THE CONFERENCE Called by the Governor of Pennsylvania to Consider Ways and Means for Preventing the Spread of the Chestnut Tree Bark Disease THE CAPITOL Chamber of the House of Representatives HARRISBURG - PENNSYLVANIA FEBRUARY 20 and 21, 1912 Stenographic Report of Proceedings of the Conference %eporled by GUILBERT & LEWIS 519 Land Title Building Philadelphia, Pa. HARRISBURG: O. E, AUGHINBAUGH, PRINTER TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 1912. I £ !fi>Ji!ii>li!ii!li>li!i;>i;>S FOREWORD. Tlie 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 'W'hich will incite greater interest in the earnest work now being undertaken in Penns^dvania and other States to prevent the fur- ther spread of this serious and destructive Chestnut Bark Dis- ease. New York, CJiainnan. ^^S^iS A^iit^^^^^ Pennsylvania , Secretaries. Maryland, (3) (4) OFFICIAL CALL FOR CONFERENCE. The Official Invitation for the Chestnut Tree Bark Disease Conference, issued by the Governor of Pennsylvania. ^le/l^^J^e^■9^^?r:^':^'?u^^t/Mfay?^e^yC€'rm (5) i (6) Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/conferencecalled01penn Map of Pennsylvania Showing Infected Zones and Percentage. 1. Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware and Phi'ladelohia counties, 80 per cent 2 Pike, Monroe, Carbon, Northampton, Lehigh, Berks, Lancaster and York counties' 50 per cent. 3. 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 tlie Governor, iu 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 j)urpose 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 x>roblem, and more specifically to ascer- tain the exact extent of the blight, and to devise ways and means 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 i^resented 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 G overnor, 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 tlieir borders. Pennsylvania's i)roblem is now or soon will become the problem of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ehode 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) (8) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAMME of THE CONFERENCE 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. (0) (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^ hy the Honorahle John K. Tener, Governor of Pennsylvania. Election of Permanent Chairman for the Conference. Election of Two Secretaries. Designation of Official Reporters. Appointment of a Committee on Resolutions. 2. Responses to the Governor's Address hy Delegates on Behalf of the States Represented. 3. "Historical Review and the Pathological Asj^ccts of the Chest- nut Bark Disease.'- A discourse and illustrated lecture by Dr. Haven Metcalf, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. (Dr. Metcalfs 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 he Controlled f By Prof. F. C. Stewart, N. Y. Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, N, Y. (11) 12 5. ^'Hoio Further Research May Increase the Efficiency of the Control of the Chestnut Bark Disease" By Prof. W. Howard Eankin, Cornell University, Itliaca, N. Y. G. "Recent Notes on the Chestnut Bark Disease." By Prof. H. E. Fulton, Division of Pathology, Pennsylva- nia State College. 7. "The Possihility of a Medicinal Remedy for Chestnut Blight." By Dr. Caroline Eumbokl, in cliarge of the Pennsylvania Chestnnt 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 F. 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 occasion, and will be shoAvn for the first time. 2. General Discussion. MORNING SESSION Wednesday, February 21, 9 o'clock, A. M. EliADICATION AND CONTKOL OF THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE. 1. "T/ie Pennsijlvania Programme." By Samuel B. Detwiler, Executive Ofiicer of the Peunsjd- vania Chestnut Tree Blight Commission. 2. Reports hy 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 j)apers on the advance pr6- gramme, others were read or formally presented as follows: 1. A paper on the "Botanical History of Diaporthe 'pnrasitica and Allied or Identical Fnngi," by Prof. W. G. Farlow, of Harvard University ; read by Prof. G. P. Clinton. 2. A paper on the "lielation of Insects to the Chestnnt Bark Disease," by Dr. A. D. Hopkins, of the Bnrean of En- tomology, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, and read by him. 3. A paper entitled "Chestnut Blight and its Possible Eemedy," 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 E. 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 OKDER 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 ontset, speaking for this Commonwealtli and less for myself personally, that we are gratified indeed at the splendid representation here to-day, bearing testimony to the great 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 3^ou 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 Avelcome to you, on behalf of our Commonwealth and our city, and also to suggest what might be proper for jowr 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) 10 3^011 may be able to arrive at before you leave us. We know that in conventions, Ave cannot exercise any governmental function; yet Ave A\'ant tliis to be something more than a "resolve to re- solve" meeting, and Ave hope that something really tangible Avill result from it. I have noted just a feAV things Avhich, as I stated before, I Avould 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 knoA\ai as the chestnut tree bark disease or the chestnut tree blight, A\iiich vs^as first detected in the neighborhood of NeAV York City about eight years ago, and has since spread to the Northeast as far as Eastern Massachu- setts, and to the SouthAvest 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 knoA\^n. 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 Avithin a tevi years very fcAV living A\ald chestnut trees Avill be found in America. It is, therefore, entirely in accord A^ath the American spirit that A\^e 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 ANild 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 A\^ood- lands, Avhich you Avill admit is a very Ioaa^ estimate, the value of the A^dld chestnut trees is at least forty millions of dollars. The best chestnut in the A^^orld 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 draAvn from these states. To date, the- W^^t lias 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- j)anies 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 Avill 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 Avith 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 onl}^ 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 imj)ortance, 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 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 witli 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 comj^letely. 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 Avould 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 Samuel 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. F. W. Besley, of Maryland and S. B. Detwiler, of Pennsylvania, to serve as secretaries of this Con- ference. The motion was put and unanimously carried. ; 19 THE GOVEENOE: 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. ME. I. C. WILLIAMS : I suggest the name of Mr. Victor G. Marquissee, who is here prepared to report the proceedings of this convention. THE GOVEENOE : 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 CHAIEMAN: Governor Tener, Ladies and Gentlemen: I api)reciate that it is a great honor to be asked to preside over 3^our 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 togetlier, 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 the}^ have begun has come to be known. Four months ago we held in the Capital city of New York, a Conference of mucli smaller i)r()])orti()ns than this, bnt 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 w(> liave 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 great 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 Avill 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 l)e 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 No. 35. Distribution of tlie chestuvit 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. 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. ME. S. M. ENTERLINE, of Pottsville, Pa: I would further add, Mr. Chairman, that tliese 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 appointment of a Committee on Resolutions. The motion was put and unanimously carried. THE CHAIRMi^N: 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 Governor'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 Avill 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 tlie proper time, to present to this Con- vention. I have 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 tLat we want in this Convention, to know everything that is loiown concerning the chestnut blight and from that to deduce our conclusions. In that respect I am prepared to present all that I know and my views on the subject, in order that the triith, if such is known, at present, may come out. THE CHAIKMAN: The District of Columbia. This in- cludes the Federal Department of Agriculture. Is Professor Collins in the room? PEOFESSOR J. FRANKLIN COLLINS, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. : I am not i^repared to make any remarks for the District of Columbia. I come from another direction. I 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 Experiment 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 qnes- tion to us than to sections Avhere the territory is entirely covered with the disease. THE CHAIEMAN : Massachusetts. PKOFESSOE F. ^V. EANE, 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 imjiossible to make arrangements. The Governor said it would be imi^ossible for liim 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. I am 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 CHAIEMAN : New York. GEORGE G. ATWOOD: Mr. Chairman, the State of New York appreciated very highly the honor extended by the invita- tion of the Governor to be here to-day, so as many as possible of the delegation accepted with i3leasure. 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 rcr quire. THE CHAIRMAN: North Carolina. (No response). Ohio. DR. xVUGUSTINE 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- 25 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 tliis 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 noAV 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 avoid 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 tliis 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 w^ould 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 Governor, 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 lie 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. I 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. 0. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is with very great regret, for many reasons, as you can imagine, that I 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 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 aroundi dead stub, the pustules being especially prominent. 29 Sunday. I have come here without mauy 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, I 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 I 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 I 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 i)ublished his findings upon it, naming the fungus which caused the trouble, Dia/porthe '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 Avarning 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 that sort, — a general discussion of the topic. This review will be, will necessarily liave 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 lie been able to be here. I think perhaps we may as Avell proceed to tlu; 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 cliestnut tree, a branch which is perhaps anywhere from three to six inches in diameter. The disease is a fungous disease, and starts its 30 growtli from a very miscroscopic, one-celled body, which we know as a si^ore. 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 j)oint 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. For 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 liere 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 o'^ three days after the rain has ceased, we shall find that these pustules, or fruiting No. 4. Surface section of chestnut bark, with pustules in the crevices. Lower illustration shows pustule greatly enlarged, from which three spore threads have been produced. 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 shoAvs 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 cliestnut. 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 ratlier characteristic area, wliich is not slioAvn as Avell in this view as it will be in another; but remember that this view at tlie 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 vieAV Avhich represents a brancli, from which the surface of the bark has been shaved in the same manner as in the last view, bnt 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 w^hether 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 lias radiated in all directions, tending to form the circular mass wliicli is sho1\'n here, running down there and across tlie bottom and of course off of the view entirely at the right. That is a grafted tree, by tlie 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 dQ in Aveathered 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 ]3ustules. 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-ba)kecl 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 hy shavins: the bark of a diseased branch. No. S. A large area of disease pustules on a smooth-barked orchard tree.- (jraijJi by Prof. Collins. -Photo- No. 9. x>^. ^. 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. — Pliotograpli hy Prof. Collins. No. 10. Bark shewing- pustules of a dark color or of a brownish tint, due to lons'er exposure to weather. — Photograph by Prof. Collins. -• ^-^m .xa»i.,;' No. 12. Diseased ches'nut tree sl'owiii';- shredded Irirk after two or three years in- fection.— /'liotofjrapJi hij Prof. Collins. 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. No. IG. A green-house cliestnut tree in pot, three mciitlis after artificial iiioculatiou with summer spores. Photograph by Brvirir. No. 17. Early effect of the disease upon young chestnut sprouts and nursery stock. No. IS. Characteristic withered and .v?l]owish leaves on chestnut twig infected with the disease. 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. No. 21. Leaves of the chestnut , showing' 1)rownish tint from eft'ect of girdling- by the disease. No. 22. Types of oi-namental chestnut trees killed by thousands. Note the small, diseased branches. Scene near Philadelphia, Pa. — Photograph hij Prof. Collins. No. 23. Very early stage; infection of twigs in top of trees, at upper right- hand side. Lancaster county, Penna. — Fliotogt aph by Prof. Collins. No. 24. Type of diseased chestnut tree on Long Island, New York, showing characteristic sprouts. — Photograph hy Prof. Col" 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 hy Prof. Collins. 1 • i W ^^A-^' t u^ c:''' X ^' y \ ■ "- \ '^SS^SkS^t ^ \ wf^ ^ iM^ ^l^j Jm^ 1 vf^'^'h ^ 1 ll No. 27. A chestnut tree on Long Island, New York, with sprouts at various points on the trunk. — Photograph lij Prof. Collins. No. 2.8. The chestnut tree in the centre of the picture shows four well-developed lesions. — Photogniph 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 pliologi'aph) ; the second, an infection of from two to three years old ; the third four or more years old ; and the fourth ahout three years old. Scene near Brooklyn, New York. — f'hofof/raph hy Prof. Collins. No. 30.' Dead chestnut trees along a boulevard near Richmond Hill, Xew York. Note healthy condition of trees of other species. — Photograph hy Prof. Collins. No. 31. Dead and dying sprout growth. Note healthj' condition of trees of other species. Scene at Port Jefferson, New York. Photograph by Prof. Collins. No. 32. The most southern point of infection — a group of diseased chestnut trees at Fontella, Bedford county, Virginia. — Photograph iy Prof. Collins. laiul. ^Nlanv >vo. o3. Complete destruction of chestnut trees in a nearlv imr( ..