion to the Park Commissioners in the
autumn of 1907 or 1908, on account of the prevalence of the dis-
ease in Prospect Park where there were twelve or fifteen hun-
dred chestnut trees, and if you did not also recommend to do
the cutting there?

DR. MURRILL: That has been my recommendation, Mr.
Chairman, until we found it was hopeless, and the area of the
disease was so great as to make it practically impossible to cut
these trees. We have not been able to get money enough appro-
priated by the Parks and public in New York City to cut out

the dead wood caused by this disease.

Mr. E. A. WEIMER, of Lebanon, Pa.: Mr. Chairman and
Gentlemen: LT would like to address a few unscientific remarks
to the owners of wood lots or forests, and if my scientific friends
wish to listen, they may.

I have been interested in forestry for twenty-four years and
have made a study of the chestnut blight during the past four
years. I think that I have the honor, with the Hon. Mr. Elliott,
who is here, and Dr. Drinker, in discovering the first entry of

215

the blight into Pennsylvania. I have here in a jar a sample of
that very first specimen, three and one-half years old. It has
been sealed ever since, I am told, and it shows living or active
spores. I show you this to demonstrate the care that is nec-
essary to take in getting rid of the refuse of the trees and their
bark when we go to cut them down.

To land owners I wish to say that I have myself a tract of
chestnut timber in Lebanon county. The trees there are forty-
one years old and they will range all the way from forty to
ninety feet in height, and from ten to twenty inches in diameter.
This tract of land shows every condition, you may say, of alti-
tudes, of moisture, and of soil conditions. It has a north, south,
east, and west exposure, because it is in the shape of a horse-
shoe. It has an altitude of eleven hundred feet at the highest
part and at the lowest of seven hundred feet above sea level. It
also has a stream running through it which gives you a swampy
portion. Up at the top it is very gravelly; on one side it is
clay, and on the other side you will find some of the best of
wheat land. In every one of these sections I have found focal
centers of blight, making this tract a perfect field for study.

Here I want to call your attention to one thing that has just
come to my mind: Do not depend on discovering blight from
surface indications only. The inspectors and myself have gone
through my tract several times, and we thought we had discoy-
ered several trees only with the blight in its advanced stages,
and a small number of other trees showing only traces.

Two weeks ago, however, the Forestry Department asked me
to cut two carloads of blighted wood to demonstrate to the ex-
tract manufacturers that the blight had no effect on the produc-
tion of tannic acid. So we went out to my tract, and Mr. Wirt
and Mr. Fox of the Forestry Department, helped to locate trees.
After going through the tract and locating only two focal
centers of about twenty-five trees, we commenced to wonder
where the two carloads, twenty-seven cords, were to come from.

I then suggested to Mr. Fox, who remained on the job, that
we start cutting down the trees around the focal centers, and,
if we found trees not infected, we would throw them aside. We
started cutting and chopped down an acre of trees that showed
few signs as viewed from the ground, but when cut down, we saw

216

that their tops were badly infected; every one in fact. This
shows that when you find a focal center, it would be advisable
to keep on cutting all around the focal center until you have
taken every infected tree, and not to depend on surface indica-
tions. F

You may look at the stump with a microscope and you may
not find any spores; for I will tell you that I have hunted for
surface indications of the blight for the past few years in my
tract, and never found indications of the bark splitting or spore
dust at the roots or base of the stump, until last year, yet the
tops of the trees, in certain sections, are all dead; they started
dying several years ago.

I want to say one thing more. The farmers can help the
Pennsylvania Chestnut Blight Commission by starting to do
some of the work of inspection themselves, and if in doubt, may
call on the Commission for advice and information. The Com-
mission is willing to send men out to help you to locate the
blight and tell you what to do. I will also try to help you, or,
if you will send your foresters to my tract near Mt. Gretna, I
will try to help them.

I have discovered a new way of finding the blight which T
wish to present to this body for what it is worth. I want to tell
you how vou can see the blight even ninety feet in the air on
what we call top-infected trees. You place your back directly
towards the sun, half close your eyes and then look up along
the top part of the tree, and if there is any blight in the cracks
of the bark in a direct line with the rays of the sun, you will
find the yellow spores highly illuminated. Under any other
condition you would not see these spores, as they would be
hidden by the shadows cast by the bark. Now, say in two hours,
after the sun has illuminated another portion of the tree, you
had better go through that tract again. In other words, start
cut going through the tract by one route so planned that during
different times of the day you will have passed the same tree
several times, and each time place the sun directly back of you,
and you will be surprised with the results. I think Mr. Fox, (if
he is here), will verify what I have said. Both of us spent
three days in inspecting an area of trees, and did not find an
infected tree. But, one morning, on that coldest day we had for

217

years, two weeks ago, I got up at six o'clock, and found over
seventy-five trees by this sun method in a place that we had gone
over three times before, and we were truly surprised.

I notice that some of the experts are laughing, but I will
wager that I will take anyone to my tract, and they will pass
by the trees referred to as uninfested. I will then cut these
trees down and show them the blight.

These trees are just as dangerous as the trees infected with
the blight from top to bottom. If you think you do not have
the blight among your trees, sacrifice a few trees that look
suspicious, and the chances are that you will see it on the top
branches. If it is possible to get up on some high point over-
looking your forest, and you notice brown or yellow patches
of tree tops, go and cut the trees down in those spots whether
you see the blight or not. Take no chances, because it is a
disease that you can take no chances with.

I want to tell you another thing. We may not be able to
control the blight by cutting down the trees, but it is worth
while taking the chances, and all these men who have property,
{ think have money enough to take the chances. I would advise
cutting down the trees quickly in the forests. Do it tomorrow,
because winter time is the best time. The spores are in their
- winter quarters and are less likely to be blown around. Cut
them down, bark them and, if possible, try to burn up all the
leaves and brush in the infected areas. If necessary, sacrifice
that area. Put all the branches and bark over the stumps and
spray them with coal oil or better, cheap crude oil. Buy one of
those cheap sprayers, costing about six dollars, and atomize
the oil. You will find that a few gallons will cover a number
of stumps and enable you to burn the stump down to the ground.
It will kill all the spores and borers. On the first application
of the heat, the bark peels away from the stump, and that
presents the spores and borers to the flame where they are
destroyed at once. Burning the stumps is better than peeling
them, because when you peel off the bark, you lose some of the
bark or shake the spores out on the ground.

This bottled specimen which I have shows that the spores
will live three and one half years. This should show you the
necessity of killing all the spores possible.

218

Here is one benefit of the Chestnut Blight Commission’s work.
They propose to cut down the infected trees. It may not stop
the blight, but one thing it will do. If they burn the stumps,
it will produce the best possible new condition for the manag-
ing of that forest. Even if the blight does come back on the
sprouts, you can work on the sprouts and cut them off the second
time, if necessary. You can also spray the young growth with
iime-sulphur solution for the fungus, and apply some other
solution to be discovered for the borers. It will also teach us
the true value of chestnut wood.

I think our chances of controlling the disease are good. I do
not say or believe that we are going to kill it entirely, because,
to my knowledge, no spore diseases have ever been completely
eradicated. We still have the black-knot with us, as well as
the peach-yellows, but they are now both so well controlled
that we have almost forgotten them.

We may be able to check the blight to such an extent that
nature will be able to supply a means to throw off the disease
in due time, especially if we aid her by killing the borers and
limiting the supply of spores. So, again I say, I believe the
Chestnut Blight Commission is on the right track, and my
forest preserve is open to any man interested in this work.

My address is E. A. Weimer, Lebanon, Pa., and I will say
to any man who comes to Lebanon, I will show him all I can;
every condition of forestry that has developed on my tracts
from over twenty-four years of practice. (Applause).

PROFESSOR COLLINS: The statement was made that this
specimen in the bottle had been sealed for three and a half
years, and the spores are still alive, as I understood it. T think
Mr. Weimer forgot to tell how he knew they are alive.

MR. WEIMER: You can see in the lower part here (exhibit-
ing bottle), that the spores have become very active. They
retain their red color, whereas, up here where they are dead
or dormant, they turned black, and have fallen off. I think
that is the best indication that I can offer. These indications
were thought good enough for my purpose.

PROFESSOR COLLINS: TI think the observations would be

219

a little more conclusive if the gentleman would try cultures to

see if they would grow.

MR. WEIMER: I agree with the Professor, and will say
that this specimen is now the property of the Forestry Depart-
ment, and I will kindly ask them to have a culture test made.

DR. MICKLEBOROUGH: May I make a brief statement
with reference to the life of spores? I have a little vial with
me in which I have the ascospores that I collected at Glad-
stone, New Jersey, on Memorial Day, 1908. I have examined
those spores from time to time, and find they are still alive.
How do we know they are alive? We can take, as I have done,
a five per cent. solution of pure glycerine, and the spores will
sprout in it. These ascospores will sprout and I have examined
the sproutings under the microscope,—the mycelium threads.
Ul was performing a misecroscopie test to harden spores for the
microscope, to make a permanent mount, and I accidentally
found that, instead of hardening the spores, my five per cent.
solution of pure glycerine only was food for them and they
proceeded to sprout.

Let me remind you that those little pieces of bark that I have
in the vial with me in my coat pocket have been kept dry, free
from moisture. If they had been out in the forest, or subjected
to the climatic conditions which fungi require, heat and moisture
hoth, I am very sure those spores would have been developed
and disseminated long ago. They would have lasted perhaps
but a few months; but you take them and keep them perfectly
dry, and I believe that you can prolong the life of the ascospores,
and probably the conidia, for several years.

THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be well, gentlemen, to agree
upon a time for final adjournment, so that we may know what
we are working toward? I wish also to arrange for the Gov-
ernor to come in. Would it be well now to set a time for ad-

journment?
A DELEGATE: I move you that we adjourn at 4.15 p. m.
MR. PEIRCE: TI move that the time be amended to 4:30 p. m.

MR. BODINE: I think it was announced at the beginning
of the session that we were to be favored by a farewell visit

220)

of the Governor. Should we not consult his convenience before
fixing an hour for adjournment?

THE CHAIRMAN: He has stated that it would be agree-
able to him to come in at any time.

The substituted motion is that the hour of adjournment be
fixed at 4:30.

The motion was seconded and carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: What is your pleasure with reference
to appointing a committee to wait on the Governor?

PROFESSOR RANE: I so move you.

Seconded.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is moved that a committee be ap-
pointed to escort the Governor into the room before adjourn-
ment.

The motion was put and carried.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will appoint as that commit-
tee, Commissioner Bodine, of the Chestnut Tree Blight Com-
mission, Dr. Merkel, of New York, and State Forester Rane of
Massachusetts, and will request them to escort the Governor
into the meeting ten or fifteen minutes before the adjournment,
as they find it to be convenient.

DR. HARSHBERGER, of Philadelphia: A very simple test
could be made of the vitality of those spores which Mr. Weimer
has, by growing them on an ordinary culture medium, and I
would make the suggestion that Mr. Weimer send his specimens
to the proper person connected with this Commission, and have
the test made to ascertain whether those spores he has in the
bottle still retain their vitality or not.

THE CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is made by Dr. Harsh-
berger that Mr. Weimer be requested to send the spores to an
expert connected with the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission
for examination as to their vitality, and, if agreeable, the Chair
would suggest that the result of that examination be included
in the proceedings of this meeting.

MR. WEIMER: This sample is in charge of the Forestry

Department, so that Mr. Williams or Mr. Wirt will attend
to that. It is their privilege. I will take it up with them.

Ae
ad td A

THE CHAIRMAN: We will dismiss the matter, then, with
the understanding that Mr. Weimer will take it up with the
Forestry Department, and if there is no objection, authority
is given to include the report of that investigation in the report
of this meeting.

PROFESSOR GRAVES: I would like to ask Mr. Detwiler
a question about this dead line. Is that going to be delimited
by cutting out all the chestnut, healthy and diseased, or is it
just simply an arbitrary line? I want to know this for in-
formation.

MR. DETWILER: The dead-line which we plan to estab-
lish will be maintained by cutting out the diseased trees as
located by constant control; and we have not yet considered
cutting out all of the chestnut trees, unless the owners are
willing to do it. If, upon an explanation of the situation, the
owners are willing to do this, we have advised that it be done.

PROFESSOR GRAVES: If this sort of work is going to
be taken up by the State, it seems to me it would be a good
plan to delimit all areas which contain no chestnuts. I have
the honor, Mr. Chairman, to be the gentleman who went through
the State of Massachusetts on a motorcycle, as Professor Rane
said this morning, and I found a great many areas there which
had no chestnuts at all, and some such areas I am sure occur
in Pennsylvania; so if you are going to take up this method,
it seems to me such areas ought to be marked out and then
start west of those.

PROFESSOR NORTON: I desire to make a suggestion.
There may be a great deal of chestnut that must be cut and
utilized which might possibly over-stock the market. Why could
not the chestnut that is beyond the needs of the market have
the tannin extracted from it and stored for future sales, either
by corporations, individuals, or possibly by the State? I would
like to mention another question of a scientific nature that has
been suggested and which I think has- not been brought out
sufficiently. Of course, those who are familiar with fungous
diseases understand this, but I believe that a good many people
who are not familiar with the nature of fungi would not appre-

sdeded

— et at

ciate it, and that is the question of the difference in the oppor-
tunity for its infection where you have destroyed, say fifty per
cent. of the infected material, or where you have destroyed
ninety per cent. of it or ninety-nine per cent. Professor Stewart
spoke of that, but I wish that someone who is familiar with
Statistics on that could bring it out a little better; whether
there would be much difference in the opportunity for infection
where you have destroyed fifty per cent., ninety per cent. or
iinety-nine per cent. of the infected material? Of course, we
understand that where ninety-nine per cent of it has been de-
stroyed, there still would possibly be hundreds of millions of
spores in a small area.

PROFESSOR RANE: I have some resolutions which Lt would
like to present at this time:

“Resolved, That the delegates and others in attendance at
this Conference desire to express their high sense of apprecia-
tion of the many courtesies tendered them by the officers of
the Pennsylvania State Chestnut Blight Commission and the
Department of Forestry.”

It was moved and seconded that the resolution be adopted.

The motion was put and unanimously carried.

PROFESSOR RANE: I have another resolution:

“Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be, and are
hereby tendered Hon. R. A. Pearson for his able and courteous
way of handling the duties of permanent Chairman.” (Ap
plause).

MR. BESLEY (in the Chair): Mr. Pearson is too modest to
put that resolution, so I take pleasure in putting it before this
house, and if there is no discussion,—I believe it is seeonded,—
{ suggest an immediate vote on that question.

The motion was put to adopt the resolution and unanimously

carried. (Applause).

MR. PEARSON: Mr. Temporary Chairman, Ladies and
Gentlemen: I sincerely thank you for this compliment. I
thanked you at the opening of the conference for the honor of
being your presiding officer, and IT wish to assure you it has

ae

been a great privilege to me. I feel that we have really accom-
plished something here which is worth while, and I trust that
the good that has been done will be recognized more and more
as time passes.

There are two gentlemen in the room who, [ am sure, every-
one wishes to hear from before we adjourn. Several times dur-
ing our conference mention has been made of the first discovery
of the chestnut tree blight, and the name of the gentleman who
discovered it has been mentioned several times. I think we
ought to ask him formally to come before us, and make a few
remarks. I refer to Mr. Merkel, of New York.

MR. MERKEL: I do not know what Mr. Pearson wants me
to say; whether he is wishing for blarney or not. I can only
say that I came in order to hear the opinions of everybody
expressed. I am glad that the resolutions that were adopted
were adopted, in spite of the fact that there were some people
who did not agree with them. I believe that the work of this
Congress to-day is epoch-making. I believe we have advanced a
vast step. We have gone further yesterday and to-day by miles
than we were the day before. I hope that we can save the chest-
nut tree. My fondness for trees in general is the only reason
that brought me here; but that I should be pushed into the lime-
light thus,—a modest violet like I am,—was not my intention.

THE CHAIRMAN: Frequently during our discussion we
have heard about the need of constructive work. The one man
of the entire State, and I dare say the entire world, who has
made possible the greatest constructive work against the Chest-
nut Tree Blight Disease is now in the room, and I must call
upon the father of the measure which is responsible for the
effective work in Pennsylvania for a few words, Senator Sproul.
(Applause).

SENATOR SPROUL: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: A
member of the Senate is generally safe in the House, and I did
not know that anyone in any official capacity knew I had come

over here.

THE CHAIRMAN: We all know you.

224.