^,,„, of the trunks have lost their barl?. View in Forest Tark, near Brooklyn, New lork. — Photograph hy Prof. Collins. No. 34. Complete destruction of chestnut trees in a nearly pure stand. Many of the trunks have lost their bark. Scene in Forest Park, near Brooklyn, New York. — Photograph ty Prof. Collins. able to make out the individual little spots wliicli go to make up one of these common masses. The Avinter 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 waj^, 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 I mentioned the fact that, in tlie smaller twigs, we sometimes had an enlargement wlieii the disease was present, rather than a depression. Here 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 Avhich are less tlmn a half inch in diameter. It some- times occurs in larger branches, but as a rule Ave get it quite com- monly in this type of branch. No. 14. In the older trees, where the bark has become deeply furrowed, I said that Ave found the diseased pustules almost en- tirely in the cracks or crevices of the bark. This represents the surface, — greatly magnified, of course, and beyond what you might imagine, — and some of the furroAvs. We get the yellowish- orange pustules in the crevices there, and in various places, AA^hereas 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 34 moil point, down the trnnk, and around the trunk. When these portions of the disease which go around the trunk meet on the other side, we have a brancli or a trunk Avliich we speak of as girdled. 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. If it is the trnnk, 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 WAut 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 signaT' Avliich suggests where to look for the disease; for, if the disease has been going on \ery long, for a fcAv 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 tljan 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 35 with that stem is down here somewhere, doAVii below all these dead leaves. That applies to looking for the disease on the tree, or on the sprouts or snckers 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 j^ellow color. You will notice that the leaves wither after awhile; that is, they crumi)le up after a time and that crumpling is shown, to a certain extent, in this view; and also the yelloAV 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 wliich was shown three views back, this shoAving a larger view of the same thing. No. 21. Finally the leaf assumes a somewliat l)rownish 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 Avhich, 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 wliole 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 36 wliicli is so valuable in the large estates in tlie various States. This particular tree bad a circumference, above the settee which is there, of more than nineteen feet. The view Avas 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. I am sorry I do not have the other views to go with this, but through some slip somewhere the^^ were not forwarded to be shown. No. 23. Now we have a view in which the disease has a start up in this corner, and the discoloration of the leaves, or the masses 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 i^oint which is intended to be brougJit 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 buncli of si)routs appearing at this point, also 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 b}^ 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 have 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 your attention this particular tree (indicating), which shows four good lesions 37 of the disease, diseased spots, on the trunli 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 Ave have a tree which has only recently been killed, that is, within a 3^ear or so perhaps, and the next one to it is one which is a little older, and the bark has begun to peel olf. 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 Avill 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. 31. 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 becoming diseased, and shows the effect along the hedgerow that we get from this disease. No. 32. This is one of the most southern stations wliich 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. 33. If you want to see wliat 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 wlio liave been in Forest Park will prol)ably recognize that view. No. 34. The next view, I think, is another view of a little diiferent portion of tlie 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. 35. I want to call your attention to the distribntioii of the chestnut, and, to do so, I want to call ,yonr attention lo this map. 38 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, u\) through this region and up into the northwestern edge of Androscoggin county in Maine. In New Hampsliire and Vermont there are only a few chestnuts present, as compared with the region farther south. Down through here (pointing to the southern Alleglianies), we have our great chest- nut stand, particularly on the western slope of the mountains. In the State of Connecticut a bulletin w^hich 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 imj)ortance, 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 tlie ma^D represent varying de- grees of infection, until we come down to the line right here. (In- dicating). These vertical lines represent the a^^proximate limits of what you might call somewhat general infection. Tlie black spots which are shown there represent the outlying si)ots of infec- tion, so far as we knew them in Decend^er. Here is the line through Pennsylvania. The eastern part of Pennsylvania is pretty well infected witli the disease, and tlie 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. Haviug seen what this disease is and wliat it is* doing, we now come to the question A\liicli, T take it, we nre gathered here to 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, as 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- ease, 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- niediatel}^ Avhatever measures against the disease appear to be most promising, recognizing clearly that there is not time first to prove absolute efliciency. 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 tliat 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 tlie same situation. Tlie 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 l)est methods that we have, and leave the results to the futnre. (Applause). THE CHAIRMAN : I am snre 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 liour, as lie lias done, and favoring ns so gcneronsly. 40 PKOFESSOE SELBY: Mr. Chairman, would it not be proper for ns 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. I. 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 Controlled?" by Professor F. C. Stewart, of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station. CAN THE CHESTNUT BARK DISEASE BE CON- TROLLED? By PROF. F. C. STEWART, IJeio 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 j)ublic and, also, myself, impels me to proceed. I assume that you are all familiar with the method of control which has been recommended, namel}^, 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, you will become familiar with it before the close of this meeting. 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?" Tliis 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" tlie 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, conclude 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 evidence that the disease can be controlled. Apparently, the sole foundation for the optimis- tic statements made by Metcalf and Collins in Bulletin 467 is tlie 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 wlmt would liave 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 pi-inciples of experimentation. Weatlier con- ditions may liave been unfavorable for the spread of the disoiase. 42 Most fungous diseases liave 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 gToup 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 Avas WTiting his statement that the country within a radius of 35 miles of Washington was apparently free from the disease.^ 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 j)laces 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, liowever, that it is very difRcult 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. Noav does it seem pr()bnl)le 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? Keturning 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 difftcult 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, wliich 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 removed 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, wliich 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 tliis connection, please note tliat 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 soudiAvest of AVjishingloii. In fact, Melcjilf and Collins 4-4 say f "Observations made by the junior writer indicate tliat the disease may have been present in an orchard in Bedford county, Va,, as earl}^ 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 Avhen or where the disease may break out, and when conditions for its spread are favorable, a single diseased tree overlooked may start an uncontrollable epidemic wliicli 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. It 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 botli, making this epidemic j)0ssible. Just wiiat tliis may be I am unal)le 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 epidemic is Dr. Clinton's winter-and- drought-injury theory,'^ but even this seems insuflicieut in some respects. 45 It lias been asked "What then wonld jou have ns do? Stand idle while the disease destroys onr chestnut forests " My answer is this : It may be well to restrict the transportation of diseased nnrsery stock, but this is all that it is worth while to attempt at present in the line of combating the disease. It is het- tcr to attempt notJiiiif/ tluni to maste a large amount of public moitcij oil a method of control which there is every reason to he- lievc cannot succeed. I believe in being honest with the public and admitting frankly that we know of no way to control this disease. I favor 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. Tliere have been other epidemics, and other kinds of trees and l)lants 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 better to continue 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 Professor W. Howard Rankin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 1. Mctcalf, H. anrl Collins, J. F. The control of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A. Farmers' Bui. 467, 28 O. 1911. 2. Loc. cit. p. 11. 3. Reported by Dr. Mctcalf at a conference on the chestnut bark disease held in Albany, N. Y., October 19, 1911. 4. U. S. B'. A. Farmers' Bui. 467:11. 5. U. S. D. A. Farmers' Bui. 467:10. 6. Metcalf and Collins. The present status of the chestnut bark disease. U. S. D. A. Bur. Plant Indus. Bui. 141, Part V, p. 46. 30 S. 1909. 7. Clinton, G. P. Report of the Botanist, 1908. Conn. Exp. Sta. Rpt. of J907-J908: 879-890. July, 1909. 46 HOW FUKTHEK EESEAKCH MAY INCREASE THE EFFI- CIENCY OF THE CONTROL OF THE CHEST- NUT BARK DISEASE. BY PliOFESSOK W. HOWARD RANKIN, Vorncll University, Ithaca, N. Y. Mr. Cliairiiiau, Ladies and Geiitlemeii : U]) to this time investi- gations concerning the chestnut tree canker disease and the causal fungus have not brouglit 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 tlie 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 Avrit- ers have theorized on the different methods by which the conidia or suminer spores might be carried from one tree to another and a new infection started. Reasoning by analogy with what is known of the behavior of many fungi, such agencies as borers, birds, ants and the Avind, etc., have been suggested but in no Avise proved to be responsible. • It seems that the ascospore stage has not l)een considered b}' an^^ writer in the dissemination of the fungus, yet this stage follows the conidia very quickly and is the more abundant fruiting stage wliich is formed in the red or brown pustules on the surface of the cankers. Under moist conditions the ascosi^ores 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- tules 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 sliot 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 infec- 47 lions took i)lace last summer in the Hndson Eiver 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 agency 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 Avas necessary and thus obviate a great cost. Likewise the problem as to liow the present epidemical char- acters exhibited by the disease have come about is as far from solution as it was six years ago. Tlie 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 sliort preliminary examination made near Ly neb burg, although several specimens Avere collected on dead bark of stumps from which trees were cut about Iavo 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 cliange its susceptibility to tliis heretofore saprophytic fungus, or the fungus has developed a parasitic habit independent of any change in the host. Possibly, of course, both factors may liave 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- nture on the chestnut tree in connection with the production of susceptibility is highly important. 48 If tlie results of Dr. IMuiK-li on ilie cause of susceptibility aud iiiimuiiit}^ of forest trees to disease should prove true in the case of this disease also, Ave may hope to be able to control the bark disease in shade, lawn, and park trees, by keeping up the Avater content of the tree. Whether nursery stock serves to introduce the disease into neAv localities is an important problem to be determined by ob- servation and experiment. The present method of inspection and cutting out Avould be inefficient if the fungus lives commonly as a saproi^hyte at the base of the tree on dead bark and can at- tain a parasitic habit AAdth some slight change in AA^eather condi- tions. If, on the other hand, it exists only as a Avound parasite, then inspections A\^ould be possible and the cutting out method effective. HoAA'ever, Avith such jproblems as these undecided, no one can pronounce definite judgment upon the efficiency of the cutting out method. Once hoAvever, these facts are established, modifications may be made in the present method by Avhich its effectiveness may be insured at possiblj^ a loAver cost than can noAV be expected. The present method Avhich the Pennsylvania Commission has adopted of eradicating only spots A\diere the fungus is distinctly parasitic, can accomplish a great good in a sanitary AA^ay, and once sufficient facts are forthcoming, the method may be altered to suit our knoA^dedge and thus its efficiency assured. THE CHAIEMAN : The next paper, entitled "Eecent Notes on the Chestnut Bark Disease,"' Avill be delivered by Professor H. E. Fulton, Division of Pathology, Pennsylvania State College. ■ EECENT NOTES ON THE CHESTNUT BAEK 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 Avith a grave situation, and raises many questions of great importance. Most of these AAdll 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.— PJiotograpli hy Perley Spaulding. Large forest tree girdled at base, showing cliaracteristic growth of sprouts; near Richmond Hill, New York.— Photoyiaph by Prof. Collins. Large trees with some branches girdled. Note condition of the foliage. Scene at Westbury, New York. — Pliotograpli ly Prof. Collins. Large trees with some branches girdled. Note condition of foliage. Scene at Westbury, New York. — Photograph hy Prof. Collins. I Orchard chestnuts, (grafted varieties), nearly dead. Note sprouts on the trunks. Photograph hy Prof. Collins. '« is ''-Je A 1 '^ sl 14 m Si |# , ^§. ^ H ^- #' '1 ^M ^rfffm • * ^ « m BiVPHT^ w^^ fBM>" -x. '^ '« ^^ % r, ^^I^^hHS^B^^^^E^^^'' • -i« %fl && ♦^'i ■'c'."'l55 #^v . Orchard chestnut with limb girdled by twig-girdling borer. Easily mistaken at a short distance for chestnut bark disease. — Photograph hy 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. — l^hotofjniph by Prof. Collins. Example of tree surgery, showing healing process after cutting out cankers in treatment of orchard trees. Will prolong life of tree. — Photograph hy Prof. Collins. Chestunt 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-band limb, and the healthy lower branches with normal leaves. Scene at Rawlinsville, Penua. — I'hoiograph hij Prof. Collins. Early stage of infection in an orchard tree ; note girdled twigs with withered leaves at top. Scene in Lancaster county, Penna. — Photograph hy 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. — Photofiraph hij Prof. Collins. ^^^ \ 1 \ Jr r< ^^ L fc^ 4 ^ f ^< tl 1 1 ^ " / M Bm^S^ r ^^ ^ ^WM 11/ ^^ ri- ^.' ^^^fc l:Q 1 1 « 'S^ii^P^^^ ^E. ^^^ M^-«* gJ'^; f ^- 1 *: ^'''"^^BPIB ^^g ^^ C:..: ^^g^-'A^saK' ''■'■^■fi.v ■ r .,:.^jl^^-^-. .:,# ^1%; ^i^ ^s^^? 2 :r? Ss 5ii«>' i;',7. ^ • ;. ,.«>S»avX>,fst>5; ■ -. .:^, 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. — Flioiograph hy Prof. Collins. Small orchard chestnut nearlj- dead. — Photograph hij Prof. Collins. A djdng 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. 41) the spread of this disease? Is it worth while doing so? What are the best methods to use While no one, perhaps, will ven- ture 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 tlie 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 undtr United State jurisdiction, as notable examples of success that hafe 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 foot 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 very 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 a time. Is it that there are factors involved, aside from administrative difficulties, tliat are not found in the many 4 50 fmigoii.s diseases that affect our crops, — less spectacular in tlieir working, but none the less damaging in their elTects? 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 organism, Diaporthe parasitica. For 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, (3) 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. AVe 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 lial)le to attack by the fungus, which qualities maj'- be inherent or possibly induced by environ- UKMital 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 , Eealiziiig ibe 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- l^lete 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 Executive 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 OP 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 dr^^, 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 Avas then squeezed out in sterile water ; this was centrif uged, 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 spra}^ played over the material. The test will have to be carried further before quantitative results can be given. It seems likely tliat 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 donbtless vary with the conditions nnder 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 F. 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, etc. 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 dji^tinctly less rapidly at temperatures 10 degrees above or below this point. Ascospores germinate best at a temperature of about 70 degrees F., but a good percentage of germination occurs at 85 degrees F. and 45 degrees F. 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. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON EARLY 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 38 degrees F., the growth is about one spore length the first day, and 15 times this in five days. 53 GROWTH ON OTHER MATERIALS THAN CHESTNUT. lu tlie laboratory the fuugus 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. E. Guyer, agent of the Pennsylvania Commission, which bark had been killed by fire pre- vious to its observation, and sxlu^\e : pustules of what seemed to be DiajjorthG parasitica. Careful microscopic examination show- ed that the morphological features corres^Donded closely to those of DiciportUe parasitica, as did also the growth of the fungous in artificial culture. Eed oak twigs killed by steaming in the process of sterilization, were readily infected by DiaportJie parasitica ob- tained froin 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 j)resent evidence, that Diapor- the parasitica may, under unusual circumstances, establish itself sajorophytically on portions of trees outside the genus Castanea, 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 w^ere 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 tlie bark near by, wiien tested, gave good germination of spores. Probably the bark infection, which seemed to date far back, existed at the time of the stroke, aud the fungus spread from this to the shattered wood, tlie liglituiiig presumably not having killed the fungus in tbe vicinity. 54 DEVELOPMENT IN SAPWOOD AND HEARTWOOD. Where a seetiou of a large infected branch was kept in a moist atmosphere constantly, an-abnndant 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, unligui- 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. E. 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-live 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 tAvo 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 two 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 wpre 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 Haverf ord 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 sometliiiig, perhaps, of the rapidity of the spread ol the disease, where observations were made upon that point. 55 Out of 18 sprouts showing two lesions, 13 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 very few in rather o^Den 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 45.3 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 13 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. Onl3^ eight trees larger than seven inches in diameter sliOAved 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 tlie oldest ones the pustules were usually dark and in the ascus 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 Avoodpecker 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 tliem. These Avere mainly a species of Leptura. Of the youngest lesions, al)out (wo-fifilis s1i()W(m1 larvae in or near them; and in all cases 56 there were about twice as maii}^ larvae in as near the lesions. It would seem that these usuallj^ 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 Avork. 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 tliis State the fight is on, and it is the part of all good citizens to co- operate in the work that is being done. (Applause). THE CHAIRMAN : Dr. Caroline Rumbold, who is in cliarge 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. i)t THE POSSIBILITY OF A MEDICINAL REMEDY FOR CHEST1>IUT BLIGHT. BY DR. CAROLINE RUMBOLD, IN CHARGE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT GOaLVIlSSION'S LABORATORY. Mr. Cliairmaii, Ladies and Gentlemen: Altliougli in the pro- gramme, tlie title of my remarks lias been given as the ijossibility of a medicinal remedy for chestnut blight, I much prefer to con- fine mj^self to a question of medicinal treatment as I believe it would limit me too much were I to try to discuss a remedy, a cure-all, one might say, Avlien 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 Avork is with individual trees. The question of medicinal treatment should be considered broadly from two sides. Firstly, 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- ment. 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 to whether or not droughts of recent years are partially responsible for the Sjoread 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 atmosphere and soil. These experiments may also throw some ligiit on the report that the blight spreads rapidly where trees are in a crowded co^^pice, 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. I 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 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 Avork 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 ascosjDores 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. For 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 lias been recently completed, in which a number of small cliestnut trees are now growing. THE CHAIRMAN: Tlie next paper is entitled "Treatment of Individual Trees," by Professor J. Franklin Collins, United States Department of Agriculture. no TKEATMENT OF ORCHARD AND ORNAMENTAL TREES. BY TROFESSOR J. FRANKLIN COLLINS, U. S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr, Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : For the purpose of call- ing your attention to one or two points that I want to emphasize as a preliminary to my main toi3ic, I will quote the opening para- graphs of a story published in the fall of 1910 in a well known I)oi)ular 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 programme, 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 witli 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 tliere was something the matter witli them. TIovv much will it cost?' 'Let's see,' mnsed tlie tree-doctor. 'Eleven trees, two dollars apiece. Well, I'll make it twenty dollars for the lot. Tiiey're worth more than that to you, ain't they ?' GO 'I should say they were/ said the owner of the estate. 'My husband said before he died that he wouldn't take five hundred dollars for that big chestnut out in front there. I will willingly 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 liave 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 enlmnced by its location with reference to the house, and even more largely, at times, by historic or ancestral traditions with which it may have been, long since, associated. The value placed by the owner of the estate upon such tree may occasion- ally be almost without limit. 61 The very fact tluit the tree is of iiiueh 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 ai^plied to ornamental trees tliat would not for a moment be considered in connection with a tree in the forest. At tlie very beginning of the experimental work undertaken by the United States Department 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 cojitrolling 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- sira,ble end though perhaps not on a ygyy encouraging economic basis, as such a basis is usually figured. I want to call your attention to some of these facts, as well as to the bearing that they may have upon control work of tliis 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 lias l)eeii fully described in Farmer's iUilleliii No. 467, of the United States Dei^artment of Agriculture, and need not be considered in its entirety here. For this work the most essential imi^lements 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 sj)ot in the bark is located, it is carefully cut out Avith 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 scru]3ulously sharp. If it is dull, the pressure required in forcing it through the bark will invari- ably result in sojne 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- gin 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, etc. ; 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 i! ever would under perfectly normal conditions. By using a sharp gouge and promptly covering the cut edges, we have many times liad 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 iliHeii-ssiiig the poHsibilities pro aiul con of controlling tbe disease on inclividnal trees after it has become established, there are many factors that slionld be clearly nnderstood and carefully considered. It should be determined just what bearing each Avill 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. From 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, ut 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 x^resent 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, esj)ecially 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 pa^^er which I will now present. PAPER BY PROFESSOR W. G. FARLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, MASSACHUSETTS. The cause of the disease of chestnut trees j)revalent in our Eastern 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 tlie fungus, but we should see whether we may not get some practical suggestions from what has been written in regard to the distribution and j)athological action of fungi which are most nearly related to our chestnut fungus. The first question Ave 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 ijotato 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 Diaportfie para- sitica is not a si)ecies 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 Avell 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 iDast on fungi found on chestnut trees in different countries, and a review of what is known to mycologists in this connection may be instruc- tive although, it must be admitted, the subject is not yerj easy to follow. On account of dried specimens in the older herbaria and a summary of the often obscure and conflcting descriiDtions to be found in old treatises, even if desx^erately dull, will enable us to form certain practical conclusions. When I first received fresh specimens of the fruiting fungus of the chestnut tree I Avas struck by their great resemblance to what is generally known in American herbaria as Endotliia gi/rosa. 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 l)e 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 jS'o. 986, First Series of the Erhario Crittogamico Italiana, issued in 18G3. 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 Endotliia radicalism but the question of the name need not be considered at present. As otlier botanists have examined the specimen just mentioned and agree as to the identity of the Endotliia radicalis and the Diaporthe parasi- tica, some having already expressed tlieir opinion in print, we may state definitely that our American chestnut tree fungus does not appear to be new l)ut to have been known on chestimts in Italy fifty years ago. 72 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 Rn- dolphi in Linnaea, 1829, where the Endothia is said to grow on Quercus Ilex, Q. pubeas and Castauea 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 rej)resented 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 Mj^cotheca 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 Endothia gyrosa. It is said to grow on" Aesculus, Alnus, Carpinus, Castauea, 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 France. In 1830 Fries stated in Linnaea that he had received it from that country and Tnlasne 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 En- dothia grew on different deciduous trees in Germany. The records of the fungus in France and Gerinany are less satisfac- tory than its record in Italy, and the specimens distributed from the former countries in exsiccati are few and poor. From this rather long account of the history of the chestnut fungus in Europe, Ave 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 l)ranclies, and dead roots, rather than on living branches, and the hosts on wliich it is said to grow 73 are not merely cliestnuts 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 r^ecord 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 aj^pearance of the present epidemic, Ave could understand wliy 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 si:)ecies but consider it to be the same as Spliaeria radical is 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 S. radicaUs, Schweinitz had in 1822 described a ^plmeria 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 aS'. gyrosa and S. radicaUs as two distinct species, apparently basing their opinion on the fact that Fries placed the two in different sections of the old genus Hpliacria 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 cpiite possibly correct, but the (piestion can be settled definitely only by an examination of original Schweinit- zian specimens. Thanks to the kindness of Dr. SteAvartson Brown I have been alloAved to examine the specimens in the SchAveiiiitzian Herbai-iuiii in the Academy of Nnliii-al Sciences 74 in Pliiladelpliia, and I liave also examined Scliweinitzian speci- mens in the Curtis Herbarium at Harvard. Unfortunately I have not as yet succeeded in finding a Schweinitzian specimen of aS, 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 ^. gyrosa are com- mon in American herbaria and have frequently been distributed in diilerent sets of exsiccati. Unfortunately of the considerable iiumber of specimens I have examined, the greater part were sterile although judging by the habit alone, they might very well be aS'. gyrosa. I have, however, seen no specimens in the older American herbaria where the fungus supposed to be ^. 