SENATOR SPROUL: Iam very glad, indeed, to have had an
opportunity of looking in on this meeting. When the bill was
introduced and considered, it was regarded as largely an ex-
periment, and it was thought that probably the State was taking
rather large chances in making available so large a sum of money
for carrying on a work which nobody at that time seemed to
know very much about. I think that, from what I have heard
of the results of this meeting, if no other good were accom-
plished by the expenditure of the money by Pennsylvania, the
initiative taken in investigating this very serious question and
in trying to devise ways and means to control the disease,—if
no other good out of this meeting has been accomplished, I think
that the expenditure was perfectly justifiable. I am glad indeed
to hear the expressions from the discoverer of the chestnut
blight and others as to the usefulness of this Convention, and
I trust that the good work will go on, not only here but every-
where where this disease is threatening so much harm. (Ap-
plause ).

THI CHAIRMAN: A request has been made that Deputy
Commissioner Williams say a word before we adjourn, and at
the same time advise you how extra reports of this Conference
may be secured, if persons wish to have them.

MR. WILLIAMS: I had no intention of speaking again.
All I can say is that we hope, and the Commission hopes, to
have this report transcribed and published at an early date.
When it is printed every person who has registered here, as
visitor or delegate, who has come at the behest of his Governor
or some institution which he represents, will be sent gratis,
through the mails, a copy of this report. Every other person
interested in having a copy of the report can make application
to the headquarters of the Chestnut Blight Commission in Phiia-
delphia, 1112 Morris Building in that city, and, so far as may
be possible, I think their requests will be complied with. Just
how soon it will be possible to have this record in print we
do not know, but no time will be wasted in the interim.

I do not think I have anything further to say except to add
this word: That the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry is
interested with all other foresters and all other practical men

225

a

and all other scientific investigators, in doing what we can to
produce the greatest good. What we are aiming at in Pennsyl-
vania is to get results, and I take it that when this problem
is understood by our friends and neighbors, they will equally
be anxious to get results. These will be obtained through var-
ious pathways and by different means, but it is the favorable
result that we are interested in. That is the great goal of all
this effort. We would be very pleased to have any of the dele-
gates and friends who are here call at the Department of For-
estry. Many of you have been there; probably many have not.
You will find it in the north wing of this building, and we usually
lave open house from seven o’clock in the morning until ten
o’clock at night. Sometimes the doors are open all night, so
we are ready to receive our friends at any hour of the day or
night. JI thank you for this final opportunity to say a word
to you, and trust that your visit in Pennsylvania will not have
been without some permanent result. (Applause).

MR. THALHEIMER: I would like to ask the delegates that
are here whether any of them has had any communication with
the Italian Government, to find out their success in raising
the chestnut.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to refer the speaker to
the Secretary of the Conference for that information, and he
can give it immediately after adjournment. The Secretary is
thoroughly informed on the subject.

Although I have been very positively instructed not to do
so, I must at this time call for a word, at least, from the Secre-
tary of the Pennsylvania Blight Commission, Mr. Harold Pierce.
(Applause).

MR. PEIRCE: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: As Secretary
of the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, in behalf of the Com-
mission, I want to thank both you, Mr. Chairman and the mem-
bers of the Conference, for the close and business-like attention
that has been given to the various discussions that have taken
place, and while at times there has been great diversity of
opinion, yet from that very diversity we trust much practical
good may result.

15

226

At the request of Governor Tener, the Commission prepared
the programme, but in arranging for the speakers it tried to
provide for full and frank discussions by both the supporters
and opponents of what is known as “the cutting out process,”
so that every one would have a fair chance of being heard.

If at any time any one has information of value to impart,
the Commission will be only too glad to hear from such persons,
and we assure you that anything which may seem likely to be
able either to curb or cure the disease, will be gladly given a
trial by the Commission.

The Commission considers it has been wise to make what has
been called a dead line, believing the ravages of the disease
can thereby be much better controlled than to allow the disease
to continue to spread as it did for several years, without any
attempt to keep it within bounds.

At. the same time, the Commission intends to do all it can
to carry on investigations both in the field and in the laboratory,
hoping that in the near future some cure may be ascertained.
We, however, believe that if we are to succeed, we must have
the earnest co-operation of all the states, for it seems self-
evident to us that Pennsylvania cannot win without such c¢o-
operation. We therefore earnestly trust every member of this
Conference will go from here to his home imbued with the feel-
ing that he will do all in his power to bring about such ¢o-
operation. Without that, I fear it will only be a short time
before all the chestnut trees along the Atlantic seaboard will
be in a dying state.

As far as possible, the resolutions which this Conference
has passed, will be carried out by the Pennsylvania Commis-
sion, and in, closing, I want again to thank you both for the
close and businesslike character of this Conference and to urge
earnestly that if anyone here learns of anything which may be
of value, either in controlling or curing this disease, that he
will at once inform us of it.

Messrs. Bodine, Merkel, and Rane then escorted the Governor
to the floor of the Convention.

THE CHAIRMAN: Governor Tener, I desire to report to you
that during these two days we have been discussing the various
phases of the chestnut tree blight. Many valuable points have

been brought out. The main conclusions of the Conference have
been embodied in a set of resolutions, duly adopted this after-
noon. It has been arranged, through the courtesy of your own
State, to publish the proceedings of this Conference, in order
that what has been said and done here may become widely known
for the benefit of the fight against this terrible tree disease,

And now, Sir, our deliberations have about ended, and it is
a privilege, and I deem it an honor, for me to turn back to you
the duty as presiding officer of this meeting, as L received that
duty from you only yesterday. (Applause).

GOVERNOR TENNER: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle-
men: While it has not been possible for me to attend the
meetings of your Convention since its opening and to listen to
the various papers that have been read or to take part in the
deliberations of the meeting, yet from time to time information
has come to me, and I have learned that your meeting has in
every way been an interesting one and that you all will go
home feeling that you have probably learned something from
this meeting and from each other.

I hope that the purpose of the convention was sufticient to
justify calling you here. Many of you have come at some incon-
venience, I am quite sure. Pennsylvania will be very glad,—
and [I am particularly pleased to say it,—at her own expense,
little or great as it may be, to print the proceedings of this con-
ference and to give the report the very widest circulation. I am
glad that you have seen fit to come here and to take the interest
you have.

I have learned also that at times there was some spirited
argument between you, and very often we know that out of a
great conflict comes the greatest peace and the best understand-
ing, and I hope that that is the case in this instance.

And now, as you go to yeur respective homes, I hope you
will carry with you a very pleasant thought of this convention
and that, in the days to come, your associations here, your de-
liberations, and all that you have done, will prove a most pleas-
ant recollection to you all. We are glad indeed to have had
you in our Capital City with us on this occasion. Now that
you are going, I wish you Godspeed, happiness, and prosperity in
all your undertakings of life. (Applause).

PIQ

A

If there is no further business for the Convention, I will
entertain a motion to adjourn.

DR. MURRILL: I move you, Sir, that we adjourn.

Seconded by Professor Rane.

The motion was put and carried.

GOVERNOR TENER: I now declare this Convention ad
journed sine die.

ADDENDA.
Newport, Perry County, Pa.,
February 21, 1912.
To the Officers of the Chestnut Blight Convention:

I desire to submit a statement in connection with this blighted
wood question which is not the professional opinion of any
representative of the Chemical or Forestry Department of the
State, or any scientist; but is presented merely as the thought
of a layman who has had considerable experience in the chest-
nut wood extract business, and who has conceived the idea that
it might possibly, in a way, have some bearing upon matters
under consideration by the convention. It is submitted merely
as an individual hypothesis, which may be entirely wrong.

W. M. BENSON.

229

CHESTNUT BLIGHT AND ITS POSSIBLE REMEDY.

3y W. M. BENSON, NEWPORT, PA.

In discussing the causes of the chestnut blight perhaps the
past experience of the extract manufacturers who make extract
for tanning leather, may be of assistance in pointing out the
proper remedy.

The chestnut wood received at the extract factories was at
first supposed to be all alike in tanning strength, but costly
experience proved that wood from good, strong lime, shale or
limestone lands is far richer in tannin than wood from soils
that are rocky, sterile, and which contain little lime. This
aifference is so marked that even the workmen in the leach
house at extract plants can tell when wood from a lime shale
or limestone region is being leached, simply by the unusual in-
crease in the strength of the liquors obtained from such wood.
Chemical analyses proved the same thing beyond all question,
that in order for chestnut timber to attain its full tannin
strength, it must grow on limestone or lime shale soil. This
is not a secret of the extract trade, but a trade fact that extract
manufacturers want the public to know, as it explains why
the extract manufacturer will take wood from one region, but
will refuse wood from some other locality, where analyses. of
the wood, and practical results in the leach house show a wide
difference in the yield of extract per cord of wood. It pays
better to pay freight for long distances to obtain wood from a
lime shale or limestone region, than to buy wood that is closer
to the factory, but which has less tannin.

An analysis of the ashes from the extract factory which was
made at State College in the Spring of 1911 shows that there
is over 40 per cent. of lime in the ashes. The analysis was made
with a view of selling the ashes for the potash they were sup-
posed to contain, but the result was surprising inasmuch as
the analysis showed about one-third of one per cent. of potash,

230

While as before stated it showed over 40 per cent. of lime. Is
it not a remarkable thing to realize that a chestnut tree wants
120 times as much lime for its Composition as it does of potash?

Another fact from the manufacturer's costly experience with
the lime in extract liquors is the expense it costs him to keep
the oxalate of lime which is leached from the wood from coat-
ing up the copper tubes in the evaporating apparatus, or vacuum
pans as they are called. Oxalic acid has a powerful affinity for
lime, and it is used as a test in the chemical laboratories to
detect the presence of lime in a solution. In the boiling down
process the lime combines with the oxalic acid in the tan liquors,
and it is precipitated as oxalate of lime, and coats the 4,500
tubes of the evaporating apparatus with a coating which has
to be removed by hammering it loose. Acids that will eat the
lime off the copper tubes will also eat the copper of the pans,
so mechanical and other means must be used to keep the tubes
free. It is no small job to do this; and while the constant
presence of lime in chestnut tan liquors is one of the drawbacks
to evaporating liquors economically, the fact of the presence
of lime in the liquors is regarded as a good sign of plenty of
tannin in the wood.

Now the writer has little or no scientific knowledge of the
chestnut blight, further than having seen it and being able to
recognize it in the woods, but would suggest for your further
thought and consideration, the supposition that it is due to a
lack of lime in the soils in which such blighted wood is grow-
ing, and that a blighted tree is simply a tree that is in the pro-
cess of being starved to death for lack of lime. If this is true
then blighted wood will be found on soils that are known to
lack in lime, and on the contrary the soils where the chestnut
tree attains its greatest size and age will be found on analysis
to be composed of a considerable proportion of lime.

The map shown in this convention which outlined the area
in which the chestnut blight is at its worst, shows the worst
affected area to be in the vicinity of New York City, Long
Island, portions of Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware.
No doubt nearly all who attend this convention know of the
palisades of the TTudson, and how little lime such a weather
resisting rock is likely to have. The sea sands of New Jersey,

231

Long Island, and the clays soils of the Connecticut Valley,
Which are made up of the granite erosion of the White Moun-
tains, all yield but little lime. Granite soils yield potash, but
our analysis shows that our chestnut tree needs 120 times as
much lime as potash. It was brought out at the convention
that the place where the chestnut trees attained the greatest
age was in Eastern Tennessee, where they grew to the immense
size of six feet or more through. If you will take a geological
map of Tennesee, and look at the rock formation in the region
of Knoxville, you will be impressed with the large area of lime-
stone and lime shale outcrops in that region. Please note that
it was also stated in the Convention that there is no blight as
far as is now known in the whole State of Tennessee. If trees
can be shown there that are 500 years old and free from blight,
growing on a lime shale or limestone soil, it will go far to sup-
port our supposition that the blight is not so much a dread
disease that threatens to sweep away our native chestnut trees,
as it is an evidence that blighted trees are merely trees that are
starved for want of lime in the soil on which the tree is growing.

It will not take over six weeks or two months to collect sam-
ples of soils from every state represented at the convention,
and analyze them. If the soil where the blighted trees are
growing show on analysis a low lime content, as against a
high lime content where the trees grow large, then we will know
almost beyond the shadow of a doubt that the blight is most
likely to be caused by lack of lime, but in order to fully prove
the supposition, J would recommend that solutions of lime water
be soaked into the ground thoroughly around trees known to be
affected with the blight, and soak the ground around the trees
as far as the branches above extend out. Soak the ground thor-
oughly for a distance of two or three feet down, so that every
root big and little will get a little lime in solution in which shape
it is readily taken wp by the roots. Then spray the trees above
with the Bordeaur mixture as well. The reason why I recom-
mend lime water solution soaked into the ground, instead of
scattering lime around under the trees is this: It is known
that the sap in blighted trees is sour; this sourness is not the
natural sourness of tannic acid, but an abnormal sourness;
therefore every little fibre and rootlet must be fed lime to cor-

232

rect the sourness of the sap, and cause a normal, healthy sap
to flow or start this spring before the leaves come out. Lime
scattered on the ground under the trees would do the same thing
in time, but it would take months for occassional rains to soak
the lime down to the roots.

What we are particularly interested in at this time is to get
positive evidence into the hands of the convention officers as
soon as possible; hence I recommend the lime water test in order
to get quicker and more positive results, rather than the plan
of scattering lime under the trees which is less costly than
the lime water plan. Water takes up only one seven-hundredth
part of its weight of lime; 80 pounds of lime, costing about 10
to 12 cents wholesale, will therefore make 56,000 pounds of
lime water, or 28 tons. The lime would cost less than the labor
of getting the water, but for the purpose of getting positive evi-
dence soon it is here recommended.

If the tree grows a longer set of sprouts this coming summer
than it did last summer, or if the leaves are a more healthy
color, then the whole case will have been fully proved that we
have a specific for the blight disease, and it will no longer have
any terrors for us. We will be able to preserve the trees we
10W have, as well as cultivate them to advantage wherever we
like, if we choose to go to the expense of applying the lime arti-
ficially.

From the extract makers point of view, I would like to see
the general law proved by experiment that all trees having a
high percentage of tannin in their bark or wood, or both, require
lime for their vigorous growth. lor instance, the bark of the
pear tree is known to contain a fair percentage of tannin. If
the tree blights, is it due to a lack of lime in the soil? or is it
from some other cause? Will the bark of the pear tree show
a high percentage of lime on analysis? If this should prove to
be the ease then the Horticultural Department of the State will
be in possession of a valuable fact, and the extract maker will
know to a certainty just what localities are the best in which
to locate an extract factory, by studying a geological map show-
ing the limestone and lime shale outcrops, and locating all sorts
of tannin producing trees that he may wish to utilize in the
future. We already know that the bark of the rock oak which

233

contains 37 per cent. of lime in the ashes of the bark, and there
seems to be a general law in nature that tannin bearing trees
must have lime in greater quantities than other trees.

The first few analyses of the soils where blighted chestnut
is growing will put the Forestry Departments of the states
represented at the convention in position to know in a few
weeks whether this supposition of a lack of lime in the soils in
blighted tree areas is borne out by facts. If it is found to be
so, then the costly and irritating job of forcing reluctant owners
of blighted chestnut trees into cutting them down at their own
expense will have been avoided, and a’ policy of preservation
adopted in its place. The latter policy will be much easier to
put in force, as it will have the hearty co-operation of the public,
in the generous efforts of the states to assist owners of blighted
trees to save them. If the Forestry Departments can be put
in possession of a proper remedy for the blight by this single
convention, it will emphasize the value of such conventions,
and demonstate the wisdom of the legislators of this State,
who so far-sightedly made the convention possible by their
appropriation.

FIELD WORK OF THE CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COM-
MISSION,

By THOMAS E. FRANCIS, FIELD SUPERVISOR.

During the six months the field force has been at work, the
field agents have been trained and organized, and the general
line of western advance determined. Owners of infected wood-
lots, and the public generally have been warned of the existence
of the disease.

The general plan which has been followed is to place one
man in charge of the work in a county, under the direction of
the field supervisor. The man in charge of the county usually
has an assistant, and the two work out from the same head-
quarters but cover different territory. When one community
has been carefully scouted for the blight, the men move to an
adjoining district, and in this way cover the county. In the
meanwhile, timber owners are interviewed and the subject is

234

called to the attention of the public by means of field meetings,
lectures, talks before Farmers’ Institutes, Grange meetings, and
the like.

The work from early September until December consisted
almost entirely of scouting for the disease. Later in the season,
the field agents marked trees for removal and devoted much
iime to meetings with timber owners in the field, and general
educational work. The most important result of our field work,
is the interest and spirit of active co-operation we have aroused
among the owners of wood-lots in areas where the chestnut
tree bark disease has been found. The spirit has been aroused
by the activity and honest efforts of our field men. Their in-
spections have been thoroughly and carefully made, and their
talks at local institutes, grange, and special meetings called
for the purpose of discussing the chestnut tree bark disease,
have been instructive and interesting. These meetings have
been well advertised locally and well attended. In Fulton,
Franklin, Huntingdon, Bedford, Mifflin, Blair, Centre, and
Snyder counties I have personally attended and addressed meet-
ings called by the local field men, at which the attendance ranged
from forty to two hundred and fifty woodland owners and inter-
ested persons. At these meetings a lively interest was shown,
and at every meeting promises of active co-operation and help
in locating and eradicating the disease, if found, have been
given. Not a single’ instance of antagonism to our work and
inethods has come under my observation, and following every
meeting, requests have come to us for the inspection of individual
tracts, showing that the woodland owners not only approve our
methods, but are anxious for an opportunity to do their part
in assisting with our work. In fact, many cases of blight have
been found and reported by owners as a result of instruetion
received at these meetings.

Judges, school teachers, ministers, farmers, business men,
ond prominent men interested in the welfare of the State have
addressed our meetings and expressed their approval of our
work. <As direct evidence of willing co-operation, fifty-seven
woodland owners in the previously named counties have removed
and properly burned eight hundred and thirty-six infected trees
and stumps from December 1, 1911 to February 15, 1912. In

‘vue “AyUNOD SUTMIODATT UL OpRIU STORSSeAUT TRHeds Jo prey Suramoys deyy

ir x
ue
PP
nal ee ye \
ry for] e Cea
Pe TS [ee] \
| 22] ee | 08 | \
BT Ss | \
471 271 Ov}
Meal iN
5 Se a ;
[ OF | OF [OF [OOL /OE7 F f
—aeaap ele eev] YN [0 |
ulm uno|y aj6oy pye
IS Yaton uo F10de1 huedaresap oydbyy
Bpo10Sl=.! Aqunoy buruiooh vA f

dIHSNMO] | DNOWLS WH \/

235

every case, an explanation of the object of our work has secured
voluntary action on the part of the owners. This is the best
evidence that the people of the State are interested, and will
accord us the strong co-operation which is essential to carry out
successfully the proposed plan of controlling the disease.

A REPORT ON SCOUT WORK ON THE NORTH BENCH
OF BALD EAGLE MOUNTAIN, BETWEEN SYLVAN
DELL AND WILLIAMSPORT, LYCOMING COUNTY,
PA.

By H. E. WELLS, FIELD SUPERVISOR.

In order to determine as nearly as possible the number of
cases of infection existing in Sylvan Dell Park and the bench
land along the north slope of the Bald Eagle Mountain, a care-
ful inspection was begun at Sylvan Dell. The park land was
chosen on account of the assured co-operation of Mr. F. Bb.
Thrall, president of the club, and the members of the Associa-
tion.

The work of felling infected trees and burning the bark and
brush was carefully done, and because of the nearness of the
park to the road, many interested persons had an opportunity
to see the blight and practical methods of control.

Seventy-five acres of park land were inspected. Twenty-five
acres had been previously gone over in a very thorough manner
during the last two years, and all dead, dying, or defective trees,
together with brush, undergrowth, and all forest weeds, were
removed. The result is an open, clean looking, thrifty stand;
and, most significant of all, but one infected tree could be found.
This tree was a large one, fifteen inches in diameter, growing
close to the road through the park, and but slightly infected.
The remaining fifty acres lie in the eastern part of the park
and from a forestal point of view, are in a run-down condition.

No care or management has been given the fifty-acre portion
of the park, and the blight, as well as many other fungous
diseases, have had full opportunity to thrive unchecked. It
was an admirable place in which to study the blight, for it was
present in every stage of development. Sprouts, saplings, voung

236

thrifty trees, as well as old, over-mature standards were found
infected. The forest floor is mostly rocks, there being little or
no soil cover at all. The chestnut runs about 40 per cent. of
the stand, with 25 per cent. rock oak, and the remainder a mix-
ture of red, black, and white oak.

The majority of the infections apparently started in the tops.
Some trees had to be climbed to identify the infection. In most
cases the characteristic appearance of persistent leaves on
girdled branches or on infected sprouts below, large lesions or
blisters which have girdled the trunk, were sufficient to remove
doubt as to whether the tree had blight.

It may be said here that in scout work the closest observation
must be given to all suspicious trees, or trees with danger sig-
nals. The most conspicuous danger signals in summer or winter
are the persistent dead leaves. In summer, these leaves are
light yellow in color, in contrast with the healthy green leaves.
As they are killed slowly by a gradual stoppage of sap, they
remain rather flattened instead of curling and wrinkling as do
jeaves killed by frost in the fall. Their color is about the same
in summer as that of persistent leaves in winter killed by frost
and causes other than the blight. This yellowish shade tinged
with a greenish hue like that of hay in the mow, often lasts long
into the winter. Generally, though, the persistent leaves in
winter are of a distinctly red rusty brown color, curled, twisted,
frayed, and blown to shreds on the edges. On an infected or
girdled branch, the leaves are persistent. In a healthy limb,
when sap action stops in the fall, little corky layers are formed
at the base of the leaf stem, and the leaf splits off at this point.
In a diseased limb, the sap is held up and the leaf is not cut off
by the corky layers.

With the leaves, small undeveloped and unopened burs are
often seen. In some instances trees are found with almost every
bur remaining, closed and nearly full size. The burs are dark
in color and blend with the color of the leaves. If the burs are
few in number and scattered, especially if open, the chances of
blight being present are small.

Another characteristic danger signal is the growth of suckers
or sprouts in a ring on girdle below a blister or lesion, extend-
ing around the tree. The upward flow of the sap being stopped,

the tendency is to put out these laterals. These sprouts are
almost always infected and quickly girdled, so in late fall or
winter, a tree with suspicious persistent leaves and burs in the
top and leaves on lateral shoots, is very apt to be infected.

As was said, apparently most infection started at the tops
of the trees as evidenced by the appearance of the leaves, ete.
Yet many large trees were found to be infected upon a careful
tree to tree examination, at the base, and the only visible out-
ward sign of the blight was the reddish yellow pustules, forming
in the deep fissures of the bark, where the new inner bark is
breaking through. Upon cutting into this region, the diseased,
discolored inner bark next the wood was found filled with the
mycelium of the fungus.

On old trees it takes more time for the disease to appear on
the outer surface of the bark in the form of pustules, and often
a well defined blister of mycelium is found on the inside of the
bark showing no sign of its presence on the outside. For this
reason the complete peeling and burning of the bark on the
trunk of a tree that is going to be used is essential.

In the inspection work that was carried on, specimens show-
ing the blight in various stages and under different conditions
were found, and among them, one in particular is worth men-
tioning. A large blister nearly a foot in diamter was discovered
and a great many of the pustules were rubbed off or destroyed.
All over the surface of the lesion were numerous holes made
apparently by wood-peckers, probably in search of the insect
larvae that are commonly found under dead bark. Is it not
possible for these birds to get spores on their feet and bills,
carry them to other trees which may not be infected, and upon
searching in that bark for more insects, thus deposit spores
of the blight?

The infections found in the park numbered thirty, twenty-nine
of which are in the part that has been allowed to go without
management of any kind. In the first inspection made of the
park last fall only three or four trees were found to be infected.
Accordingly, on finding so much infection here it was decided
to make a careful strip survey of the bench land lying between
the State reserve on the north side of Bald Eagle Mountain,
and the Susquehanna river. The tracts are mostly farmers’

238

_

woodlots, ranging in size from a few acres up to several hun-
dred acres. The soil is poor there and rocky, and gets poorer
in quality closer to the mountain. The stands are in about the
same condition as the eastern portion of the park, except where
some cutting has been done, and here the brush and growth of
forest weeds is very dense. The chestnut runs from 20 per cent.
to 40 per cent. of the stand, and chestnut oak is present together
with red, black, and white oaks.

In direct contrast with the condition found in this portion
of Sylvan Dell Park is the condition observed on the Fish and
Game Preserve owned by the Jay Cooke Estate. This property
is several hundred acres in extent but only about one hundred
acres have been inspected. This portion of the tract is located
four miles northeast from Waterville in Cummings township,
in the west-central part of Lycoming county. The timber is
fully 90 per cent. chestnut and is a clean, thrifty young pole
stand averaging six to ten inches in diamter, with 250 trees to
the acre. On less than five acres fully thirty trees were found
to be infected with blight. The characteristic persistent leaves
of last summer were present in every case, but pustules were
visible only at a height of ten to twelve feet. As was stated,
the trees are unusually healthy and thrifty in appearance and
no signs of insect work were found. This center is, at the pres-
ent time, the most northwesterly infection known.

The map accompanying this report gives the relative size of
the tracts, and shows approximately the centers of infection by
a cross in a circle. The numerals indicate the number of trees
in the center.

The most typical center or spot infection was found on the
southwest corner of the Hamm tract (see map). There is tim-
ber all around this point, except on the west and northwest.
On the west it is cut over, and a young second growth of saplings
is present, while on the northwest is a cleared field. The real
center of this spot was a large tree about sixteen inches in diam-
eter, infected from top to bottom. The bark was fairly plastered
with pustules and all of the voung saplings (of which there
were three or four growing from the base), were badly infected.
It seems reasonable to suppose that this infection has been
present for two or three years.

259

Infections of every kind were found at varying distances from
this badly infected tree. Fifty feet away, two saplings, six
inches in diameter, were found, upon climbing, to be infected,
and the only sign of the blight at a distance was a cluster of dead
leaves on a terminal shoot. On climbing, a blister about four
inches in diameter was found, but pustules had not been formed,
the infection having been caused probably late last summer.
This lesion was about ten feet from the very tip of the leader.
It was found to be girdled and pustules were present at the
beginning of last year’s growth.

A short distance away a little to the southeast, a small tree,
six inches in diameter, was found infected only at the base.
Another tree one hundred feet west in the cut-over area was
badly infected. This tree was dead, having been girdled with
an axe, and the ring of bark removed; but the blight was fully
developed and the bark was covered with pustules above the
portion of the tree girdled by the axe.

The largest center was found on the Keefer tract (see map).
Here twenty-three trees, all saplings, were found on a cireular
spot fifty vards in diamter. Only one other tree was found
outside this center, and that at the extreme southern end of the
tract.

Another center less than a quarter of a mile east from the
first center described, was found on the line between Hamm
and Stuempfle, and the most badly infected tree was one 10 to
12 inches in diameter, to which the wires of the fence were
nailed. The tree was dead, and the tunnels of borers and the
larvae in them were found. This tree showed very well the
appearance of the blight on old bark, and from it several good
Sections were obtained. Around this tree the young sprouts
and two saplings, four inches in diameter, were badly infected.

The strip was worked, in the manner indicated, and when a
center was found, every tree within a varying radius depending
on the size of the center was carefully examined until no more
trees could be found that were infected. Often at the outer
limits of one center the edge of another center would be en-
countered, and this new spot would be studied in the same way.
Here and there, scattering cases of infection were found, not

240)

in a center, though perhaps the source of the infection was one.
These are shown on the map as small circles without a cross.

In the same way a careful inspection of the Fisher and Savidge
tract has been carried on. Messrs. l'isher and Savidge of Wil-
liamsport and Sunbury respectively, have planned to cut off
and graft with Paragon scions, the natural stock on 550 acres
of land located one mile west of Essick Heights. This land
is admirably adapted to the optimum growth of chestnut, and
in fact, in some portions of the tract, which comprises in all
640 acres, nothing else grows. The stand is dense young sap-
ling sprouts 12 to 15 years of age, though here and there patches
of old mature timber are found. The purity and density of the
stand, however, without a doubt accounts for the number of
infections present, which exceeds greatly any condition here-
tofore found in Lycoming county.

The first spot or center was found not over 100 yards west
from the house of G. H. Newman (on map), and it is definitely
known that summer before last wild doves roosted here and
that they flew in here whenever disturbed. Adjoining was a
field of buckwheat where they were in the habit of feeding. The
infection or center was entirely on a tract of less than one-fourth
acre in size and the trees were nearly all thoroughly infected,
mostly in the tops. Several trees showed persistent leaves in
the tops, but otherwise there were no signs of the blight. Upon
climbing these trees the first stages of the blight were found
in a slight splitting of the bark together with a few pustules
just beginning to become visible. It seems likely, therefore,
to suppose that this infection was carried here by these birds,
or at least that it was spread locally by them to other centers
near at hand. In all nearly 400 trees were found to be infected,
and these were found grouped in six or eight centers. Very
effective co-operation is being given the Commission by the
owners of these tracts in this region. However, there is a solid
strip of chestnut timber four to five miles wide and eight to ten
miles long, stretching from the’ Ogdonia down the Loyalsock
Creek. It will be impracticable to attempt to scout this region

this winter, but with the opening up of spring, by placing a

241

crew of four or five men, in here under the direction of a man
familiar with the territory, the whole region will be carefully
scouted.

All known infections will be destroyed and the men working
in this territory cutting tannery wood, are thoroughly familiar
with the appearance, spread, and danger of the disease, so that
we can look for local assistance, and that in the end is the aim
of our work.

In conclusion, taking everything into consideration, good
results have been obtained by winter work. Persistent leaves
are visible to a trained eye for long distances through the woods.
However, deep snow or a covering of sleet interferes with the
finding of pustules at the base of the tree. Their dying branches
begin to show most prominently during late summer, hence
August and early September is the ideal time for scouting work.

The strip along the river actually inspected contains 452
acres, and this was covered in about a month of actual inspection,
for considerable time was used up in superintending the removal
of infected trees.

A fair estimate is 4 acres per day per man for a close inspec-
tion, working the tract in %0 feet strips. In a very close tree
to tree winter inspection, two men can cover four to five acres
or two to two and a half acres per day per man.

LONGEVITY OF LIFE OF SPORES.

The following report is submitted in response to the request
of Mr. E. A. Weimer, that an attempt be made to germinate
spores from an infected piece of chestnut, collected in Monroe
county in July, 1908, and continuously kept in a moist cell at
the Department of Forestry since that date. Forty-four months
after the time of collecting, the status of the fungus is found
to be as below:

16

242

“Philadelphia, April 19, 1912.
Mr. i: C. Walliams;

Deputy Commissioner of Forestry,
Harrisburg, Pa.

Dear Mr. Williams: In reply to your letter of April 18, I
can give you the following report:

The fungus on your specimen made a small growth as I at
first reported to you. After however, it had started to produce
a small number of picnidia it ceased to grow. I then began
egain, and found that I could cause the spores to germinate.
They in turn made but a small growth, and afterward were
unable to produce any fruiting picnidia. A small part of the
bark which I removed from your specimen was put in a damp
chamber. Iwas unable to get any growth at all from this. This
shows that the specimen has almost lost life. This loss of
vitality may be due to the Penicillium, a fungus which has
covered the surface of this specimen. I will return the speei-
men in the bottle to you at once.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) CAROLINE RUMBOLD.”

REGISTERED DELEGATES AND GUESTS.

The following names and addresses appear on the official
register of delegates and guests in attendance at the Conference.
It is a matter of regret that a large number of those in attendance
failed to register, although indicating their active interest by
their presence at one or more sessions.

Daniel Adams, 301 Crozier Bldg., Philadelphia, Pa., (Lumbermen’s Ex.)
Prof. Geo. G. Atwood, Albany, N. Y.

Dr. J. M. Backenstoe, Emaus, Pa.

Prof. H. P. Baker, Forester, State College, Pa.

Parker Thayer Barnes, Harrisburg, Pa.

Prof. Geo. L. Barrus, Albany, N. Y.

94°

H. H. Bechtel, Cincinnati, Ohio.

George Bell, Marysville, Pa.

F. W. Besley, John Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md

John Birkinbine, Philadelphia, Pa.

W. F. Blair, Waynesburg, Pa.

Rep. Bloodgood Nurseries, Flushing, N. Y.

Samuel T. Bodine, Villa Nova, Pa.

John Y. Boyd, 222 Market St., Harrisburg, Pa.

H. F. Bright, Ashland, Pa.

H. R. Bristol, Plattsburg, N. Y.

Wm. McC. Brown, Oakland, Md.

Henry G. Bryant, 2013 Walnut St., Phila.,

Geo. H. Campbell, B. & O. R. R., Baltimore, Md.

Chester E. Child, Pres. Lumber Mfrs. Assn., Putman, Conn

Prof. W. D. Clark, State College, Pa.

Dr. Geo. P. Clinton, Conn. Agr. Exp’t. Station, New Haven. Coni
S. C. Clemons, 431 Dearborn St., Chicago, II.

B. F. Cocklin, Mechanicsburg, R. F. D., No. 2, Cumb. Co., Pa.
Prot. J. Franklin Collins, Washington, D. C.

W. G. Conklin, Troxelville, Pa.

Hon. Robert S. Conklin, Commissioner of Forestry, Harrisburg, Va
Dr. M. T. Cook, New Brunswick, N. J.

W. C. Coombe, Millerstown, Pa.

Geo. F. Craig, Rosemont, Pa.

J. C. Cramner, Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa.

Hon. J. W. Crawford, North Bend, Pa.

H. W. Crawford, Conestoga Traction Co., Lancaster, Pa.

W. A. Crawford, Cooperstown, Pa.

Hon. Wm. T. Creasy, Master State Grange, Catawissa, Pa.

Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Secy. or Agriculture, Harrisburg, Pa.

S. L. Cummings, Dewart, Northumberland Co., Pa.

Prof. Nelson Fithian Davis, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.
Jos. W. Derrick, care of Harison Townsend, 10th and Chestnut, Phila.
S. B. Detwiler, Executive Officer, C. B. Comm’n., Bala, Pa.

Mrs. S. B. Detwiler, Bala, Pa.

Dr. Samuel G. Dixon, State Health Comm’r., 1900 Race St., Phila.
Dr. Henry S. Drinker, Pres. Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa.
Hon. John J. Dunn, Board of Agriculture, Providence, R. I.

S. B. Elliott, Reynoldsville, Pa.

Elwanger & Bro., Pottstown, Pa.

Dr. J. B. Emerson, 40 E. 41st St., New York City.

S. B. Enterline, Pottsville, Pa.

Samuel L. Eslinger, Lemoyne, Cumb. Co., Pa.

J. K. Esser, Field Agt. Chestnut Tree Blight Comm., Mauch Chunk, Pa.
Thomas Evans, Lebanon, Pa.

Hon. A. B. Farquhar, Pres. Penna. Conservation Asso., York, Pa.
P. S. Fenstermacher, Supt. Trexler Farms, Allentown, Pa.

F. R. Fertig, State Horticultural Inspector, Lebanon, Pa.

Rep. F. & F. Nurseries, Springfield, N. J.

F. W. Finger, Philadelhpia, Pa.

W. Righter Fisher, Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Dr. Wm. R. Fisher, Swiftwater, Pa.

J. W. Fisher, Newport, Tenn.

244

Dr. A. K. Fisher, Bureau of biological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Amos Fleisher, Newport, Pa.

P. Hartman Fox, Austin, Pa.

James G. Fox, Hummelstown, Pa.

W. W. Frazier, 250 S. 18th St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Thomas E. Francis, Field Agt. C. T. B. Comm’n., Huntingdon, Pa.
Prof. H. R. Fulton, State College, Pa.

Blair Funk, Pequea Creek, Pa.

W. H. Gardner, Basic City, Va.

Samuel R. Gault, Harrisburg, Pa.

Dr. N. J. Giddings, Morgantown, W. Va.

J. M. Goodloe, Bigstone Gap, Va.

C. E. Gosline, Paterson, N. J.

Prof. Arthur H. Graves, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
E. M. Green, Mt. Union Tanning and Extract Co., Mt. Union, Pa.
W. E. Grove, York Springs, Pa.

Melvin Guptill, Malden, Mass.

Dr. H. T. Gussow, Ottawa, Canada.

Miss Mary M. Haines, Cheltenham, Pa.

Robert B. Haines Co., Cheltenham, Pa.

Robert W. Hall, Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa.
James L. Hamill, Columbus, Ohio.

J. Linn Harris, Bellefonte, Pa.

Dr. J. W. Harshberger, 4839 Walton Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.
D. S. Hartline, Bloomsburg, Pa.

W. Elmer Houpt, Shippensburg, Pa.

Henry Hawk, 903 16th Avenue, Altoona, Pa.

L. E. Hess, Berwick, Pa.

John K. Hibbs, Field Agt. C. T. B. Comm’n., Philadelphia.

Dr. Samuel S. Hill, Supt. Chronic Insane Asylum, Wernersville, Pa.
G. H. Hollister, Hartford, Conn.

J. E. Holme, care of England, Walton Co., 3rd and Vine, Phila.
E. A. Hoopes, Moylan, Pa.

Dr. A. D. Hopkins, Bureau of Entomology, Washington, D. C.
John Hosfeld, Shippensburg, Pa.

Hon. Josiah Howard, Emporium, Pa.

Geo. G. Hutchinson, Warrior’s Mark, Pa.

F. B. Jewett, Brooklyn, Pa.

Henry C. Johnson & Co., Luzerne, Pa.

Joseph Johnston, 3940, Lancaster Ave., Phila.

Miss Florence M. Jones, Philadelphia, Pa.

Miss Martha Jones, Conshohocken, Pa.

Hon. George B. Keezell, Keezeltown, Va.

George W. Kehr, Pa. State Branch Nat. Con. Asso., Harrisburg.
George A. Kerr, care of John H. Heald & Co., Lynchburg, Va.
W. S. W. Kirby, Philadelphia, Pa.

Theodore Klein, Ariel, Pa.

William Kline, West Hanover, Pa.

H. C. Klinger, Liverpool, Pa.

Q. U. S. Krody, Lancaster, Pa.

J. Landis, Bunker Hill, W. Va.

W. J. Lawson, Andora Nurseries, Chestnut Hill, Pa.

Chas. E. Lewis, Orono, Maine.

245

Edw. Lienhard, Mauch Chunk, Pa.

K. Lockwood, State Chemist, New York City.

Hon. Amos F. Lunn, State Senate, No. Smithfield, R. L
Lindley R. Lynch, Providence, R. I.

Garfield McAllister, Harrisburg, Pa.

Prof. Chas. A. McCue, Dover, Del.

John McNabb, Howard Estate, Lower Merion, Pa.

James E. McNeal, Lancaster, Pa.

Miss M. A. Maffet, 264 S. Franklin St., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
E. Mather, Harrisburg, Pa.

E. S. Mays, Rochester, N. Y.

Herman W. Merkel, Zoological Park, New York City.

W. E. Merriman, Narrows, Va.

Dr. John Mickleborough, 489 Putman Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y.
J. J. H. Miller, Waynesville, Pa.

C. S. Minehart, Orrstown, Pa.

Sidney R. Miner, Penna. Conservation Asso., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
C. G. Minick, Ridgway, Pa.

F. F. Moore, Amhert, Mass.

James N. Moore, Legislative Ref. Bureau, Harrisburg, Pa.
H. A. Moore, Mgr. Oak Extract Co., Newport, Pa.

Hon. Jesse B. Mowry, Chepachet, R. I.

Harry J. Mueller, Hartleton, Pa.

Prof. W. A. Murrill, Bronx Botanical Garden, New York City.
C. L. Nessly, Florin, Pa.

S. E. Nevin, Landenburg, Pa.

J. B. S. Norton, State Pathologist, College Park, Md.

Hon. W. C. Norton, Waymart, Pa.

J. S. Omwake, Shippensburg, Pa.

A. N. Palmer, Fieid Agt. Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.
S. E. Pannebaker, East Waterford, Pa.

Hon. Raymond A. Pearson, Albany, N. Y.

Harold Peirce, Secy. P. C. T. B. C., Haverford, Pa.

HH. T. Pierce, York, Pa.

Peters, Bryne & Co., Ardmore, Pa.

John M. Phillips, Board of Game Commissioners, Harrisburg, Pa.
Prof. F. W. Rane, State Forester, Boston, Mass.

Prof. W. Howard Rankin, Ithaca, N. Y.

Prof. Donald Reddick, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.
Dr. H. S. Reed, Blacksburg, Va.

W. A. H. Reeder, Reading, Pa.

J. G. Reist, Mount Joy, Pa.

C. Reublinger, Harrisburg, Pa.

P. B. Rice, Lewistown, Pa.

John Rick, Reading, Pa.

P. S. Ridsdale, Secy. American Forestry Asso., Washington, D. C.
L. M. Rockey, York Haven, Pa.

Keller E. Rockey, Philadelphia, Pa.

H. Justice Rood, Millersville, Pa.

J. W. Root, A. W. Root & Bro., Manheim, No. 1, Pa.

Dr. J. T. Rothrock, West Chester, Pa.

Hon. H. B. Rowland, Sanatoga Inn, Pottstown, Pa.

Dr. Caroline Rumbold, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
D. C. Rupp, Shiremanstown, Pa.

246

David Russell, Shippensburg, Pa.

A. F. Satterthwaite, Harrisburg, Pa.

Oliver D. Schock, Hamburg, Pa.

F. D. Search, caie Frank D. Search & Co., Shickshinny, No. 1, Pa.

Dr. Augustine D. Selby, Ohio Agr. Expt. Station, Wooster, Ohio.

J. W. Seltzer, Coburn, Pa.

C. E. Seville, McConnellsburg, Pa.

S. T. Seybert, Berwick, Pa.

W. E. Shafer, Mifflinburg, Pa.

C. Shenk, Lebanon, Pa.

W. C. Shepard, Asst. Forester, P. R. R., Philadelphia, Pa.

John L. Shibeck, Cresco, Pa.

S. L. Smedley, Bala, Pa.

Edgar H. Smith, Elimsport, Pa.

C. M. Smith, Scranton, Pa.

Dr. J. Russell Smith, Penna. Conservation Asso., Swarthmore, Pa.

Heber L. Smith, Reading, Pa.

D. A. Smith, Shippensburg, Pa.

Michael Smyser, York, Pa.

Hon. Henry C. Snavely, Cleona, Pa.

Dr. F. Herbert Snow, Harrisburg, Pa.

C. K. Sober, Lewisburg, Pa.

Dr. Perley Spaulding, Washington, D. C.

Lewis E. Staley, Mont Alto, Pa.

Geo. E. Stein, East Prospect, Pa.

F. R. Stevens, Agriculturist, L. V. R. R., Geneva, N. Y.

Prof. Fred. C. Stewart, N. Y. Agr. Expt. Station, Geneva, N. Y.

Geo. D. Stroh, Pittston, Pa.

O. T. Swan, Forest Service, Washington, D. C.

Luke H. Swank, Swank Bldg., Johnstown, Pa.

F. H. Swayze, Western Electric Co., 11th & York, Phila.

William Teas, Marion, Va.

A. Thalheimer, Reading, Pa.

Rep. Thomson Chemical Co., Baltimore, Md.

A. L. Towson, Smithsburg, Md.

Albert H. Tuttle, University of Virginia.

R. C. Walton, Field Agt. P. C. T. B. C., Philadelphia, Pa.

Allen G. Walton, Hummelstown, Pa.

Allen K. Walton, Waltonville, Pa.

R. A. Waldron, State College, Pa.

Mrs. Wm. C. Warren, 432 W. Stafford St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Prof. Wesley Webb, Secretary State Board of Agriculture, Dover, Del.

W. H. Weber, Pres. The Munson-Whitaker Co., 381 Fourth Ave., New York
City.

E. A. Weimer, Lebanon, Pa.

R. A. Wheeler, Kennett Square, No. 4, Pa.

Hon. N. P. Wheeler, Wheeler & Dusenbury, Endeavor, Pa.

Hon. I. C. Williams, Dep. Com. of Forestry, Harrisburg, Pa.

Mrs. I. C. Williams, Royersford, Pa.

J. R. Williams, Rector, Pa.

Jos. R. Wilson, Field Agt. P. C. T. B. C., Philadelphia, Pa.

J. K. Wingert, Chambersburg, Pa.

H. B. Wolf, Field Agt. P. C. T. B. C., Philadelphia, Pa.

PNDEDX..

A.

met-creatin= Chestnut (ree Blight Commission, 2)... o5.0 oo. cc. cc cc cjcinca vie es

Address of welcome by Governor Tener

Address by Chairman R. A. Pearson,
Air currents as carriers of conidia, ..
Appropriation to investigate blight, ..
Appropriation by Penna. Legislature,
Appropriation, how used, ..........
Ascospores, vitality of,
Atwood, George G., remarks by, ....

Atwood, George G., effect of drought,

Attractions of Harrisburg, ..........

Backenstoe, Dr. J. M., remarks by,
Bacterial investigation, result of, ....

Q Fee eeesereseresereesneesesessesseees

eee eer sees ee eee e see eset ee see tet esese

06ers. a.0 01s 9.10 @ «Ole inin 16 los a a nies Al miele ele

O/ 0: .ve\0 jute’ 6)'s wip) se. 8.0 6s im aieieln olniaipis a.5\= 2a 6.8

Baker. .Or.t. 22. The blight, and) practice of forestry, . 2.5: 1625... .20cu..

Beetles on chestnut trees,

eo: ee (ete a 20 6

_Barrus, G. L., Report as to prevalence of blight in New York State, ......

o) Oe) Sem © @iw ie c/o © Vem = se © eee ales ‘es « «eels

Benson, W. M., A possible remedy for chestnut blight, ...............
Besley, Prof. F. W., Report upon the blight in Maryland, ................

Birds and chestnut tree insects, ....
Birds as distributors of blight spores,
Birds in the chestnut groves, ........
Blight, medical treatment of the, ..
Blight in New Jersey in 1898,

BUH. plan ko COMpAt. =o ..ccees esc

Blight, infections in Lycoming county
Lodine, Samuel T., remarks by, ....

Braunberg, Mr., Value of Penna. chestnut and damage sustained,
Bureau of Plant Industry, Report on blight,

aise wa Be, ew ef eneree.e eLele\w elein wis ave le « 4) se ©)» a a

sya nye mim tale, -.s @ ce) a wile @ late = aie) see's ae fa aoe

Se) (0) wee 0) 'Biele, We ¥ wee Be, Bele ae) aren ae" eee sie

PSUS AUUMIPS , SICCOSSILM LOE 2 wis icc och ots ok nectacle ne calenincs cRetvcccs une

Peet WOREL, . OVAMEN OF CENES. ho. ccc cicta ine oS ee SK otek coon en oe oe
CG

acceler < seCCMALES, OY suck inrte snc tise eels heim cers me eee eC

RCNUSemOlE CHES ut wDIIENE A) Gic16 oe teste eloquent eras peor knee eee ee

Chestnut bark disease—can it be controlled?) ........2..5.225.-0--000..2

Chestnut bark disease—its remarkable spread, ..............ccccccccecce

(247 )

Page,
let
15
1
Al
45
106
205
219
24
116

123

165
191
137
158
184
229
169
200
103

97

57
102
140
181
239

20
171
177
213

95

195
70
40
44

@hestnut. bark disease simteCbhiOns) cinicceke le oi elale ole) ole oledel ol eletotetete delet leiel a= |= lela
Chestnut bark disease—recent noteS ON, .........cercccccccccccececccces
Chestnut blight in Connecticut, ...........2--2cee cere cree eeerecrecceces
Chestnuts blichtrand whores tiyien rae) ketene letotale de feta otter touett tel etole eter tT tet
Chestnut blight and constructive conservation, ........--+sseeeeeeecseces
Ghestnut, bushtmas Natoma LOSS.) clerks « cyeters «lalate ele l= tate) eret= ia lotenotolet=tietel-1-)a/af=)=t=
@hestnute Divchesehistorya (Obs mes seetenst ele ens > oveveie ala) one) elsyelenetol= el olstelekel-inletelofa/eyel fake
Chestnut blight, method for locating infections, ...........-....--+--+..--
Chestnut blight and possible remedy, ...........ccscscccecoesccceccsecss
Chestnuts blichtemyonksoetie)uecrrsihettetyetre eyes) tetencl clin tleteyshetsleder ene cheteleloy ct statete
Ghestnite Dune Worm Nese otetars okays om loi cla ole! ayelle w eleletelefete wo losele e\e\cn loleholserslokal «tate
Chestrntacul tune mest tater cistoreiciore cleo stetel al svers ie cic eroietetoteene lets (eloienetslefetel-tetetstalls
@hestnutspasStock=tood smear: ols cuelekaiaieke os rea ckel sfohore « slorebelle ledeloclone |= (ote lelsteusiets
Chestnut timber—sro wihtanday Me spe aia es sitet stcy ouelioli el oteve: el aieno do cereyeustenetoteterst-
Chestnutitimbernnsleentaeeweecroicte cies etree ceuetiewelinvers ie et sianeiisiist stokes Coleiiegel oRetet=i tells
Ghestnutatreess ed@estructoneOten pete elentricveverebststsliene! neuer etree a= re tele telalstaleeenel
@hestnut treeidisesses OL shewpastinme scutes cleric el eusieve ciel ateieicletael sl ofeve rele chalets) tonal
@hestnut trees— -ceneraledistribution Of, so. r ce cltersicteie crore royce ee srotetennrel
Chestnut trees how, To perpetmatee eo cccerel sre cere crekecesene tenes) <reteteres= neous ielate
@hild> Chesters Ee. svemarnksm yee cialis skeietoed tetas recs or teretrensttel-netetelars
@icada sinsechestniut) Orchards sieves ace ciel ale oats ie) enetedoteleronelioneonenaynenteneheneds
ClarkawProf- We JO vse ankis mbes) wercheaskeyore sien vale ene et henetioiete teeae iene eter acer eta
Clintons) Prot George Es. Remarks) Diyge ecieciereuete oe tololiole te ciel ollenatoiecetevateratevelteten
Clinton, Prof. George P., Chestnut blight facts and theories, ..........
Clinton, Prof. George P., Report upon blight in Connecticut, ..........
Collins; Prof. J; Hranklin=. Mlustrated Weehures sais ster tet ete lcloieloclst ee efataintatet le
Collins, Prof. J. Franklin, Treatment of orchard and ornamental trees, ..
Collins; Prof. J. Franklin, Cuttine*out blight process; 222...-. ceo ae
Combating: splantvands animial® pestsa wer. onictacie ce ctetec leletek-1ol ot teteretetctel oNetener Morte
Commission, Penna. Chestnut reemBlveohits sas cians cisis -lcie erletyetsraicranetaneneteie ne
GomMission’S..pOlicy:,, <>. <'ceke rosie: cchelorenstela sia chee .cke ene tete ale le reretetetelekev ar eictel ero eoaera es
Committee on Resolutions sm eae itcsccia totes or oretahetale terete ree ere tcte che Rar aeieate
Committee on Resolutions, Report of,
Committee to escort: Governors .cisc cco ste e Mertens oe eeeteraie eee hcteeieie erate net
Conference, necessity for holding,
Connecticut, blight in,
Gontrol of the blights, ec. sejereve creieonacs che sieve Sevens eee eee toners oe terete
Cooks Dr Melville Wey emarkstbiy, sencssu- cic ntl iva choraecce cecketenete eietieteiore eaters
Cook, Dr. Melville T., The blight in New Jersey,
Cranmer, J. C., Remarks by,
Cutting out diseased parts, experience with,