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 Endothia gyrosa. An examination of a number of fertile specimens on oak from different localities, hav- ing all the appearance of being E. 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 hardl}^ half the diameter of those of the chest- nut and the spores are nearly linear. Naturally no definite ac- 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 /?. 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 ^. 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 tliat on chestnut in Italy collected by Daldini in 18G2 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 liave found no speci- men of Endothia on chestuut in North America. Tliere is, how- 75 ever, an EDdothia 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 I have examined, than the form with nar- row, linear spores. DE. 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 I tliink the time has come for adjournment. THE CHAIRMAN: That f^eems an excellent ^Hsuggestion. 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 i)resent 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. EVENING 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 tliat we had expected to hear at the close of the afternoon session, by Professor Clin- ton. (Ai)plause). SOME FACTS AND THEORIES CONCERNING CHEST- NUT BT.IGHT. BY PROrESSOR GEORGE P. CLINTON, BOTANIST, AGRTGITETTTRAL EX- PERIMENT STATION, CONNECTICUT. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: — At a recent meetijig of tlie Auierican Pliyt<»])iini<)l()gical So- 7G ciety held in Washington, D. C, dnriug a discnssiou of tlie 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). Tbat 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. (G). That there will in time be a decline in its prominence due to natural conditions. (7). Unpublished — by wliich was meant that the fungus oc- curs in Europe. I propose here to discuss some of these predictions, thus giv- ing my reasons for j^resenting 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, api)arently 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 witli the disappearance of tlie fac- tors that have favored its rise into prominence. Between these two extremes there are those wlio 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 u]>on the nature of the fungus and the manner of its appear- 77. auce iu this country depend in large nieasiire the practicability or impracticability of the only method now advocated for its control, namely, the cutting out and destruction of the diseased trees. Before proceeding to a discussion of the reasons why I 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 arc as follows : (1). Tlie trouble appeared suddenly and seriously, and as it is unusual for a fungus thus to spring up in a country where it lias never been known before, it is presumably an imported one. (2). But such a serious disease of chestnuts has never been known before in anj^ 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 shoAvn considerable immnnitj 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 knoAvn 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 tlirough 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 can 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 tlie gypsy inotli work in Massaeliiisetts, to prevent re-infec- tion. If the above points, however, are not trne, it seems to me, at least, that the efforts for control planned for this iState will be time, money and. trees thrown away. The antlior of the first view has not, to my knowledge, claimed that the chestnnt blight was imported from Europe, or that the European chestnuts in this country are especially immune to the disease. If he should ever advocate that it is a European 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 develox^ment of tlie fungus. Proceeding now^ to my own theory, let me take it up jjoint by point. First, that the chestnut blight is a native of this country. In 1909 I sent to Professor FarloAV, of Harvard University, the first specimen of Dlaportlic piirasiUca that he had examined, and asked his opinion as to whether or not it Avas 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 Avith the genus Endothia than Avitli Dia- porthe, and that it was closely related to, but apparently dis- tinct from, Endothia gyrosa. Endothia rjyrosa Avas originally described from Carolina and Pennsylvania by SchAveinitz as kiphaeriu radlcaUs and ^phaeria 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. AVith the clue furnished by Professor FarloAV, I found and so stilted in my 1908 report, that a specimen of Endothia 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 pycnidial stage (the only stage present in my speci- men) Avere concerned, I could not distinguish it from DiaportJie parasitica Murr. As the ascospore stage was not present, I did not venture to claim that they were the same species. 79 The Avriter Las since made a careful limit for Endothla (jyrosa and has specimens of it on two species of oak collected in Con- necticut and the District of Columbia. Cultures have been made of these, and from DiaportJte parasitica on chestnut obtained from the same localities. Our studies of these cultures and specimens from various localities are not yet complete, but they have gone far enough to say definitely that DiaportJie parasitwa belongs in the same genus with the Endothia gyrosa on oak, and at least is very closely related to it, though at present my opinion is that they are distinct species. ]*rofessor 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 Endothia 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 opxDortunities for investi- gation along this line. If it is ever proved that our Endothia gyrosa on the oak is exactly the same as Diaporf^ie parasitica on the chestnut, of course it is at once apparent that Diaporthe para- sitica is a native and not an imx^orted fungus. A second observation that leads me to believe that l)iaporlJic 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 Endothia gyrosa occurs on oak here and elsewhere, and is also the way that tlie so-called En- 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 Endothia gyrosa in Europe and in this country, In Europe Endothia gyrosa has been re- 80 ported on chestnut, oak and various other liosts in different plaees, bnt apparently the natural home of the fungus is South- 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 Endothia 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 Endothia 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 pycnidial stage, though this is the time of j^ear to find the asco-stage. En- dothia gyrosa has been found on as manj^ hosts in this country as in Europe, 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 deThiieman'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 Hoh- nel simultaneouslj^ recognized that DiaportJie imrasitica Murr. is the same thing as Endothia 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 rTnrrisbnvg conference llio «'ril!M' went South espechilly to see if Enrlntliia Oiirosa or Diaporthie parasilira occnrred there on cheslmit, as suggeisted in tliis paper, though never having been so reported. Stops were naade at Eonnnl;c and Blaclfsbnrg, Va. , Bristol. Va., and in Ten- nessee and at Asheville and Tryon, North Carolina, and Lynchbnrg, 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 as a languishing parasite or as a saprophyte, usually at the base or on the roots of the trees, and was never found forming isolated cankers on the otherwise sound sprouts, as is Diapnrtlie 'pnraaitica in the North. Apparently this fungus is the same on both the oak and chestnut, and the same thing as the so-called Entlotliia f/i/rosa on the same hosts in Europe. What its exact relationship is to Diaportha parasilica has not yet been fully determined. In gross ap- pearance its fruiting pustules are scarcely different, except possibly slightly less luxuriant, as a rule. Its pycnidial spores or Cytospora stage is apparently identical with that of D. para- siiica, hut the asco-spores are evidejitly as a whole less luxuriant: that is, they are somewhat smaller, and especially slightly narrower. Whether these differences are those of a strain, variety, or distinct species, is yet to be determined by cultures, inoculations, ^.pd furthep study. 81 Tlie third iDoiut in my tlieor}^ is tliat weatlier 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- perimeut 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). Since 1907, speaking i)articularly for Connecticut, we have had five summers with unusual periods of drought, culmi- nating with that of last season, wliich 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 case 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 tliem 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 out- breaks-of the blight, while the trees on the more protected north- ern exposures in the same vicinity did not. (3). 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 sturdy old scedliug trees. How many times we can renew our cliestiiut 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 alreadj^ been cut over at least two or three times. (4). The unusual spread of the disease iu 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 controlled 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 healtliy 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, however, 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 ^^^nrs' trial. Now as to my last contention : that the disease of itself will gradually 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 aggressive parasite, favorable weather conditions for the chest- 83 luit Avill of course bring about the decline of the fungus, unless it has already attained an unusual and lasting virulence fronof its present aggressiveness. Tliat chestnuts have in the past in our southern States suffered 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 Potomac 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 F. 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: I 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. I wish to show you to-night what has been done in spite of ene- 84 mies, by Mr. C. K. Sober, who Las l)een working with the Para- gon chestnut since 1896 and 1897. In 1896 Mr. Sober began to graft 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 Holcocera, and has been named, in honor of Mr. Sober, Eolcocera Soherii. 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 tlie chestnut trees noAV 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 thestuut. 85 Some could be used, of course, for pulp wood ; but notice, among the old stumi^s, there are a few sprouts coming up. These are sj)routs of the native chestnut, and it Avas upon tiiese si^routs 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 rei)resents a distance of over a mile. In the next view, as we approach the farm, coming near to the buildings, jou can see the nature of the surrounding country, the hillside. Back in the centre of the i)icture, 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 tlie 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. Tliis is a i)ortion 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 iiard 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 sliow yon tlie various stages as we pass along. As we enter tlie grove, it is liarvest time, as shoAvn in tin's view. They are gathering tlie nuts, which have been placed in bags at this particular portion, so thnt we are just entering the grove. 86 In tlie next view, the largest tree at the right is about nine years old. Eeallj the work from 189G until 1900 consisted in experimenting. AMien 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 shoAVS 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 I 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 cut. This shows auother tree from AAiiich four sprouts were grafted. This was grafted iu 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 nii-o iiie 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 j^ear's growth. Notice- it makes a fan-shaj)ed 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 3'^ear 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 Avith 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 tlie stock so early tliat the union wouhl 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 tlie grove. 88 This view shows a Avedge graft, one of the original ones, that did grow. This i^hotograph, I think, was tal^eu in 1903, but only about two per cent, of the grafts in 1897, 98, and 99 lived, so that there are onl}^ 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, Avrapped with wax and covered with the cloth. This method, however, Avas 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 dex)tli. 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 tbe 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 an'd 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 tlie 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 sliows a througli section, sliowing the complete union. Here is the tongue which held tliem together; and here is another section through. Occasionally they decay at that point. This shows a perfect union of the whip graft. 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 y keeping them clean, liowever, 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, — millions, I suppose, — came out. This is one view, which I took looking np, pointing the camera into the tree. These are the empty skins of the chrj^salides 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 tree. A tree trimmed in 1910, in 1911 had no bearing wood on it ; a loss of the nuts, 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 in 1906 and the i)hotograpli was taken in 1910. They are slow in healing np, 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 9G the time tlie cliestiiut blossoms, a little motli 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 Soherii. 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. I 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 tlu^y are allowed to stand for a time spores of various moulds get into them and the nuts soon rot entirely. In this case tliis nut shown has cracked Ojpen, 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. I do not know whether it is a good 07 X^lan 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 weevils. 