©) 00 © ec) 0/e 6) 0 «0 o@ =| =) ehe)0. 0) (eee ee) 0) e710 66 ere

Gre} ie \s\01\s\ 8, silel wheels ele pit! e's [uigw ts Jol.e) 0)(e 10 0) « e016 61 v eye

ai @ Ss\ye100)6)\6. 0)\e \e s) © [ew o(ells (o efe) = ev nlets) cj) tslietle © wlepule iviic ev ste ale

o viv ate; v5 +e) 0 \e sv) vis es sel wyu ee)
S/e0 elle (ele eee» eiede eiw ie ex6.\¢)e'u (eee) e io 0\-0' 6 0 \0),e) 6) 0) se) esis
©, 2 6 ee) 0.0 0 = U6 vse vs ep © 0 vie 0 vives (s

Cutting out experiments at Washington, D. C.,

Danger isienals «of thes blights wir. ioc wererer onic eons ite ere
Davis, Prof. Nelson F., Address by,
Mead-line®” establishing. i542. vein goes oe oe eR ee ae eee bene
Defining Diaporthe parasitica,
Delegatesiand oests,, listyofy Rie. os cote oes oe eee eee
Detwiler, 4S. B-, sbirdsand the chestnutyblicht- ase eee eee eee
Detwiler, S. B., “The Pennsylvania Programme,”
Devastation by insect pests,

06) fe) s/le\(e\\e s)6, 6 ee vie @ 6 em. 6)6 6) 6) © se) (0 s)1e)91.6).6

o',@ 0106). 00 @° 6,0) 6 0 u) 6)w 6) e\\0\6)\0 6 6 wild! 6) eee eee ie) ©) ae esaeie,

© B (eles) 110) 0:0, 6,10 (0m 0) © 0) lehe sie (ce

© (eo (a, a's @, oe) (om 01.6: ©) lo wie) et ele ls) aye wlsisl.s © e)/e)eliel(s ie),e)\o.s00).s) sluice

249

Page
Development in sapwood and hardwood, .......--+seeeeceeeeeeeecereee 54
‘“Devil’s paint brush,” how eradicated, .......-.ceececeeccecescsecveces 203
Diaporthe parasitica in Pennsylvania groveS, ....----++eeee cere ee eeeeceee 100
Diaporthe parasitica in the South, ..........cscsceseccccsecsccvccscscs 80
Diaporthe parasitica, infective material Of, ......-.-ececeeeeerecccccees BO
TO ISCHREO-ATECH, SIOCALING sy ois /oioiee oiele oleic Bieis's o>. ow. o x lalvinie inivieje/miciq sien e0 swe 9.0 44
Mroncrteravorable .toy Diightaies oe. -telee s1io'a'ela acu w\aa'pb wis clslpiawe A dielsies\sid so ime 81
E.
Marly history OL -Dtsporthe POrasiiiCh, snc cs ccc ccc cnmsescescsscseciccs's bea
Piinanatine «plicit reered: sLYCCS) x cccis, ais's +/+. « os \ceve nie ais os win siete e's\e's wis. 0.0. 0/2 1438
LOTT] OMT TET OLLOR, SABRES ACO STO HO BOC CIAO Bele BOIS Ehom INICIO a rato 79
PTET CMS Ten EC CINSUT ESM DY, 10 ores scsls pia «6.8.0 oo = ays oveluie oe «8 e0elsfals cls, 0s = 10.09 7A |
III DLICN pe TLOLOLG Ene rede eis terete lorena cvesais eva S/8 ela eos nldis « a¥ele o wine snelw ees arela,'0!e7e,01s 71
Pragicniione ona buehte DY CULLING, OL, sos 2 ccc cls <soye ss 0 oe aie sis win sale wialele 8&2
Penerimentine, with CULLING /OUL PEOCESS@ << 2.2 =< oss sc ele wicls om sin cele wa 193
F.
RAKIM LT CCL GOCLOLS SANG weImpITIStS, 0 av-t-bie(s ceeiole 21s 2) e)~) <a) aieke sists) ei ote nial «lo ohniaaiei's 5v
eA Wieet Tole aia Gre se PA DOL DY Meanie tie at a! ciel alates clef tiene) olen |ateke! a) “imi ie mim otakens 70
Field studies at Orbisonia, Pa., «1.2.2.2... see e eect ee eee eee eee eens 5
Mire lamyaMerOl tie COMMISSION sei ois lacs ole 02 Pictopeeie ois eaten <iotoiwi sy -xol Notes alae apts 233
Monin renemies) Ol CHE GHESEIIT Gs) (srs octa ists) ale sie leleisiclols = <lisjes.eiaia sieln vim. s 0 sie = 9
LSENGi Re dn DNSa TRS rh OS aici a An BORO noe POE Barone CUR eT ICIoeO re ik
RRhere ors Ache EADS Ob LHe WOOODECKEES. | .is1 ale sisters <'oisie wlele ole «ive winnie 103
Hrshers. ds Wee Reports 00) bliziG im “Pennessee s 2 iy-1s 2 o)o~: 2,01 \<55 s)n1- sain «/elw'e 174
Food and mouth disease, how suppressed, ......-..022--2cccccccccsevccs 148
HOredis ACKea sein E.ennsylvanis sie. sya .oosisiee o's neicls, ofcis <lele afm a © 016\8,01 ee) n'e\e's 130
HMpTes tana ADOLA LOLs LEStS nucle crete oleic lotale ete ovels io cies el aetel nix o's 's ets eo lTehe were 202
Rnaresnryemandcemente, Meaning Ol. = a wajete errors rine eine > ohote oe tas my aictahe Jel e 212
LOGRES ON LINE 9 alg EE CIRO ERERRrOIG TOO CPI ROIS E I-A CRIS HEAR eng SCS ae eae 3
HTAncis- se vnomaseh.~ evepore upon) fleld -wOrK,) -1s)e)-c11s ce cle ate ow «ome le ele 233
iin komme COL ans kes ew A GOTESSIRDY 20 o.0)s = cic Susgencioiers ete ei eiaketata la! sleie cleo Sievetele i's 48
MMO OUSREUISCASCS. = CrCALIMEN Ge OL. ko.c os oa noises cia Scns aes olerol ochats ale oun = sveletaiate 43
G.
icrminationl OF Comuiamand ASCOSPOLCH, << .<\c sms apncie = sie seein lsi= so < ays cle wicloie 52
ATH Seer ne CATS OLS COMCEON ao crete) aracote occ 1a w ageio) ©) =) wie «opus Gls ais =le oie om so 105

Hare INE, AEE LEST 4) ok A revs Ac SA AOI ic. ice Recher nee 26

Giddings, N. J., The blight situation in West Virginia, ................ 173
Gractmocnestnut, show, -SUCCeSSbul lami] peiet- simicls lain 6 eielal sVouste «sim \c «ow wine @ wi/= ie ST
rabies the CHeSEMUMESPEOMLS > 0a/clevain-ve) of sienna olan So sys 0] \= 5 al whole) = 84
(Caepryesi, TDI C/N De Tried eh ee oe ee reo weiner OSD er rear 105
Ser OVEN ECHECSUMUE Y COubes KODE ICLOST oietsia west < ops tel io ieee nite aise oie, oman sn) yo my ss Ia 90
LO MINS ME CHOSEENUEG BETCES) ses aie hoa) 5 ae) heirs fae s, oA panle eo wl atm Reese) alm a,sfeio.erahais sms 98
Growth of blight on other material than chestnut, .........-...-..---.+05- 53

LT es ee In ee ROTOR Oe 27

Gussow, Dr. H. T., Remarks by,

iG
Harrisburg Board of Trade, Letier from the, .....
Harshberger, Dr. J. W., Remarks by, ....:.....
Harvesting’ cultivated> chestnuts, 2... sy. 22.0. <<
Historical and Pathological Aspects of the blight,
Historysof the chestnut blight, “3. <1. << ascii eee one
Hopkins Or eAse) = elnSeCtINJUMIES |, ore vole icnetercict

Hopkins, Dr. A. D., The chestnut bark disease,

Immune pure-bred varieties of chestnut, .........
MIM UN ty OL CHESEMUMPMETECS ee srsceieistetelarai'skefeueyefoitalies'«
Immunizing chestnut not possible, ...............
Implements for treating infected trees, .........
Infectious character of blight.) cist cic cetera ser iusto <
MnLechLoOnss) sO wietOy find ee. peeerecerraveevars fe orctessnenctionet ele
Insectisratrectine. chestmutetreesn ss soem cc eee
Insects! and! the chestnut; DIT Gs ee ic.c eo ois eee eae

Insects destroyed biy7 Old mecca csc tonererevel cietomeiersiors ro

Insects, relation to spread of the blight, .......

Insect straps InschestnutyerOvesis i cee seisvereverel« sles

Investigations in Pennsylvania, when commenced,

Investigations of chestnut bark disease, .........
Italian authorities upon blight quoted, .........

Jewett. HS Be Remarks by ces oe cee en een

INeezell, (Hon? (Geo; Bs, (Remarks) iby, viene eters

Mahboratorya experiments. ye c.cieie cetera aievareke ete ©

Lesson! from) the San José Seale, ... 0. s.0. scene
Lightning injury seat for inoculation, .........
imemin’ ‘chestnut wood ashes, 22... eens cee
Lime water as a remedy for the blight, .........
Longevity of conidia and ascospores, ...........
Loss incurred in Penna. by chestnut blight, .....

M.

Machine for remoying chestnuts from burrs, ...
Main line investigations of blight, .............
MeBarland; sHorace;wietter from). 2 oon see ost
Mechinesmtordiscussablicht oaeerice cece eee
Medicinal remedies for chestnut blight, ...........

© sla e 8 winjelm, sle).6) es 6 @ 0 8 « «ele

a ee) b/c e¥e (ste) « (eke) uls}'s) 0a (elutes 0) \o

< (ese 's, se =) \ce vow tvijele pe) siake« wae

04 '@. © 6s 0) «)a)0\¢ © 0) wile (0).0\e)s) «shee

*) ufele)'cj.e) «=, e)eliee le =) o\e)s sss mel

a) 66.) ee j0) ¢, @) © we) 4) 8010 9 a «=! 0 re

o/c, je exe wlove.e elec sa = iste ole elacare

Je] elje,fe \o 'eje © 6 le) ee ole fe las 100 stem,

OR Ceci INO CMC CIRC ee CR

Clete ¢ 60's «940 0) 6). .e) eee els) Silanes

e)e\ve Yelle elles oie) ele fee) oNe.e) w 10 6 16, 61.6

She)(e) #0) e ekeiere @, @, 6,10, 0 0) a ai widne ule

0} ©) 9/10), 0-616, 6) //,0)0).0,)0/10)'e 0/.6 ce Nelelake

@:'e/@, ia fehe, 0) ene! ce, 0, ee) ¢,0;,«)\afvlakelelie

D0 (680.67, 0.0) 9115) 6, ere etiu a) sia: ol alpieiete

9 wile! a vicvelie/ alle e).egehe, a) we) s: (ee lel wets

eyes elelele ¢¢)ple ee ole. wivishel siete

@ fepley'a eyfeyie aid, 016) (0),,.0.0)6) a eyes eieusie le

eC YMC ee ey RC i Cyr OG)

Sake fegelevelioie selec jo) elejelers elessienens

he) 6. @ 66s (ee Lele}.e, (ee! © a) .wkelésn 0) ole,

Merkel, Dr. Herman W., Pennsylvania’s unselfish law, ..............--

NetcaliO rweklaven, Address by. oni

Ge) OF isl 0/6, CLC ie ¥6),0, piles ce ef0le,e ere sl

180
180

69
68
178
62
116
ake
200
181
188
68
96
150
39

ne
73

a lab,

ROOM OUMMOOIINOUING TDIENt.. «0 suscaiteaeteintctereie is 2'o\s\e Freie s-ano.f'6 vdeo 9 Win ave
Mme nOvOUr a ers shOUMN,; RCCMIATKR SON |e: ciereiee «ic cals oer or, «'« 6 0 ¥ ope suve
MCC eESROM ya RCIUAUES ION s. (prc tare eM iene rataerocctle ahs axa! 6 eivic\e sas, o.0 0 0s idiocy ’m
Mimrriliewerore WW, A., Lreatment of chestnut blieht, 02.65... 20... <s.0« one
Murrill, Prof. W. A., Questions for scientific investigation, ............
McCue, Prof. C. A., The chestnut blight in Delaware, ...............-
N.
Mamously-screntinic campaion AraInst DINE, 625. %.c.c'0'o1c cess « ba 'cie «cle waldeeis
PICCERBILY) LOtECO-OPETAuION OL MUALENs) cipttna ccs oe ele a ove aw pjeueteed s,siaib s/oie ste
MEAD ADEL PUDIICLUY Vala Le gO GNUNSCO owns «les ofaies cc\cwiviv esle ayo Av.cls © Uses
RON T MLD LLL Ge TTL See chavs ciate chesevert Steuer wis eet. onacdiecote a eseto pele s » don. Hatwe eieia.a S60
ESOL OL ee ew ky oe yr EROUIEE RSE Viog tee, ede tete bee 910. tie < lorar amt els. a) Com s(n ova ‘apd Souiay ape whoa 676
SUIS CT STOCK SINC HOLMe LISD Up ciate e ony, «elsiett) » cfayeuMele os) mista tele 5 ele e7sh e.s.69
PUREE LTTE COT RUCL COS, viet cxeiccde cues oA c. ecuere & hxc in eltyehela 6, »-alblo alesse ave eiqic ot
SINGOLS OM Eris plireeeOnkerenGe.\ ais sr. cuca ese sw etoile wie a clae"dle-s aise a 6¢s 2 ore
Hts Cr Para 1 COHMETON Ce © cress ore al eysicerey etesete ernid are hints cities cts Ee ae Delanie
OCU G rae PLOMTAMAeWOn "OOMFETONCOsr cick so clereclstalace cic a rleiais elsiciainie siatoae oem
Srehard ani, ornamental chestnut trees, “2... siiccis a wlovelcs oo 6 slave's ©, een «cle sree
Mere ATOM L ELOY DITO Ge, ete sos crterebelcter adv overe, esa craleede. sucleue eres cteteces aie clote sieschepearers
12
enrAcone Ghesen tte CULES, ot: avcts) steverersscaicler evei cletiaren oulois bons otal tatu rtncke tee elec
MGA CONC LLOW.S ee ALGSSOM. LPO Ges, v avec) a) cis ekel vvcccrsl are, oucpanere cusibls e'ataiel as akehens (els mis. .0
REASON ELON: site. Aw. Introductory @AGdEESS@ DY, cic «scree sete estes oe oie >
Resrmom, scion hs Ae, dtesolution: of thanKsetO’ © < .2p2s.. ccsse cove machete le ea os owes
Peirce, Harold, The need of co-operative work, ....................-
PLLC O EL ATOLG | ERE AT KS) IDV a oie cae ota Sho ccna Owls eee we @ ache cieewk
Pennsylvania Forestry Department: Co-operation of, ..................
RECHT MY ATLA SEP LOR KL ALILG oh acter ate) auoi-Ba yer cyekev Tesh avat oicbtance eet See Ie oes acim oats
PlaismeLOre CONLOlING) the aDishine ic. Pelaavoiy feloteie ele eels oo ala.c Nese tee cto
Hanedictonsmrerardine, they blichites <4 creek Sener seem cote oe aoa
PCSFA CN ee Lt Sip MOTOR 9& vaiancnsiaerssaxefei shavalotaterecevssaherouct ontar Mote AAs Sele 2 te eee
HEE MEMO metLER UINGN pecs kinases cle tcyout avayonene crear sie chee CE Oe he Re cae.
Prontaplemuimuzaion ob chestnut, 4-/. + <1evsiueia.cian « selelateemiekeres ie emits Cero
PANO MANA eC RO tl GOLEM CT CR So gece sen ies ale: che eT SES aca erate ep Gi
EROLCCMUSRN ALIVE ‘CHEStMUt SPLOUTSs = oica heise cers cis c/oclewie ceiesen wise aeremiecie s
Q.
GiexsnongacstoscontLol soimhesblight a sels accra. ci eee ere cee eek oon
M6«ueshons stor Sclenkine, imvyestication.. «sc. ache es oe eas ee LO eee
Re
neem lerotae, Wis. Need. (Of CO-OpeLationi., ac’.is icant ate Sees hk eect
Raneambrot ahs Wi MeGMalkss DW <.sc comic ee celery ee eae es oS
ane seror, WW. Urgine co-operative work, -..-.-.c<<c<-< +c cc cccces.
Rane, Prof. F. W., Report of blight conditions in Massachusetts, ........
HUNK De roles, LO WATE sWwAGGTESS DY, “zat. u cies eee seinen tt nc oa
Geers EMI ATMS RMAC AIRCARIA. RSI 5 ms aka ers odo <a Shon fey ato ahs) Sow eS eee kis « Pesce
eens lore Chestnnt in) WIEPIMIA 5 So elt s ve cate hear Jib aim e's Se ck nce

Reed, Dr. H. S., The blight situation in Virginia, ..........

19
222
225

18
215
129
146

76
175

5S
135

9
85

211
210

Rerister sof -delepatesvand (guests. =< cher isttscistoss =)-hnieiotomsbersie elecelerslaisyakey oie torers
Relation *of birdsatomspread: OL DM GRES yo la.-isptsio = =iatete ence pte l oie ial= ele «ia ers ota
Rumbold, Dr. Caroline, “Possibility of Medicinal Remedy for Chestnut

BPG? ataves cave sya sie rege tetas Sled eveis ce: o's aue'ei ae co anicta aha retro dete etetetatetegene ve roteraterieeetere

Rumbold, Dr. Caroline, Report upon test of old spores, ..............-04-
Research? work:to). control ‘blights | 2%... o-vxc/oierelavelelars «ir wl aps istoteieiciotelsslerstsieis ale
Resolutions adopted by the Conference, ........ Rc SAR Se eens oo
Resolutionsss COmMMItLee® ON is aiaiaie ere's afaicioiersPavstalsrecaieieiodel ists petetetels-clere/ ole miotete
Rothrock, Dr. Joseph T., How to combat the chestnut blight, ..........
S.

SAD MHOW: uN CHESENUEEELEES2 whic. si wicisigfetetey -rorene’©-ocueelcters lua ole eke icleteamicesiatoeete
SCO te WOLK AH ly COMIN SeCOUN LY) are tae ie 01'o)ol= salle lcbial otro a velts [aycile fale lafesal ele oicielsteiarete tenia
Selbyae Drs vA guUstine gs) SRC ATESSDiys5. 101-15 steno toler etedota\e ofelel cia levers cls faterstoneienaes
Seventeen year locusts in chestnut grove, effects of, ................00--
Sheep):in cultivated chestnut Orchards, 9 ect. (c «iene «c0s)e eine a > ais iels seers
Sheppard: Mir}; “Remarks, x. -2.s aces oes aye orci iw sb)0\eiche efoyerelerckal eo e¥areers cise
Smith, Dr. J- Russell> siiffect ofdrourght) on) treesivcj-iert> oisiel-n eters eines
Smith, Dr. J. Russell, Chestnut blight and constructive conservation,

Smith, Dr. J. Russell, Value of chestnuts for stock food, ............0....
Spaulding: cDrvePerley, sKemarks Dy, <cvclerei-tore cies teseovels ievenelebelc cote eerste ee
Spores, how. cartied( by. birds andevain:, 2 cts ercretovorsls cysts «falelecebevelc tele haieienenenote
Spores), ows sSpread ssi xc shovecials ac wre atts. svolerene ois custevoreves io Sielol oie ip toketotone tee eee
Spores; spread? by Aair Currents sa 7. Gavicw\ieleleis wile ven Siere fe souels. cteRotChanolie' follede one ronetee
Spores, -varying kinds; (06-7 455) cig se is cas-5 1630 ie so Teele olauo toate tole above RSS
Spores s svitalliitey- “OL; p> esd eusiaie sevaseys uel chevewavere avails a ial aba one ake veleyelicy chevelle rote teve ce eevee
Spring, .Mr:; Report upon blight in ‘Connecticut, 2a. .1- rise 2. ee ee
Sproul, Hon. WilliamiC] Remarks Dysey-seee oo nee coe
Spruce. moth or Num... ‘ravaces. QE, << <2 cicicccnese cme ace cieveievcu me Sysieie tenets oie aeeenenete
State and Federal control and investigations, ..........-..ssccceecccces
Stevens, 2. R.,. Remarks: bys 5 a%.-,<,<c0ciitewica sce oe ae eee a ee eee
Stewart, Prof. F. C., Controlling the chestnut bark disease, ............
Surface, “Prof, HH. -A.,. Bird) and jinsect Wife... =. seme eee aoe eee
Symptoms ofathe’ blights: «crew chwrce eo ee eeieeers S Webibis > Sige eee

T.

Tatt; President, ‘Isettersfrom;.%.;. cco. « wciere ts etetereteretaiereversters clas c nicie Cerone
FPANNIC “ACIG:» cic cvava fevers Share ie ate sieuskee ote ova endue acevo e aie re tean Sue) SCIRUS ele Vniol aveke ene eee
Taylor, William A., Report to Secretary Wilson upon the blight, ........
Tener, Gov, Opening Addressapya.- «ot =. «oie: siieraie fences wlehoveieus nlc tonseheieie ema eee
Mener, ‘Govy., (Closing addresssbyigc.- 10.5. .c 0 eisuenercbel susie ote c ote es toletelel eet oeeee

Temperature, effect of early growth,
TNemperature,, effect Cnmeermination., § vce atclapseisievetelslsiels ele cieicioierstete aie eee
Thalheimer, Av. “Remarks Dyj, sii. soidietereletocial eieiets Olelers syslewieracie ee eie ate aoe
Thalheimer, A., Observations upon insect life,
Thanks to Hon. R. A. Pearson, Chairman,
Theories regarding the chestnut blight,
Treatment.of diseased" treest 2 i oan nics ncaa Sei do eee
Treatment of individual trees,
Tree doctors, harm: ‘done’ Dy,- = wuss <d cciistesstev ccs pepenave otebeveletaheie sie esarere eee
Tree surgery in treatment of blight,
Trees, how grown from nuts,
Trees injured by insects,

S's [0 |e ajo, sul ses, ol oelele ellecp veel «ele sl», ©» ele) ules

ee

wie © © 0 '6)6 6 ese © sre = <0 60» © a 6 oe <ielale

o's) ele (ee, 0).e 0, 6.,0).0 © 8 4 0\ 60,0 6.8010 0,e als e.e eral

Sele acces © 6 6) s)u\ 6 ele) 6.00) .0) 016 00 6.0 6 «(6 © e 0) 00 alee ne hels

by eele fe e,es. visas) sev) 6s b\e).6 10>)» a) s isles) ols sie spike

8 [e pilese\\6 ode 00.8) eve is ei nie) eS. 6, 6 (elec) 6) e 0) ss ave le sun)? iene

Sin MOCMOMCMERUUILE. 11 EP CNUSY | VAMIGM Fates 's oil ats aiPierete winlb eiaidie ¢sy0 ale 'e doe ave/ee os.
PM NeCROLMOHESENIIU: DIMLDCTI 4) s.e5'< cre che s¥o1s/niciticlenls Rieter aiclajcis sat ae eisjaate/siciaisis ee
nL Om Oy amLT (i VACIIAN LUGO yw vis.2.sieterorcleia alot desea a ticles NoMivis oA alcis dies dleie sim tp) sc3
Mitalitveormoldasnores Of the DUSHt gs ya acts etetlcinessics cis tiem als ccs o.ee see's

NUL OTmemrua Gs TENOTt UpOm Me lArStUGICS si oi ate nis cve'eis' siglo <leisieio vss c cic visio o.4.0 ee
MMCHINELACONOILIONS Aiteching sDIIPM ts, tolecchs'emiwielerlescce\~ io ais 6 eis olevetors bicte’s Sie es
RVCHDEPL PMV ERIC VT NECOINGIDE Sal Vic i oreteysralefevase lava ciausiic, elalcvaleie.erere6.sjebe) Stele; e'pia(div aa
Weimer, E. A., Experiences in combating the blight, ..................
MAIO Tem eA ee RCIA ERGs ERG ed cna yers oto) sfaistelorelerel ete. eYevela¥cys «ace 6-0ia afore. ale 'gie © «yee
Wells, H. E., Report of special scouting operations in Lycoming county,

MUIIMCHEHUNMUAIN@ECNNSVIVATILAL, «= crelcsarsiele.cjac¢ svely 6 sfeiere ele ern e vie e's ht. cic dieyei0.e's
Walhams seri on. i. Cl.) Blight in forest. PreServeS, <0. ce-+siccccewsiccee
Williams, Hon. I. C., Pennsylvania’s effort to check blight, ..............
Williams. shone l. Co.) Naming. official) reporter, =~ « - sles .crec.0i00 2s cee esiaci sine
Williams, Hon. I. C., Best methods to combat blight, ...................
NWoisons clon. games, Wetter relating: to blight; 2.) << .cutccsiec ce sec cie mee clo
WIN MAD TeAGINe CHEStNUt PLM te. «.jcrevaiccore cratete telara"cis whe. cin, « Guotere sibseseim orto ale cts
Wioedpeckers and insects, relation’ to blight, °22. 2.6.0. s0000ccc0ccccccesce

PNG LOMMEVAT eI COMAT KM MD Nic is cusvelcrsvetel obeleisney Alevel a ois! Sees auecaehe fe teicoucp 9: sel evel ey tyeteielers

Re
eee,

a te

eeenee oe -avonunvavon. PRINTER 0 THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
. { :

ae ? » 7

nde BULLETIN, NO. 1.

NSYLVANIA ¢ CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION, 1112 MORRIS
BUILDING, PHILADELPHIA.

OCTOBER, 10185

.: MEANS OF
IDENTIFICATION, REMEDIES -
~ SUGGESTED AND NEED OF ~

CO-OPERATION to CONTROL
wees ERADICATE the Bee

iy ROU 0 OF INFECTED. chests 7 TREES IN SOUTHERN PENNSYLVANIA.
niet Met Sem a A . is
a : mat :

pF - HARRISBURG:

tease

seid

Ba’
7

Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

7

s

MEMBERS OF COMMISSION.

Winthrop “Sargent, ORatruion oie Mtn sees as ‘....Bryn Mawr.

Harold Peirce, Secretary, .........-... --: bars .- Haverford. 5 ee ee
Samuel T. Bodine, ......1-..2eeseeees: se yee Villa Nova.

George F. Craig, ........ ERIE aoa Beier Ne. . -Rosemont.

PHeEOd ove Nee FLY. slates) cree a end cimeree A ee Ue Ta .Bryn Mawr.

EXECUTIV E STAr P.
Mark Alfred Garictan’ General Manager.
-~Samuel B. Detwiler, General Superintendent.
Oliver D. Schock, Assistant to General Superintendent. ;
Thomas E. Francis, Field Manager, Western District. . en ees
Joseph R. Wilson, Field Manager, Eastern District.
David T. McCampbell, Chief Clerk.

r
4

Irvin C. Williams, (Pennsylvania State Forestiy Department Collaborator). —

SCIENTIFIC AND OPERATIVE STAFF.
Frederick D. Heald, Pathologist. .
J. P. Wentling, Forester in char ge of Utilization.
Paul J. Anderson, Field Pathologist.
Caroline Rumbold, Physiologist in charge of Tree Medication. —
Roy G. Pierce, Tree Surgeon. A
Keller E. Rockey, Forester in charge of Demonstration Work.

ee oe

BULLETIN NO. 1.

OCTOBER, 1912.

HE

Chestnut Blight Disease.

MEANS OF

IDENTIFICATION, REMEDIES
SUGGESTED AND NEED OF
CO-OPERATION to CONTROL
and ERADICATE the BLIGHT.

ISSUED BY

FHE COMMISSION FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND CONTROL OF
THE CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT DISEASE IN PENNSYLVANIA.

s

1112 Morris Building,
Philadelphia.

HARRISBURG:
¢. E. AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
1912.

NOTE:

The Commission for the Investigation and Control of the Chestnut
Tree Blight Diséase in Pennsylvania was authorized by an Act of
Assembly approved by Governor Tener, June 14, 1911.

This Commission, in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Forestry, is to ascertain, determine upon and adopt the most
efficient and practicable means for the prevention, control and eradi-
cation of a disease of the chestnut tree, commonly known as the
chestnut tree blight. It is authorized to conduct scientific investiga-
tions into the nature and cause of such disease, and the means of
preventing its introduction, continuance and further spread. The
Commission has power to establish, regulate, maintain and enforce
quarantine against the introduction and spread of such disease, and
from time to time, to adopt and prescribe such regulations and
methods of procedure as it may deem necessary and proper.

The Commission will cooperate with the owners of chestnut trees
to accomplish all of the purposes of the Act in every possible manner.

~ +461\g Xq payoegse Soe44 4nU,Sseus jo eboyUusousad
Peppcuipss Buimoys pliUupalAsuusy Yo doy,

: e a nt } SR eS ae ae
Hol tap. net vem iyi eee So) Wise Aw te
ey Psa , ANTI |)
axojade | {feuanos/ MAW
a " ‘
WALSVoONVI

a8 NO LONIHSVah

> / ONV TIYOWLSIA
Ss ~
Ae er a / /XNHOTIT.
mS Pe) \
~~. es / ire.
. aN , ae '
mY oc f i é = a
a of s ogi GES
” < = 2 6S &
4 S [ '
| > f f
iA e) ‘ f
a wating) & |
a1awval os os ;
a? eo) 2
| ? & — Nonivi9, tte \
i > . : q
ROG, tect waiowaN |
ee, ae % area ! —jODNWNIA
~~ \ r ™ ~~ Soy i |
NVAITINS\ : Ny. Lsauod Os ° |
1 fe} Pal
ail | | a Ly
y Nr. duOJAV UO F
\ * { , ay j
\ QYOddVYH | VOOIL | YaLlod = NVIaQYN iii ab cwe ements ease | |
ca . | | 2 ty a etl
we Gl _~ oe “rome ae eens oe ene cles a ORT Pf % |
. a
ol : zs Pe :
| a = a 4a = oe : a

THE CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT DISEASE.

THE DANGER

In 1904, Dr. H. W. Merkel first called attention to the disease
now known as the chestnut blight, which was then killing the chest-
nut trees in the Bronx Zoological Park in New York City.

At least two reliable observers have reported that they found
diseased chestnut trees on portions of Long Island, as early as 1595,
which had every appearance of suffering from the blight. There are
accounts of a general dying-out of chestnut trees in portions of the
South as early as 1824, and again in 1860, 1862, and 1878. It is
not known whether these troubles were due to a fungus, to the attacks
of some of the well-known insect enemies of the chestnut, or to other
causes. ;

During the summer of 1911, the authorities of the United States
Department of Agriculture and the officials of various States in-
vestigated the present extent of the ravages of the Chestnut Bark
Disease. It has radiated from New York as a center, and is now
known to occur from New Hampshire and eastern New York to
western Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. It is feared
that the disease will sweep through and destroy the great chestnut
forests of the South. The blight has virtually exterminated the
native chestnut trees on western Long Island, and in southwestern
Connecticut and northern New Jersey. An increasingly greater pro-
portion of uninfected trees is found as the distance from New York
City becomes greater. However, beyond the region of general infec-
tion there are centers of disease, sometimes of considerable extent,
where all, or almost all, of the chestnut trees are scen to be hope-
lessly affected.

In Southeastern Pennsylvania, the disease has affected a very high
percentage of the chestnut trees, large and small, and there is but
little hope of saving many of these trees in this region from future
destruction by the disease. The accompanying map of Pennsylvania
shows the badly infected territory and where the infection is scatter-
ing, as far as is known.