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 w^eevil, 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 grubs of the Belunius. This view shows them maturing. In this one there Avere .as many as thirty larvae. This view shows them in different stages ; they are practically mature. When tliey 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 sliows six of them taken in July. In about two weeks they mature. Tlie 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 aAvay last fall three hundred bnshels 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 wliat 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, Avill 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 jDlanted 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, tAVo 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 growth, 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- casionally they will live, but the others soon grow and catch up with them. Now Ave will go to the barn and get onr horse and go back to the station at Paxinos. Good night. (Applause). DE. MICKLEBO.ROUGII : AVill you permit a question? THE CHAIRMAN: We will. DR. MICKLEBOROUGH : I A^ ould like to ask the Rrofessor if the blight has a^Dpeared in the Irish A^alley? 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 beeta appointed. ' The committee as made up, is as follows: Ex-officio, Raymond A. Pearson, Chairman of the Conference. Maine, Charles E. Lewis. New Hampshire, Philip W. Ayres. Massachusetts, F. W. Rane. Rhode Island, Jesse B. Mowry. Connecticut, George P. Clinton. New York, G. G. Atwood, H. P. Marshall, George L. Barrus. New Jersey, Melville T. Cook. Pennsylvania, I. C. Williams, Harold Peirce, ^Y. T. Creasy, Henry S. Drinker. Delaware, Wesley Webb. Maryland, J. B. S. Norton, William McCulloh Brown. Virginia, George A. Kerr, George B. Keezell. 100 AVest Virginia, N. J. Giddings. Ohio, A. D. Selby. H. H. Bechtel. North Carolina, H. R. Fulton. Tennessee, J. W. Fisher. Canada, Dr. H. T. Gnssow. In a very rough way, it has been endeavored to liave the num- ber of members from the States indicate something as to tlie 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. Tlie presiding officer almost feels tliat lie should offer you an apology, because he is not personally accpiainted 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 your 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. DE. MICKLEBOKOUCiH, of Brooklyn: My question was, Mr. Chairman, Avhether the DiaportJw pdra.siUca had appeared in the Irish Valley. PROFESSOR DAVIS : Yes; it has appeared there, but in that grove for the last ten years every sign of anj^thing 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. DE. J. RUSSELL Sx\lITH, of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman: before the cutters-out and anti-cutters-out begin taking up the questions of the afternoon, I want to speak about one point in connection with the recent lecture. Mr. Davis stated, in j)ass- ing, tliat the waste land of tJiis State would feed as many pigs as the whole State produces. ^Ve 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 r-ace 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, his grains permit of easy improvement and the big trees, with their slow generations, were very difficult to improve. Yet they are the potential heavy harvest yielders. AVherever 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 I 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 casli value. For example, to-day on the train between here and Philadelphia I saw a block of ground which covers twenty-two tliousand acres, 102 and is itself covered witli stones. It is lauglied 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). DE. MERKEL, of New York City: Mr. Chairman: I would like to ask Mr. Davis a point that does not apj)ear 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 Diaporthc, as I 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 I think it is the same thina:. Seedlings from Paragon nuts — to be grafted with Sober Paragon chestnuts. Paragou chestnut trees, 9 years after grafting uu native sprouts 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 tliat l>irds are important factors in spreading the disease? Dr. Metcalf inade 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 V ay 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, carry volcanic 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 resj)onsible 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 (niuicls. Woodpeck- 104 ers go after the borers. Spores are produced iu 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 woolished, and in a word, the main features of the method, I feel sure it will be appre- ciated. DR. SPAULDING : I am 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 stum^D of an old tree. In many cases, I am sure from Dr. Metcalf's stiitement, no special precautions were taken to remove tlie diseased chips, or even 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 moruiiig at sharp nine o'clock, or decide to spend 123 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 Kesokitions 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 projDer theory, that is, that the spores are si^read 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 tliey have let it grow. You have all seen that, especially in Washington. That seed is just like a leaf, and it is as sharj) as a knife, and the seed is encased in that leaf and that gets into any crevice. I have 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.) MOENING 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 ns 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 progTamme. 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 j)rovided 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. AVhen the Peronospora invaded the vine-growing disti'icts of France and Germany, the laboratories of the Old Woi'ld were busily en- 124 gaged in finding ont \\o^\ the fnngns that produced the trouble in the wine-growing districts found its access into the vines. I had the pleasure of having Professor DeBarry iDoint 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 kno^^' tliat 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 tlie life history of tlie disease, which Avas a most important, permanent contribution to the vine-growing, wine-producing industry of tlie Old World. Now it seems to me that we are in a sollle^^i^at simihir 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 v/ould seem to be one commonsense remedy to adoi)t. 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 laborator^y of well equx3iped scientific men, men who follow their work not for their salary but for the love of the work. Tiiose 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 knoAvn criminal with us here. Let us hang him first and then let our laboratory friends try him in the meanwhile. (Applause and laughter). MR. HAEOLD 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, 11.30 A. M., the Committee on Resolutions meet in the House Caucus room. I would also move that no resolutions be received after 10.30, and that up to tbat time-, all resolutions that are desired to be brought to the Committee on Eesolutions be sent to the desk, to be presented to the Kesohitions' Committee. Seconded by Dr. Eussell Smith, of Pennsylvania. THE CHAIKMx4N : 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 Besle}^ 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 have 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, housed in tlie Library building, just south of the Capitol building, is almost unicpie in character. It presents an epitome of tlie life and manufactures of Pennsyl- vania. 3. The City of Harrisburg is a civic ex]ii])it well wortli tlie attention of any visitor to the conference. It lias in ten years made more progress, in proportion, tlian 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 12G year cared for more tliaii 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 npon the conference. I have instrncted the secretary of onr Board of Trade, Mr. James A. Bell, to present this to you and to proffer his assistance in'connection with any information about the city. Congratulating you on the already apparent success of your splendid w^ork, and on the monumental and unique character of this conference, I am Yours truly, J. HORACE McFARLAND, President." THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair Avould 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 physics is that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The Chairman is reminded of this rule Avhen he looks at the programme and reflects upon sev- 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 woncl save a little time if Mr. Sheppard would tell ns just how he defines those points, there being four papers. MR. SHEPrARD: First, the Penns^dvania 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 HOPKINS, 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 insects before we are through. THE 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 3^011 think it miglit Im^ ^ ell, under tlie 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 Mr. 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 divscussion 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 wliat 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 those amendments. I should like to hear the papers, and then also hear Professor Hopkins on the insect question. MR. PEIRCE: I would move that Professor Hopkins pre- sent his paper at two o'clock this afternoon. The motion was seconded. 129 THE CHAIRMAN: Tlie Cliair has one motion before the Honse, to confine tlie discnssion to tliree subjects and remarks to three minutes in eacli case. (The motion was put and carried). THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Peirce makes a motion that Profes- sor Hopli:ins be requested to sj)eak on the insect question at tAvo o'clock this afternoon. The motion was seconded b}^ 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 m}' 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, S. B. Detwiler. (Applause). THE PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAMME. By S. B. DETVv^ILER, 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 ©f 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 130 June, 1911, for the purpose of thorough Ij^ investigating the chestnut blight, to devise and apply ways and means through Avhich 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, 33 cents per tie, fl.OO per cord for wood, the total value of the chestnut timber in Pennsylvania would be |55,000,000, in round numbers. If we allow 115,000,000 as the total value of the nut crop, and orchard, j)ark, 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 13,000,000 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 year 1909, show that for the United States, the value of the annual cut in that year was approxi- mately 120,000,000. 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. Tlie 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 131 disease, esj)ecially the advance points of the infection. The dis- eased trees of these spot infections are destroyed as soon as Ijossible 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. East 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 gen'eral advance line where the per cent, of blight is not high and the owners desire to co-operate in cutting, out tlie diseased trees, the Commission plans to give all possible encouragement and assistance. At the risk of being tedious, I Avill give a resume of the pro- visions of the Act which governs the work of the Pennsylvania Commission. 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 bliglit. The Department of Forestry is directed to work in collabora- tion. Section 2. The Commission and its agents or employes aro given power to enter upon any property to determine whether trees are attacked by blight. Tliey are directed to co-operate Avith owners for the removal of tlie trees and eradication of the disease. Tlie commission will furnisli every' owner with infor- mation respecting the location of iiis blighted trees. Section 3. If an owner refuses to co-opernte with the Com- mission in applying remedies or doing any act directed to be done to prevent further spread, the Commission may give liini tweiitj^ (lays' notice tliat it will proceed if lie does not. At the end of the j)eriod 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 thiidvs 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 tlie 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 td individuals. Section 6. The Commission shall receive no pay but actual expenses only. The emi)lo3'^es of the Commission are to receive such compensation as the Commission may determine. The superintendent of lUiildings and Grounds shall furnish them with suitable offices. Twenty-five thousand dollars is appropriated for scientific re- search and office expenses, and |250,00() 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 of an 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 tliis 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 draA\ing a line from Susquehanna to VVilliamsport, 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 Held 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, 1,352 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. Experiments are being tried to determine if it is not prac1;ical 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 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 sufficient 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 througli lec- 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 oi)po- 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 infectious, and for conducting experiments in the con- trol of the disease through the use of sj)rays, fertilizers, and medi- cations. The Commission is giving an im]3artial trial to the many remedies submitted, to determine their effectiveness. These ex- j)eriments are being j)ushed 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 efficiency 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 emj)hasized 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. For 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 tlie 135 transportation of barked and unbarked products of diseased trees, two points whicli have a direct bearing on cost and eflOlciency 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 i)roblem 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 effective 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, Ave 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 various 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 cliestnut owners cannot be willingly secured if they must do tlie 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 buj^er 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 Avood which will be produced can be utilized, provided it can be delivered to factories and other consumers at a price which w^ill 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 i^robably 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 however lies in the disj^osal 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 mo^ happy ; if we fail, after an honest fight, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that it has been money wisely spent. Even 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. 137 THE CHESTNUT BLIGHT AND THE PRACTICE OF FOR- ESTRY IN PENNSYLVANIA. BY DR. H. P. BAIvER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : I am glad indeed of this opportunity of presenting a very informal paper, and I wish yon 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 telegmm 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 kas probably been more than fifty million of dollars. (From Mr. Charles Marlatt, of the Bureau 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 cry 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 tlie forest and iis reproduction by sprouts from the stumps. Tliis method has been praticed by our wood lot owners for a good many years. Tliey have not called it simple coppice, but it has been that just the same, and they have been practicing it very successfully indeed. 