BOUNDARY LINE

The western boundary of the blight in Pennsylvania may be shown
approximately by a line drawn across the state from Susquehanna, in
Susquehanna County, southwest to Waterville, in Lycoming County,
thence to Orbisonia, in Huntingdon County, and southward along the
Tuscarora Mountains, in Fulton County. East of this, the blight

(1)

2
may be expected to be more or less abundant in any locality. There
are a few isolated infections beyond this line in the western half of
the State.
THE LOSS

If we take into consideration only the commercial value of the
timber products and nuts, it is safe to say that the blight has already
caused a loss of $7,000,000 in this State. If we consider the value
of the chestnut as a lawn and park tree and the value which such
trees give to real estate, the financial loss is certainly not less than
$3,000,000 more than that mentioned above. Yet this estimated
loss of ten millions of dollars in Pennsylvania is small when com-
pared with that which may occur throughout the entire country.
Dr. Haven Metcalf, U. S. Department of Agriculture, estimates the
present total loss caused by the disease as not less than twenty-five
million dollars, ($25,000,000). The rapid progress of the blight
through Pennsylvania and Maryland threatens the complete commer-
cial extermination of the chestnut, unless the disease is conquered
in a very short time. Few persons in eastern Pennsylvania realize
how rapid has been the progress of the blight, but to be convinced
ef this fact, it is only necessary for one to become familiar with this
disease and to closely examine the woods.

THE CAUSE

Many cases of supposed chestnut blight when investigated prove
to be dead or unhealthy trees that have suffered from insect attack,
lightning, or other common injuries. The real chestnut blight, more
properly known as the chestnut bark disease, or the chestnut canker
disease, is caused by a fungus, and is not, as some erroneously believe,
the work of an insect. It affects, in varying degrees, all kinds of
chestnuts, but pure strains of the Japanese chestnut have the power
of resisting the disease to a remarkable extent. The chinquapin is
killed by it, but, so far as is now known, living oaks and other trees
are not attacked by this fungus, although it has been found on dead
oaks and also on dead sumach.

THE BLIGHT

This fungus is a parasitic plant which resembles in many ways the
moulds that form on decaying food. It grows however, in the inte-
rior of the bark and not on its surface, and feeds on living tissues
instead of wholly on dead material, as do the moulds mentioned. It
may be described as consisting of great numbers of tiny threads,
which branch and grow in every direction through the bark. These
threads, collectively known as the mycelium, are so small that a single
one can be plainly seen only through a microscope; but they are so

3

numerous in the diseased bark that as mycelium, they may be seen
with the naked eye, clustered together in the form of small, buff-
colored, fan-like bodies when the bark is pared down. These fungal
threads feed in the living tissues of the bark and eventually grow into

living cells of the trees. After a time the fungus completely girdles
the tree, trunk or branch on which it is feeding. This causes the death
of that part above the girdled portion, much as if girdled with an axe.

When the fungus has grown for a time in the chestnut bark,
it develops on the surface of the latter a series of tiny, irregularly
dome-shaped protrusions, (called pustules), each rarely larger than
the head of a pin. These are the fruiting bodies which produce mil-
lions of sticky spores corresponding to seeds, and so tiny that they
can be seen only by means of a powerful microscope. On smooth,
young bark these pustules usually first appear as little reddish blis-
ters beneath the surface of the bark. The tops of these blisters
soon burst and the pustules appear as slightly raised spots covering
the surrounding dark colored bark. On somewhat older bark the
infected portions often, (though not always), become sunken as a
result of the destruction of the underlying tissue. On small branches,
especially young shoots, the infected portion is often abnormally
thickened and cracked, and of a brilliant reddish or orange color.

Two forms of spores are produced, as in many other fungi. During
and immediately following damp weather the mature pustules be-
come somewhat enlarged, and thrust out slender twisted threads or
“spore horns,” one-sixteenth to three-eighths of an inch in length,
and occasionally much longer. These are composed of the very
minute summer spores held together by mucilaginous matter. At
first, these threads are soft and jelly-like but they soon become hard,
and, when dry, brittle. The number of spores in one of these “spore
horns” is so great that a single one, a quarter of an inch long, has
been estimated to contain over five million individual spores.

The winter spores, (or ascospores), are more frequently produced
during the fall and winter and are larger and less numerous than
the summer spores. They are forced from the enclosing sacs in the
mature pustules in damp weather and may be very important factors
in spreading the disease.

DISSEMINATION

.
‘

”

the sapwood. Wherever they grow they cause the speedy death of the |

The blight usually appears first upon a tree here and there some ”

miles ahead of the general infection. Where these instances of in-
fection in regions ahead of the line of general advance are found, it
may be that the sticky spores of the fungus have been carried
on the feet of birds, particularly woodpeckers and other insectivorous
birds. When these spores are deposited on healthy trees they are

4

easily washed down over the surface of the bark by rains, perhaps
to lodge in a wormhole or other wound in the bark, where they can
develop into minute plants. From these isolated trees as centers,
the spores of these new plants can readily be distributed to surround-
ing trees by squirrels, birds, insects, ete.

It is not yet definitely determined what agency is most concerned
in distributing the spores, but it appears probable that insects are
closely connected with the progress of the disease. The sticky spores
are easily carried upon the legs and bodies of beetles and moths. So
far as is known at present, in order to cause an infection, the speres
must enter a wound or an abrasion in the bark, hence the boring in-
sects are especially harmful on account of the holes they make through
which the spores may enier. These holes are moist, and some of the
spores which wash down the trunk are likely to enter these damp
chambers and germinate. Ants, which are found crawling all over
trees, are known to have eaten the spores from the surface of the
fruiting bodies, and may thus have become effective agents for spread-
ing the disease from tree to tree in an infected locality. Several
other species of insects which affect chestnut trees appear abnormally
abundant, and their relation to the spread of the disease is now
being studied. Birds, as a factor in spreading the disease over longer
distances, have already been mentioned, but they are possibly also
effective in spreading the disease locally from tree to tree, by carry-
ing the sticky spores on their feet from infected branches to those
that are healthy. Woodpeckers, nuthatches, and other birds which
bore into the bark for insects have been observed visiting the blight
cankers. The wind blows many of the spores about, either mixed
The winter
spores are forced out of the pustules into the air and the wind also

with dust or as fragments of broken “spore horns.’

is a factor in their distribution. When the summer spores are in the
“horn” stage, or when fragments of a horn are carried to other trees,
the gelatinous mass is readily dissolved by the first rain, and the
spores washed down to Jower positions on the tree where new infec-
tions are staried.

Infection appears to take place only through a wound in the
bark. The fungus feeds on the inner and middle bark and usually
quickly girdles the trunk or branch on which it grows. A canker
three inches in diameter has been observed to develop in five weeks.
Small trees may die in a single season, and large ones are killed in
from two to four seasons after the blight attacks them. In the mean-
time, half, or perhaps nearly all, the nearby chestnut trees may be
expected to show the disease at some state of development.

Diseased logs, cord wood, bark, ete., hauled along publie highways
or on railroads, may carry the spores to new localities. Shipment
and planting of diseased chestnut nursery stock is another way in

Blighted and dead native chestnut trees seen along Section of infected bark showing summer spore
a popular drive near Philadelphia. threads.

A large area of disease pustules on a smooth-barked orchard tree.—Photograph
: by Prof. Collins.

Untreated orchard tree showing blight infection in upper branches.

or

which the disease may be widely scattered. Nursery stock shipped in
Pennsylvania, must in accordance with law, be previously examined
vend tagged by a duly appointed agent of the Chestnut Tree Blight
Commission,

The disease may be located and recognized by some, or occasionally
all, of the following characteristics:

1. Dead branches, usually with withered leaves clinging to them.
In the spring, prior to death, the leaves on the infected branches
remain small and sickly looking, and gradually take on a yellowish
tinge. When these leaves finally die, they have a peculiar wilted
appearance. The burrs also remain small and undeveloped. On the
branches attacked after the leaves have fully developed, the leaves as-
sume their yellowish or reddish-brown fall colors. On trees killed
by blight during the growing seasou, prior to September, both leaves
and burrs usually remain clinging to the branches during the follow-
ing winter, and at this time of the year are of great value in helping
to locate infected trees. The wilted and dying, or dead leaves, are
frequently the first intimation that the disease is present, and every
owner of chestnut timber should carefully investigate the cause of
dead branches in otherwise healthy trees, since these are the “danger
signals” of this disease. Branches may occasionally be killed by
worms of several kinds which burrow beneath the bark and girdle the
tree or branch, or they may be killed by some physical injury.

2. Cankers on diseased branches or on the trunk of smooth barked
trees. ‘These cankers are areas of dead, discolored and sunken bark,
often more or less broken by cracks or checks into the inner bark.
Old, thick bark does not change in outward appearance until a year
or more after it is diseased, when it begins to peel from the tree in
shreds. Prior to shredding, thick bark which is diseased gives forth
a peculiar hollow sound when struck. This is because of a space be-
tween the wood and bark caused by the decay of the inner bark. All
hollow sounding bark is not necessarily diseased, however.

3. Small wart-like eruptions, (pustules), which appear on cankers.
These pustules are of a bright sulphur, saffron, or orange-vellow which
darken with age and at maturity are a dark brown. On old or fur-
rowed bark the pustules form entirely in the crevices of the bark,
and if numerous, appear as orange or yellow lines. Sometimes, es-
pecially in damp weather in summer, the yellow threads which exude
from the pustules can be seen.

4. The mycelium of the fungus which occurs in small, irregular
fanshaped areas of a yellowish or buff color within the bark. As fur-
ther proof that a tree is diseased, shave off the surface of the sus-
picious looking bark, or cut slant-wise into it. If the cut shows the
mottled color and characteristic whitish irregular fans of the fungous
hycelium, the disease is present.

6

5. Suckers or water sprouts, which develop at the base cf the
cankers, or at the base of the diseased tree. They are frequently
very numerous, and grow vigorously for one or two seasons, after
which they are usually killed by the fungus.

However, to be absolutely certain, anyone suspecting the disease
should mail generous samples of the dead bark, (taking care te
include the area showing the pustules), to the Chestnut Blight Lab-
oratory, Zoology Building, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pa. for examination. ‘To prevent spread of infection, each specimen
should be wrapped in a separate paper or enclosed in a paper bag,
or a tight box, and securely wrapped for shipment. With each speci-
men there should be information as to where, when, and by whens
it was found, (including the post-office address of the sender.) Im
regions where the disease is just appearing, much assistance can
be given to the Chestnut Tree Blight Commission by reporting it im-
mediately and by sending specimens of suspected cases as directed
above.

TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL TREES

[experience has shown that it is difficult to save individual trees
after they have been atacked by blight. By special treatment of
individual trees, it is possible to greatly prolong their lives, or per-
haps save them, if the disease has not advanced too far when treat-
ment begins. The expense is greatly increased and the chances of
success are much more remote with large or old trees and particularly
borer infected trees. The details of the treatment of orchard and
shade trees is given in another circular, which may be had upon
application to the Commission,

THE REAL REMEDY

The only efficient means of combating the disease, so far as known,
is to cut down diseased trees and burn the infected portions, sinee
the spores and most of the fungal threads are in the bark; if the
diseased trees are cut down, barked, and all of the bark carefully
burned, and a strict watch kept for new cases of infection as they
occur, the disease will very probably be held in check. Great care
should be taken to burn all of the diseased bark from the infected
trees in order to destroy any infection that may be present.

In case the infection is on branches of trees of small size, it is
better to cut out the diseased portion and burn it entirely than te
waste time in saving the wood by peeling the bark. It is a good
plan to burn the refuse over the stump of the infected tree to pre-
vent possible future infection from this source. Stumps which have
not been burned should be completely peeled of their bark, and this
should be burned on nearby brush heaps. Even where perfectly
healthy chestnut trees are cut, it is recommended that these stumps

7

be peeled, since it has been found that many cases of infection In
sprouts originate from the bark of such old stumps. By destroying
the bark on stumps, and by promptly burning such portions of trees
as are not utilized, the insects which commonly breed in such material
are prevented from becoming abundant, and thus perhaps causing
a more rapid spread of the blight. The trees should be barked im-
niediately after they are felled and the bark and brush burned, with-
eut being moved further from the stump of the felled tree than is
absolutely necessary, since this moving always causes a scattering
ef spores, thus spreading the disease more widely. It is recom-
mended that the brush and debris on the ground be cut and piled,
prior to felling the diseased tree, in order to facilitate the complete
cleaning up of the diseased bark and branches after felling. That
such work may be successful, however, it is necessary that every
ewner of chestnut timber follow this plan of cutting the infected
trees and burning the bark as soon as they are found. A _ single
infected woodlot will re-infect surrounding woodlots, no matter how
carefully they are treated.

The Commission has established a quarantine line to prevent the
further westward spread of the disease. Spot infections are found
some miles in advance of the main line of infection. In a prompt
removal of these spot infections as they appear lies the hope of pro-
tecting the timber in these localities and to the west. It is quite
important that the people learn to know the characteristics of the
disease, so that new infections may be discovered and removed be-
fore the disease has spread generally.

UTILIZING CHESTNUT TIMBER

The blight problem in the southeastern part of the State, (see map),
or where the percentage of infection is very large, is mainly one of
utilization of the diseased trees. The advice given to owners is es-
sentially this:—Learn to recognize the blight and keep thoroughly
posted on the subject. Examine your chestnut timber thoroughly
end frequently. If you have timber that is infected, arrange to mar-
ket it at once, because a tree infected with the blight will die and the
lumber rapidly deteriorates after the tree is killed. Trees fit for tele-
phone and telegraph poles are not usually accepted for this purpose if
they have been affected with blight for more than one season. Cut all
trees that are at all infected. It would be wise to burn the bark that
is infected with the disease, and also the bark from the stump, to
prevent its spread to your own and your neighbors’ healthy timber.
Be very careful to extinguish your fires. Try to get your woods in
a better condition for future growth. Try at least to keep your
timber free from this disease, and interest your neighbors in doing

8

the same. Write to the Department of Forestry at Harrisburg, Pa.,
for valuable information regarding the planting and management of
your forest lands.

It is believed by many that extremely dry or cold and unfavorable
weather conditions have favored the growth of the fungus, and that it
will decline again naturally. It is also possible that some medicinal
remedy for the blight will be found for saving valuable individual
trees. No evidence, however, has yet appeared that the disease is
being checked through natural agencies, nor has any better or cheaper
method of control been proposed than the simple one of cutting out
and burning all the infected material, and in this way destroying the
sources of infection. Practical demonstrations of the cutting-out
method have given encouraging results, and strengthen the belief that
the bark disease may at least be controlled, if not eradicated by it, pro-
vided the owners of diseased trees in the region of scattered infection
co-operate in applying this measure promptly, and continue to do so
as the new infections appear. The co-operation of all owners is
the end to be desired. If each owner took care of his own trees, the
fight would be already wen. Do your part and explain the disease
and consequences to your neighbors and friends. The Pennsylvania
Chestnut Tree Blight Commission stands ready to give you any help
that it can.

DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS

Logs from infected trees may be converted into lumber, ties, cord
wood, ete., after the bark has been removed from the diseased per-
tions. Telephone poles, posts, etc., from diseased trees are not likely
to be a source of danger in spreading the fungus, provided the bark
has been removed. Much valuable material on the utilization of
chestnut has been compiled by the Commission for the benefit of
timber owners. If interested, write for full particulars.

THE LAW

Pennsylvania is the first State to attempt systematically to check
the progress of the blight. On June 14, 1911, Governor Tener signed
an Act which was passed by unanimous vote of both houses of the
Pennsylvania Legislature. The act provided for the creation of a
commission of five members, and gives them complete authority to
attack and destroy this disease by whatever method they may adopt.
It provides an appropriation of $25,000 for scientific investigations,
and $250,000 for field work. This law provides that the Commission
shall ascertain and adopt the most efficient and practical means for
the prevention, control and eradication of the chestnut blight. It
has the power to enforce quarantine against the disease. If the

9

owners of chestnut trees, when notified to remove the diseased speci-
mens, refuse to co-operate with the Commission, it is fully empowered
to do this work at the expense of the owner. (See note).

The Commission began its war on the blight in the latter part of
July, 1911, by placing in the field a force of scouts to locate the
diseased trees. During the present summer of 1912, the Commission
has in its employ about two hundred field agents and scouts to locate
infected trees, and see that they are removed under the proper condi-
tions.

A quarantine on chestnut stock was declared which prohibits
the shipment of nursery stock not bearing the Commission’s tag of
inspection. This certificate means that the stock has been inspected
in the nursery rows, and again after it has been dug. Diseased trees
are destroyed, and those which are apparently healthy are immersed
for several minutes in Bordeaux mixture or lime-sulphur wash, and
are then tagged by an inspector. Only a comparatively small amount
of chestnut stock was shipped by the nurseries during the past fall.

(1@)

OCTOBER, 1912.

Bi “ORNAMENTAL. ‘CHESTNUT TREE. A SCENE
slime ae ON MANY LAWNS.

:

A

See

7 ee 4

PENNSYLVANIA CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT COMMISSION»
‘ 1112 Morris Building, Philadelphia.

BULLETIN NO. 2. O CTOBER....., 1912.

TREATMENT OF ORNAMENTAL

CHESTNUT TREES

AFFECTED WITH

THE BLIGHT DISEASE

y. # - : a
SSS OD
is CES =

HARRISBURG:
0. B. AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
1912,

Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission.

MEMBERS OF COMMISSION.

MWANtOTOD Sargent, OGM, fe. vcr ccc ce > mise ce Bryn Mawr.
ETANOLOME CINCO HS CONEEONU: cicin sieve ae a vieie'sre cictain ss ole 5’! Haverford.
Re OTA TET e Deaee ESO LUT C yrr'te area agave orbiet Seats laters leis shaeieie oe.siay= tale Villa Nova.
Bree OMe CORALS a cas crecale stare sie eieleyorole.s Gis P.vaie scaeie'y ste Rosemont.
ERE GUOLO MIN EL Virire ts atopar tek ersit,o «eh ojs eleva eres duel ovildcereue brele ove Bryn Mawr.

EXECUTIVE STAFF.
Mark Alfred Carleton, General Manager.
Samuel B. Detwiler, General Superintendent.
Oliver D. Schock, Assistant to General Superintendent.
Thomas E. Francis, Field Manager, Western District.
Joseph R. Wilson, Field Manager, Eastern District.
David T. McCampbell, Chief Clerk.

Irvin C. Williams, (Pennsylvania State Forestry Department Collaborator).

SCIENTIFIC AND OPERATIVE STAF¥.
Frederick D. Heald, Pathologist.
J. P. Wentling, Forester in charge of Utilization.
Paul J. Anderson, Field Pathologist.
Caroline Rumbold, Physiologist in charge of Tree Medication.
Roy G. Pieree, Tree Surgeon.
Keller E. Rockey, Forester in charge of Demonstration Work.

NOTE.

The Commission for the Investigation and Control of the Chestnut
Tree Blight Disease in Pennsylvania was authorized by an Act of
Assembly approved by Governor Tener, June 14, 1911.

This Commission, in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Forestry, is to ascertain, determine upon and adopt the most
efficient and practicable means for the prevention, control and eradi-
cation of a disease of the chestnut tree, commonly known as the
chestnut tree blight. It is authorized to conduct scientific investiga-
tions into the nature and cause of such disease, and the means of
preventing its introduction, continuance and further spread. The
Commission has power to establish, regulate, maintain and enforce
quarantine against the introduction and spread of such disease, and
from time to time, to adopt and prescribe such regulations and
methods of precedure as it may deem necessary and proper.

The Commission will cooperate with the owners of chestnut trees
te accomplish all of the purposes of the Act in every possible manner.

TREATMENT OF ORNAMENTAL CHESTNUT TREES AFFECTED WITH THE
BLIGHT DISEASE.

This bulletin is intended as a guide for the treatment of individual
chestnut trees affected with blight, which on account of their value
as orchard trees or for decorative purposes warrant the expenditure
of considerable time and money for their preservation.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DISEASE

The blight disease is caused by a fungus which grows in the bark
and also in the outer layers of sapwood. Pustules (fruiting bodies)
are soon produced and grow through to the surface of the bark. On
old, rough-barked trees these pustules are borne in the crevices of the
bark. ‘The pustules, of a pinhead form, are orange-yellow or saffron
in color, and get darker with age, at maturity being a rusty brown.
The spores are of two kinds and are produced at nearly all seasons
of the year. They are disseminated through the agency of wind,
insects, birds, etc. The spores must reach the inner or middle bark
to cause an infection. Ordinarily they germinate very quickly, per-
haps in a few hours, or at most in a few days. The mycelium then
grows through the bark in all directions, developing a series of more
or less concentric rings, so that the lesion, or area of infection, has
a somewhat circular or oval shape. The rate of growth of the mycel-
ium depends upon weather and other conditions. It grows at all
seasons of the year, except in the coldest weather, when it is dor-
mant. In summer, especially in June and July, it is most rapid, as
a temperature of about 70 degrees and upwards seems best suited for
its development, but growth is less rapid if the weather is dry. In
July and August the trees bearing dead branches are especially
noticeable.

FAKE REMEDIES

A great number of so called “cures” for the blight have been ad-
vanced. In many cases the method of treatment shows that the
sponsor is either ignorant or unscrupulous, and in other cases the
work is done in such a haphazard fashion that it is entirely worth-
less.

A spray cannot penetrate beneath the bark where the disease is
working, and consequently is absolutely worthless as a remedy. It
may be possible, however, to find a toxic solution which can be in-
troduced in some way into the circulation of the tree which will
kill the fungus without killing the tree. The Pennsylvania Chestnut
Tree Blight Commission is carrying on a series of experiments with
this end in view, and it is hoped that some such remedy will be
found. It has been claimed that a proper application of ferti-
lizers will cure the disease. While it may be that a healthy, rapidly

(1)

»
growing tree is more resistant, observations seem to prove that soil
fertilization alone is not a cure. The principal remedies and treat-
ments advocated are being given a thorough test by this Commis-
sion, and should any of them be found successful, the public will be
so informed. At the present time, however, we can recommend noth-
ing but the treatment herein outlined, which will have to be carried
out thoroughly if any considerable degree of success is to be attained.

The work can be done by the owner himself in some cases, especially
if the trees are small or easily climbed. A good working knowledge
of the characteristics of the disease is essential, but the owner can
be sure when he does the work himself that the proper precautions
are taken. The owner should also make numerous examinations
after the first treatment is concluded, and should be in a position
to remove the incipent infections, when this can be done cheaply
and before the trees are much harmed.

TREATMENT

The treatment consists principaily in cutting away the infected
portions of the tree. The mycelium quickly discolors the bark and a
sharp line between the apparently healthy and infected bark is usually
seen. However, the mycelium penetrates into the apparently healthy
bark, and if possible, the cut should be made one inch or more beyond
the discolored area. The mycelium also works to some extent into the
sapwood below the discolored area, and three or more an-
nual layers of wood should be removed as well. The smaller
infected branches should be cut off one foot or more below the
canker, when possible. If these branches are cut off at
the base, flush with the tree, the wound will heal over more
quickly, and there is less danger of the trees becoming reinfected.
If the infection lies near the base of a branch, care should be
taken to see if any of the mycelium has grown into the trunk. A
gouge, chisel and mallet are the
proper tools for use in such work.
The gouge should be kept very
sharp, so that the tissues at the
edge of the cut are not unneces-
sarily bruised, and the healing
over of the wound thus delayed.
With good work the new growth
will start directly under the cut
and will often be visible in less
than a week, in the actively grow-
ing season. The new growth takes
place at the sides of the wound.
Three handy tools in tree surgery. Often above and below a_ broad

3

wound a triangular piece of bark will die. For this reason it
is advisable that the top and bottom of the scar be pointed rather
than abrupt or broadly rounded. A large percentage of the bark
of a vigorous, young tree can be removed if necessary, without
killing the tree. Portions can be cut away from all sides, and
the flow of sap will alter its course so as to follow the living
bark, It has been shown that this flow of sap under extraordinary
conditions will deviate from a longitudinal course fully 90 degrees.

The wounds should be painted with an antiseptic covering after
all traces of the mycelium are removed. This is to prevent the de
velopment of insect or fungous diseases, as well as the infectiom
by spores of the blight which may have lodged upon the wound,
and also to act as a waterproof covering for the wound. Very thick.
coal tar diluted with creosote to make it readily applicable is the
best combined antiseptic and cover that can be recommended and
should be used wherever possible. Other substances which ean
be used as antiseptics only are:

Corrosive sublimate (bichoride of mercury), in the proportion of
one part of the corrosive sublimate to one thousand parts of water.
Tablets of this poison are sold at all drug stores with directions as
to how much water to add to make the 1-1000 solution.

Formalin, 5% solution in water. This is also a poison and must be
used with care.

Either of the above antiseptics will kill any of the fungus with
which they come in contact. The cutting tools need not be dipped
in any solution to kill any spores which may adhere to them, pro-
vided the antiseptic is immediately and carefully applied to all
cut surfaces.

Waterproof coverings to follow as soon as antiseptic is dry:

Coal tar.
Lead paint.

Shellac, (of temporary value only unless renewed
often).

Or this Solution:
4. 1 gallon pine tar.
2 qts. rosin.
1 qt. linseed oil. Mix thoroughly.

wh

Iixtreme care should be taken to collect and burn every particle
of the wood and bark which was cut from the infected parts of the
(ree. This is important. The fungus will live in this bark for a
long time after being cut. It has been found that pieces of bark
cut from trees send out living spores after lying on the ground in
all kinds of weather for five months, and that fence rails and un-

4

barked logs used for building purposes have still shown the disease in
an active condition after a year or more. All underbrush, ete., should
be cleared from around the tree and the entire tree and the ground
directly under it sprayed with a lime-sulphur wash or other disin-
fectant.

After the treatment has been completed, there is danger from two
sources:—l. Some of the mycelium may have been overlooked and
left in the bark or wood. The edges of the wound should be closely
watched for sometime after the first treatment, and if re-infected,
should be promptly and more thoroughly cut away again. Unless
this is done it will be unwise or useless to spend money for the first
treatment. 2. The tree must be guarded against new infection.
For this reason if the tree is located in a region where the disease
is very prevalent, or if the tree is in an unhealthy condition and
presents many wounds which serve as entrances for spores, the
chances for success are smaller. All wounds should be covered dur-
ing the first treatment and every precaution taken to prevent un-
necessary wounds. The use of climbing irons on trees results in the
most dangerous type of wounds, and their use by any so-called
“tree doctors” should be sufficient reason for branding the men as
incompetent, ignorant or wilfully careless.

Spraying the trees at intervals for the purpose of preventing
re-infection will kill spores on the exterior and may be successful.
Lime-sulpbur or Bordeaux mixture may be used, and the work should
be done at intervals of about two (2) weeks during the spring and
summer, and, if possible, through the entire year.* Painting or
spraying the trunk and larger limbs with whitewash is also of some
apparent benefit, so far as tried. It is also advisable to apply a
coating of tree varnish or tree tangle-foot to the base of the trees
after spraying, to keep crawling insects off of the trees.

CASES WHERE THERE IS SMALL CHANCE OF SUCCESSFUL TREAT-
MENT

No such treatment can be recommended for forest trees on ac-
eount of the difficulty and expense attached to it. Even in the
treatment of orchard and lawn trees there is less likelihood of suc-
cess than usual in such instances as the following:

1. When the tree is very old or very large. Trees in time lose
their power of recuperation, and the wounds made in the course of
the work will not heal over readily. Experience has shown that trees
ever forty feet high are seldom treated with any beneficial results.

2. Where the disease has progressed over a large portion of the
trunk of the tree so that much of the bark will have to
be removed. If the trunk or a large branch is nearly girdled, the

*Complete and detailed directions for making Bordeaux Mixture and Lime-Sulphur solutions
will be found in Farmers’ Bulletin No. 243, which can be obtained free upon application to the
Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. O.

Bark and refuse material piled on infected stump for Chestnut stump after burning; sprouts will develop
burning. quickly. :

a=

7 7
we
.

r
4

a

=
‘
é i
®
.

5

treatment is apt to seriously weaken the tree. Before the work begins,
a careful inspection of the diseased areas should be made. Begin
at the base and thoroughly examine all portions to the tips of the
branches, for signs of blight unless the base is badly diseased, when
it will be useless to attempt to save the tree.

3. When the tree is in an unhealthy condition, due to borers or
wood rotting fungi. Trees having borer holes and bark wounds
present entrances for more spores of the blight and do not respond
to the treatment.

4. In localities where the blight is very prevalent and where
little is being done to fight it. There is little hope of saving a tree
when there are many trees in the vicinity producing millions of
spores.

FERTILIZERS
It is believed that a healthy, rapidly growing tree is less liable
to infection and will certainly recover better under treatment. It
is advisable to apply a fertilizer to the soil about the tree. The soil
should be treated a few feet further than is covered by the spread

of the crown of the tree. The fertilizer to be applied should contain
all the chemical elements in which the soil is deficient—nitrogen,

phosphorus, and potash are the most likely to be absent from or
deficient in the soil. A mixture of these three is advisable. The
following formula, which contains these three elements in readily
soluble form, is suggested:

Per 100 square feet:

4 oz. muriate potash (Potash-content 50%)

13 oz. nitrate soda (Nitrogen-content 15%)

14 oz. acid phosphate (Phosphorus-content 14%)
Per Acre

100 lbs. muriate potash (50%)
330 .” nitrate of soda (15%)
350 ” acid phosphate (14%)

It has also been suggested that an alkaline condition of the soil
may have some favorable influence in checking the blight. As a
remedy, lump (fresh burned) lime should be used, in quantities of
about 9 Ibs. per 100 square feet, or two (2) tons per acre. If used
with the above fertilizer, it should be applied either two weeks be-
fore or after—not at the same time.

SUSCEPTIBILITY AND IMMUNITY
All wild and cultivated varieties of American ‘and European
chestnuts seem to be susceptible to the blight, but not all to the
same degree. So far as can be ascertained, pure strains of Chinese,
Japanese and Korean chestnuts seem to be almost, if not quite,

6

immune to the blight. This applies, however, only to trees grown
from imported nuts or nursery stock. These trees hybridize very
readily with the native trees, and trees grown from seed produced in
this country appear to lose their power of immunity.

RECOGNIZING THE DISEASE

Owners of valuable chestnut trees in Pennsylvania should learn
at once to recognize all the symptoms of the blight, so that it may be
speedily detected as soon as it appears.

Briefly stated, the disease may be located and recognized by some
or all of the following characteristics:

1. Dead branches, usually with withered leaves clinging to them.
In the spring, prior to death, the leaves on the infected branches
remain small and sickly looking, and gradually take on a yellowish
tinge. When these leaves finally die, they have a peculiar wilted
appearance. The burrs also remain small and undeveloped. On
branches attacked after the leaves have fully developed, the leaves
assume their yellowish or reddish-brown fall colors. On trees killed
by blight during the growing season prior to September, both leaves
and burrs usually remain clinging to the branches through the fol-
lowing winter and are of great value in helping to locate infected
trees. All dead branches should be closely examined for further in-
dications of the disease, particularly at the base of the dead parts.

2. Cankers on diseased branches or the trunk, where the bark
is not thick and rough. These cankers are areas of dead, discolored,
sunken bark, often more or less broken by cracks or checks into the
inner bark. Old, thick bark does not change in outward appearance
until a year or so after it is diseased, when it begins to peel from the
tree in shreds. Prior to shredding, thick bark which is affected
gives forth a peculiar hollow sound when struck with a hammer,
due to a space between the wood and bark caused by the decay of
the inner bark.

38. Small reddish blisters appear on cankers on smooth bark.
Later the tops of these blisters burst, forming small, wartlike erup-
tions or pustules of a sulphur-yellow, orange, or brown color. In
the deep cracks of old bark, the pustules form reddish or orange-
colored lines. These pustules are the fruiting bodies which produce
the spores. During damp weather bright yellow, twisted threads of
the microscopic spores are sent out from the pustules. These threads
are jelly-like at first but on drying become firm and brittle. They vary
from one-sixteenth to half an inch in length, and are dissolved by the
rain, which distributes the spores down the surface of the bark.

7

The mycelium or vegetative portion of the fungus shows in small,
irregular, fan-shaped areas of yellowish or buff color, when the sur-
face of diseased bark is shaved off or cut slantwise. This is the
portion which produces the spore-bearing pustules, and also the part
that saps the life of the bark.

5. Death of tops of entire trees. These dead trees are often con-
spicuous because of the reddish-brown patches of bark, due to the pre-
sence of the pustules. In case the tree has been dead for a year or
more, the bark begins to peel off naturally in strips or shreds.

6. Suckers or water sprouts, which develop at the base of the
cankers or at the base of the diseased tree. They are frequently
very numerous for one or two seasons, after which they are usually
killed by the fungus.

If in doubt as to the existence of blight in your locality, communi-
cate with the Chestnut Tree Blight Commision, 1112 Morris Building,

Philadelphia, supplying all information of importance concerning
the matter.

'
- a s a =
° ee OE a er a Se ees se ee eee ee —

it

%

rin <

sh) bt
i

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

Te

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

a

|

r] vani ry Chestnut Bli ght

SB Pensy

608 Conference (1912 : He rrisbure,
chs Pa.)

P5 The Conference Called by the
1912 Governor of Pennsylvania to

Consi der ways and means for

preventing thc Spread of the
=
Chestnu it Tree Rark Disease

BioMed.

Essetteeestts

Seesereses

itt

iit

SEEDS:
sshetescse tearseaed

itt

st]
He

i

HSE SEES

SSE

pesrteisisss ss

Sauerietttasetrigee zs ees
aed aera at? pst ecsuitststscrestscseatstats
$ipisag tresatiees tisgest

Earstessestesessecsssasestasttattesirsseassterss

= = Sites
Rbcocretetetote Sct ceshea
baptecetsests

et eg ee ae
REESE TER Rin ane ERTS EES

cree
recat Sasst
5 peseacseasct

ssssszssstsess