138 I cannot believe, in vieAV of the great valne of chestnnt wood and the rapidity and vigor of its groAvth, that we can get along withont it in onr Pennsylvania forests, or in onr 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. Tliese 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 Avork against this disease which Avas undreamed of Avhen Ave Avere suffering earlier from special insect devastations in our forests. A very brief statement of the devastations of tAvo similar pests may help us to appreciate somcAvhat our problems in connection Avith the blight. In 1882 the Larch Saw-fly Avorm appeared in the native larch or tamarack in Maine, and during the next five years did tremendous damage throughout northern Ncav England and NeAv York. By destroying the needles of the trees it caused their sIoav 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, Avas done to combat the insect or prevent its spread. While it Avas not possible to estimate the damages resulting from the Avork of this insect, it must have exceeded several millions of dollars. There was no serious re-occurrence of this pest until last year, when it appeared in the tamarack swamps of the Northern Lake States. It is reported that Michigan is studying this pest Avith 131) the hope of being able to do some effective Avork against it. I 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 Avere single trees and also considerable areas left that Avere not touched at all. We heard little of it, because there was lots of timber everywhere else, and people Avere not interested. It was not brought home to them as the work of this chestnut disease is here in Tennsylvania. Yet the tree Avas 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 Avhich 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 dollars in combating this insect and finally by the use of bands or rings of viscous tar on the trees prevented the upAvard movement of the larvae from the ground and thus the pest Avas destroyed. Great areas of forests were clear cut and the market was glutted with spruce poles and logs of certain sizes. Dr. Endres, 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 Avas received for all material. The methods foUoAved 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 - AA^estern 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- msij]j. I believe that no system Ave may use in Aviping out this chestnut disease, if Ave are able to do it, will preclude the use of chestnut in our future forest management. The forester is going to groAV the tree from Avhich 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, XH'oceed witli great care in condemning trees and timber so as not to arouse the opposition of the people to the work of bliglit 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 Avood, and like small products, there will be no question as to tlie practicability of clean-cutting over considerable areas. AVliere 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 iis to the possibilities of this sprout land, estimates returns as folloAvs : "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 Ijeriod required to produce them, eight aud one-half cents on the stump to return five per cent, compound interest on the entire investment in land, protection and taxes. Any advance in the price of tie stumpage 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 i^racticing simj)le 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 I am oxj- tiiiiistic in tliis as great manufacturing concerns are stimulating the market for certain special x^roclucts. 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 condition 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 ijito 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 whicli there is chestnut, have been cut very carelessly and little or no protection given the developing sprouts from either fire or graz- ing. There lias 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 clone 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; lience a great 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 tlie leaving of old mis- formed trees and forest weeds. These low-growing, half-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 Avould 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 the pi'oduct will be of value for posts and mine props only. Ii, instead of tliis weeding out, so to speak, of bliglit-infested trees, liere and there, we might induce the owners to use a definite sys- tem of cutting, I 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 Aveeding 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 accomplisli very mucli 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-cuttiugs until the blight has disappeared, might we not only get rid of the blight, bnt in the process bring about the introduction of definite forestry practice? I am 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 whicli the State owns and is owned privately 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 keej) 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 tbere through the State, might it not be able also to intro- duce a system of management among our woodland and forest owners 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 I 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 tlie same time you can introduce a system of management thnt 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 CHAIKMAN: The next paper is entitled ^'Tlie Chestnut IJliglit and Constructive Conservation," by Dr. J. Russell Smith, of tlie University of I'ennsylvania. 141 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 Shakesj^eare makes the defeated King Richard III 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 liorse market, was the basis of valuation, but Avhat 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 fi/nd tim- ber. In the timber-raising epoch the chestnut comes to the front. Taken altogether it is for tlie next sixty years of this nation a tree without a peer, for no other tree can touch it for all- 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 w^hite 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? Oliestnut 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 jjroducer of food for man, and sheep, goats, hogs, and iDOSsibly other livestock. Already the chestnut orchards of Europe make rough mountain sides worth one hun- dred and fifty dollars per acre. ComjDare that to x\merican 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 destruc- 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 prol)lem 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 dollars for fire insurance in one year. Now ninety-nine and one-third per cent, of tliat 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 chance 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- struct, and get about it quickly. What Can We Dof 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- ough surveys of actual conditions in our various States. 3. Ever}^ State can start scientific investigation to get more knowledge of the trouble. 4. Every 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 Avill 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 efficiency of cutting as a cure. On the other hand, actual observation has 14T shown that when a forest fire jumps your fire line, 3^on 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 aver- age insurance cost. We don't know, but neither do the courage- ous Messrs. Stew^art 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 com^Darisons would be in the nature of proof for what is otherwise an entirely unproved theoretical suggestion. IMr. 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 outl)reak has in that time spread to about an acre of woodland. ^ A Lesson From the Sau Jose 8eale. This miserable little 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 Inrii him into soap and keep his orchard clean, and the scientists are now tell- ing us to go at \\\^ chestnut bliglit; only there is tliis 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 Sta.ndui> Fight. An Example from Africa. We have national corporations, national parties, national co- operation to make a meal even, and now we have got to make a national organization to light a tree enemy just as we would to fight a man enemy. The problem is big, but we knoAV how if we will. We have a splendid example in the South African cattle plague. It swept for liundreds of miles, taking all cattle before it as frost does the flies. TJien 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 Example 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 tlie 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 tlie 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 bj tlie 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? PEOFESSOR HARSHBERGEE, 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: I would imagine so; eight minutes with two minutes leeway, making it ten minutes in all. I make that motion: that the papers be limited to eight minutes, with two minutes alloAvance. The motion was seconded and carried. THE CHAIRMAN: The motion prevails. It can, of course, be excepted to under unanimous consent. Is tlie State Forester or a representative prepared to report for- Maine? (No re- sponse). NeAV Hampshire? (No response). Massachusetts? PROFESSOR RANE; 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 Pane's question, it would seem desiral)le to the Chair to discuss this subject from the standpoint of liis OAvn State, if that answers your question. 150 rKOFESSOli EANE: Mr. Cliairmaii and Gentlemen of the Convention : In so far as Massaelmsetts is concerned, we have tliis cliestnnt bark disease and we have also gone at it in what seems to ns a practical way. I simpl^^ 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 last spring and go over the whole State. He spent the months of June, July, and August, visiting on a motorcycle 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 gypsy and browntail moth problems, and that these depredations, which have been pretty much confined to Massachusetts, and more recently New Hampshire and Maine have incurred much expense. Now we have been tackling p/roblems 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 ]\*Iassachusetts from the forestry management standpoint, and of the papers and discussions that have come up here, the one that pleased me per- haps most Avas 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 broA\'ntail moth work in Massachusetts, more or less 151 similar in a 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 v^aj 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 been 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. AVhat 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 imj)ortance 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 linve looked upon it, — my observations may not be very keen, — but as I liave looked upon it in my own mind, we find it wliere the conditions are unbalanced. That is here appears to be the worst condition 152 we have. I was out with a man owning seven thousand acres in the western part of the State last Friday. The disease was the worst where tliinnings 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. The}'^ are good, practical men; they have been in the business a great many years, and are reluctant to believe that w^e 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. I 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 i^eople 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 bulh^tin Avas 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 I 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: I 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 wheii 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 wherever the ex- pert found a tree, — w^e 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 Avitli tbs usual ajopropriations 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 onlj^ 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 F. 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 tlie summer of 1905 he found a tree on the Edgewood Park Estate at GreenAvich 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 iioticed 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. Tims we found the disease present 155 in all of the counties of the State, and in seventy-two of the towns. Of these onh^ seven towns were east of the Connecticut Eiver, but this region had not been carefully examined. At the Albanj^ conference, held October 19, 1911, we reported the dis- ease present in one ■ hundred and twenty towns of the State. To-day (February, 1912) we have records of its presence in 161 of the 1G8 towns of the State (all but Ashford, Eastford, 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 differenf 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 Elver. 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 tliat Ave have had since 1907. Control Worlc. Our work in the field, besides locating the disease, has been along the followina' lines: 156 (1) Stndyiiig tlie progress of tlie disease on marked trees. (2). Setting ont seedling cliestnuts, including a few culti- vated 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 tlie 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. AVhere 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 7x9 ties, for which the demand on the part of 157 tlie railroads has evidently gone down. On the whole, however, there has been more timber cut than nsual. We have no small factories for the ntilization 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 charcoal. THE CHAIEMAN: 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 knoAvs about; where the affected trees were removed, what was the result on the trees thai re mained? PROEESSOR CLINTON: That was on the estate of one of the wealtliiest men in Connecticut, so he had money enough to cut them out if he wanted to. It was on the southern exj)0sure of a hill and we found that, Avhere cut out, the trees left seemed to suffer more from drought, etc., 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 lie 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 lime for one moi-e (lucsdoii, if anyone desires to ask one. MR. THALHEIMER : Hav(i you found out whether tlie con- ditions differ between low and high ground and the exposure, on 158 the southern, iiortherii, or eastern and western sides; that is, whether you found any infected trees on the eastern side of the mountain ? PEOFESSOR 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 CHAIEMAN : New York State. MR. G. L. BARRUS, of the Conservation Commission: Mr. Chairman : First of all, I 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. I think this question has brought up the need of such statistics; if it has not done anything more, it has brought uj) that need. We have 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, I might say tlmt 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 (aj)proximately 23,- 000 s(iuare 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 Vallej^, 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 twent}^ 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, inasmucli 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 outlying districts wdiere 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 witli 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 tannic acid business in NeAv York State, the tannic 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 IGO out gradually, aucl that market is uot flooded at the j)resent time. There is also a good market for cord wood 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 lielp to bring the chestnut back to increased vitality, so tliat 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 our 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 J^oung 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. ME. 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 ca^h 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 trimminsfs. I cannot say anything more in regard to our campaign in New Jersey. However, I wish to give just one or two observa- 11 162 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 of 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 Avere not so infected as to make it noticeable in walking through the timber and making careful observations. The only points w^here we could find the disease at all were close to the ground, and the sj)routs 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 south westwardly 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. 163 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 iiave had a great deal of trouble with fat lands near Philadelphia, on the lands of rich men, where forest fires are unknown. What has been the testi- nionv there with regard to tliis 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 Avas 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 notliing; 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 Avork with the older trees. THE CHAIEMAN: 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 Avith 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. W^e discouraged that and finally broke it up. Vv' e did not think that method of treatment was good. Then we were met v/ith 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 introduc- ing into the sap of the tree some medication. There was an- other idea, with respect to watering the tree. The plan advo- 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 tlie 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 knoAV 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. For instance, we had a letter the other day from a gentleman in northern Ohio. He said he had a prejjaration 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 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 wiio have any- 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 : All 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- 167 propriating any public money for methods of eradication of this particular disease. 1 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 Ave 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 Jiumber of chestnut orchards, it throws a rather interesting light upon the question of drouglit as a predisposing cause of the chestnut disease. Those orchards are under cultivation the same as our apple orchards. They 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 tliat drought plays any part whatever in the chestnut disease problem. THE CHAIEMAN: Is there any question? PROFESSOE NOETON : I would like to ask if the blight is equally bad on the Japanese chestnuts? PEOFESSOE 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 hj^brids Avith tlie American; yet we have found infection in the so-called Japanese chestnuts the same as in the American. ME. WILLIAMS: What is Delaware doing to prevent the shipment of infected stock beyond the borders of the State? PEOFESSOE 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 CHAIEMAN : Professor Webb, will you please inform us what Delaware is doing to ]3revent the shipment of infected nursery stock beyond the borders of the State. PEOFESSOE 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 CHAIEMAN : Maryland. As one of the secretaries of the Conference, we have present Maryland's State Forester, Mr. F. W. Besley. ME. 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 m O q: -P" 1— a. < Q < 0 1 >- LU b. 0 rr x: < t— ^ o z o X S3 UJ /^ § ♦9 2 169 a great deal of interest to the results Avliich 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 now, 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 miay 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 v\^e 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 u^j to the i)resent 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 miglit be possible, by establishing a sort of dead line just outside tlie 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, carryiug a small ap- propriation for the purpose of putting this work into operatiou. Now we have had several people speak about the mauagemeut of the chestnut as being perhaps the solution of the difticully. 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 tiou, where possible, of the diseased chestnut trees, I am uot 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 liope 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, whicli 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 presciil damage was estimated at fifty thousand dollars, based on a stumpage l)asis, 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. DETWILEE : Mr. Besley asked for some definite facts concerning the efficiency of the cntting-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. S. 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- mac from Washington, and we know it is present in Bedford county, at Pontella. 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 wliich has existed for about tAventy 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 yet been able to determine the exact nature. Some of the gentlemen who are here have found the Diaportlie 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 tliis disease, which will not per- 173 mit of any extensive eradication, but we lioi3e to nse it in getting a good survey of the damage whicli has already been done and to get a basis for future recommendations. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any inqiiries regarding the situation and methods in Virginia? The next State is West Vir- ginia. PEOF. G IDDINGS : 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, especialij'^ 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 doAvn our way, who have been for- tifying, or are about to fortify, us against such infection, by hav- ing a bill passed through Congress approi>riating 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 lighting of this disease in the future. I shall, however, call tbe 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 greatly 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 liigh as eight feet in diameter, — immense f^rees. 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 3^ou are more vitally interested in this matter than the people of Tennessee, for the great reason that we have so much chestnut. THE CHAIEMAN: 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 CHAIEMAN, (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. Pell, who was mentioned by Presi- dent McEarland, 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 bu}^ it or not. Deputy Commissioner AVilliams 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- 17G mation wliich 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) W. H. TAFT." (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 Bureau. 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 Taf t, is as f olloAvs : "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 ajtpears ultimately to exterminate the chest- nut trees in any locality which it infests. The financial loss from this disease in and about New York (^ity 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, Massaehti- setts, Khode Island, Connecticut, New York, New, Jersey, Penn- 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 arenas 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 tlie 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 anthorities in co-operation with the anthori- 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, "Farmers' 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 : Tlie programme now calls for coming to- gether at two o'clock, and the first paper Avill 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. WILIjIAMS : I wisli to announce that the Committee on Resorutions will meet in the House Caucus room, immediately beneath this chamber, after adjournment, this morning. The Chairman announced that the Convention stood in re- cess 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 th > 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 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 enem}^ 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 b}^ 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. S. 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 cliestnut. We find tliat other observers liave 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 tJiem as a basis for practical conclu- 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 tlie Bureau of Entomology. This investigation will l)e extended into all parts of the country where the cliestnut is, or has l>eeu, an important forest tree, and especially in those vStates and sections Avhere 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- ditions 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 possil)le and as a business proposition it will pa}^ On the other hand, it has been forcibly demonstnited 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 1S3 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 determine 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 ax^plication of tliis 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 and 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, small 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 amonnt of timber. Tlie timber stopped dying the next year. I had a letter informing me, just before I came here, that over one liundred Indians Avere 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 autliorized tlie expenditure of ten thousand dollars, and they are cutting the timber and barking it tliemselves. This, we believe, is almost ]84 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 can 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, the,y 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 Avhich I 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 tlie insect pests, and I 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. DR. MURRILL, 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. Bnt 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 eggs, 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 small wounds, which sometimes happens. My observation in Virginia and the section south of Washington indicates that there is a 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. Tliis 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 evi- 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 ME. EARKUS, of New York : I would like to ask : Is there any ease where the larva of the insect is found nnder the bark, and the mycelium of tlie 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 3^et to be solved. It is a j)i'oblem 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 worked 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 Avorking 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 1S7 trees. So that the others live in various ways. If a lot of in- sects is found in a diseased tree, we must know Avhich of these are the insects that attack the living hark 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, tliey fly away ver}^ quickly, as if to escape some enemy. Tliey do not as a rule crawl about over the bark before they ily. ME. W. HOWARD KANKIN, of Itliaca, New York : Can you tell us whether in your estimation, the Leptura species of borer precede infections of the bliglit, 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 furtlier questions? PROFESSOR CLINTON : I would like to ask Dr. Hopkins if, during the past few years, tlie 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 tlie past twenty years, or since I started to study forest insects, and the (piestion of climate has been one to whicli Ave have given considerable attention; because every time trees start to die someone comes up and says tliey are dying 188 from drought, or if it is a wet seasou they claim they are dying from wet weather. We have demonstrated couclusively, 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 1893. 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 w^ould 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 CHAIKMAN: 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, having the paper presented by Dr. Hopkins and the papers presented before us this morning for discussion on a three- minute rule. DE. 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 pycnidium. 190 The pycnidial spores (or sporiiles) are from two and a half to three times the length of the conidial sjjores. The sporules are borne on pedicels and are not contained in sacs as are the winter spores. A pycnidium may properly be called a stylosporous peritliecinm. 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 spcrmatia, and the pycnidial product are the sporules. THE CHAIKMAN: Doctor, I think I Avill have to ask for unanimous consent, because we have now gone to the limit of our rule. DK. MICKLEBOKOUGfl: I Avould 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 tlie time? DR. MICKLEBOROUGH : I will take just a fcAV 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 Avith 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 willl eat dog and that we will have to meet this from the bacteriolo- gical standpoint. I do 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. ME. 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 sai5 "I 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. T 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. Metcalfe 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 Avould 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 been 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 ( Jnne, 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, DE. MURRILL, of New York: Mr. Chairman: I Avish 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. Even if it were possible to cut and burn all affected trees, for ten or 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. 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 affected 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 suc- ceed 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 atay the disease will be abondoned, especially when the main line of advance, which is now in northern Mary- land, reaches the Potomac River, (xipplanse). MR. CAS SELL, 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 a new infection. Another point: Professor Collins states that in those two cases Avhere the trees were cut and the stumps left unbarked, that the disease has not reappeared. Perhaps he did not put it quite that way ; I believe he said, "they are not now in- fected." Now on the 30th 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 Avhat 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, witli 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 a few feet above the 196 gronnd. 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 CETATRMAN : 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 useless. Mucli 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 generally 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. I 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 mii;lit be done at this meeting, and was accompanied by such a letter as 1 rather expected would never be written. The first statement is : "It is impossible to locate 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 inij)ossible to cut and burn all infected trees after their discovery." Who for a minute will believe^ tliat 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 Avoiild 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 maimer. To tlnte 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 w^onld 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 tlie thing Ave 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, you 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 Avant 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. I would like to raise another question. I would like to ask the gejitlemen from around the neijrhborhood of New York citv 199 whether, if they had been feally 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? Finally 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 Ave 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 liere, 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 wliether this fniniiis 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). PROFESSOE SUEFACE: 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. lie has brought our attention to the fact that there are four hundred and seventy-two species of insects known to 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 one 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 mucli dis- semination of these disease germs as if the woodpeckers were all present. These germs are carried 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, shomng their beneficial Avork. It appears to me, then, that the impression should be corrected as to the possibility of i)reventing the spread of the germs by destroying woodpeckers. Preserve the woodpeckers and other insectivorous birds and prevent the spread of the in- fection. (Applause) DE. MURRILL: Mr. Chairman: I have been accused of using ''pre-Convention methods." I had no intention whatever of that purpose. I am not a 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 for a 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 iiothing, for twenty years I have been working on diseases of trees. For the last seven years I have known this fungus. Immediately when I found it, when the affected trees were sliown 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 througli m.y 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 beiug 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 nsed if you 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). PEOFESSOR 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 stej* 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 macliiuery alone that I believe will be sufficient importance in the future to the Avliole 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 tliat 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 I'un we will get definite results. ME. STEVENS, of the Lehigh Valley Railroad: Mr. Chair- man, it is noAV 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 Ave have met. I have in mind particularly such a one as the orange pockweed. ^. "The Devil's Paint Brush." AVe 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 CHAIKMAN : 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 urder on the pro- gramme, and before calling for a report by the Committee on Resolutions, if you will permit a Avord 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 Bliglit 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 lielieve they can lielp 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 i)apers and the discussions which have been offered here, I 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? Rememl>er 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 lias been expended. Tliat money is being nsed, it appears to me, to determine which of varions 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 satistiinl as to wliich 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 been 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). DE. MUERILL: 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-Convention methods, to disillusionize you of that statement. PROFESSOE CLINTON: I used that word "politician." Why did I use that word "politician?" Not because he is a Democrat or a Eepublican 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 Avas the one man that — not the one man, but lie was a man — that said lie was in favor of their work in fighting the chestnut blight. He quotes him to disparage him, and he is the 20(; man that is backing up tlieir work. Trofessor 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 Xjrogramme 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 becomes 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 Governor Tener for calling it, and for the courtesies he has shown. That we appreciate the interest of the President of the United States, as evidenced by his communication to Governor Tener, showing, as it does, that the head of the National Gov- 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 Avhere practicable. That we favor the bill now before Congress appropriating 180,000 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 efiicient 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 owners 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 ti'ee 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 oijerations connected witli this bliglit disease. THE CHAIKMAN: The Chair should have extended an opportunity to Professor Murrill at once, after passing the reso- lutions, for his statement. DE. MUEEILL : 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 cliestuut blight is a good feeder. The bettor the chestnut tree, the better it grows on it. 14 210 It is a mistake to sa}^ that forest management will eradicate bliglit. It will eradicate most other diseases, insects, and so forth, but it does not affect the blight. Utilization is the real issue; the practical nse of the lumber, and that is in the hands of those who own chestnut timber. The X>resent is yours. You have the chestnut timber as it is; tomor- row, next generation, you may have it not. Be business like arid stand for 3'our 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 viabilit}^ of the spores, both summer and winter forms. 2. The vitality of the mycelium in the bark and wood. 3. 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 be 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 b^^ selection, hy- bridization, etc.? Can chestnuts be grown with safet}^ beyond the Mississippi river? How 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 hj 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 CHAIEMAN : 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 tliem to make remarks. The Cliair is pleased to accept that suggestion. Mr, Thalheimer. ME. THALHEIMEK, of Eeading : Mr. Chairman : In Penn- sylvania, in those counties that I know, most of the farmers have 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 you 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 olf 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 inclies 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 212 coming back, ^^'llile 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 oft' of that tree. What I want to say to you is this: I watched and noted that there AAas 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. ME. STEVENS : Where was that? ME. THALHEIMEE : In Eeading, Pa. ME. 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. DE. MUEEILL : My own experience about New York State, over a wide area, for several years. ME. STEVENS: In forests? DE. MUEEILL: 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. PEOFESSOE EANE : 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 DE. MURRILL : I heartily commend that. MK. CEAMER, 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. 1 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? DE. MUEEILL: 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 beloAv 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. ME. ZIEGLEE : 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, you 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? DE. MUEEILL : 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, cnt yonr timber that is likely to go to waste first. Cut it first, if favorable, and later, as the disease encroaches, cut other timber and nse it and market it, so that you may not glut the market. ME. ZIEGLEK : May I suggest that that is practically along the line that is being followed by the Penna. Blight Commis- sion, so far as 1 have been able to learn of it, and that is the line ^\e hope to follow, following their advice. DE. MICKLEBOEOUdH : Dr. Murrill, have you been cut- ting the chestnut growth up at the Bronx Garden? DE. MUEEILL: We are noAV cutting down the last trees. It has cost us five thousand dollars to cut down fourteen hun- dred trees in fifty acres of the Bronx Park. DE. MICKLEBOEOUGH : I 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 Avhere there were tAvelve or fifteen hun- dred chestnut trees, and if you did not also recommend to do the cutting there? DE. MUEEILL: That has been my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, until we found it was hopeless, and tlie 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 ])ul)lic in New York City to cut out the dead wood caused by this disease. Mr. E. A. AVEliYIEE, of Lebanon, Pa.: Mr. CUiairman and Gentlemen: I would like to address a feAv 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 liave 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, soutb, 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 discov- ered several trees only with the blight in its advanced stages, and a small number of other trees showing onlj^ 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 bliglit 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 vicAved 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 depeud on surface indica- tions. 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 you 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 tlie 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 suu lias illumiuated another portion of the tree, you had better go through that tract again. In other words, start c»ut 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 yon 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, 1 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 Avhen 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 uecessity of killing all the spores possible. 218 Here is one benefit of the Chiestnut 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 tlie 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 w^ell 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 throAv 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). PROFESSOK 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. I think Mr. AVeimer 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 : I think the observations would be 219 a little more conclusive if the gentleman would try cultures to see if they Avould grow. MR. WEIMEE: 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. DE. MICKLEBOKOUGH: 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. T was performing a miscroscopic 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 both, 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 : I 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 Grovernor? 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 tlie 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. 221 THE CHAIRMAN : We will dismiss the matter, then, with the understanding that Mr. Weimer will take it up with tlie 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 Ijlan 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- elate it, and that is the question of the diiference 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 ninety-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. PEOFESSOR RANE : I have some resolutions which I 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 oificers 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 x^ut and unanimously carried. PROFESSOR RANE : I have another resolution : "Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be, and are iiereby 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 seconded, — I 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 I wish to assure you it has '223 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, I 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. ME. MEEKEL : 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 CHAIEMAN: 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). SENATOE SPEOUL: 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 CHAIEMAN : We all know you. 224 SENATOR SPROUL : I am 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- v/here where this disease is threatening so much harm. (Ap- plause). THE CHAIRMAN : A request has been made that Deputy Couunissioner 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 liave 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 Phila- 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 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 Avho 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 have 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. I 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). ME. 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 pirovide 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 co- operation. We therefore earnestly trust every member of this Conference will go from here to his home imbued with the feel- 1 ing that he will do all in his power to bring about such co- 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 I received that duty from you only yesterday. (Applause). GOVERNOR TENER: 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 suflftcient 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 your respective homes, I hope you Avill 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). 228 If there is no further business for the Convention, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. DE. 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 Cliestnut 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 EEMEDY. By 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 difference is so marked that even the workmen in the leach house at extract plants can tell when M^ood 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 w^as 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 ii not a remarkable thiug 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 exx^ense 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 aj)paratus, 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 oH 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 A^all 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 Hudson, 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 wp 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 tlie 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 o'n 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, / would recommend that solutions of lime water he soaked into the ground thoroughly around trees known to he affected toith 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 lohich shape it is readily taken up by the roots. Then spray the trees above with the Bordeaux 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 uj) only one seven-hundredth j)art 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 wliole 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 now 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. For 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 case 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 aslies 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 Avill be much easier to put in force, as it Avill have the hearty co-oxDeration 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 wliicli has been followed is to place one man in charge of tlie 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 chestmic tree bark disease has been found. The spirit has been arotised by the activity and honest efforts of otir field men. Their in- spections have been thoroughly and carefully made, and their talks at local instittites, 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 everj^ 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 methods has come under my observation, and following every meeting, requests have come to us for the inspection of individual tracts, shoAving that the woodland owners not onh^ 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 instruction received at these meetings. Judges, school teachers, ministers, farmers, business men, iuid 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 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 KEPOET ON SCOUT WOKK ON THE NOKTH BENCH OF BALD EAGLE MOUNTAIN, BETWEEN SYLVAN DELL AND WILLLiMSFOET, 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 ijispection was begun at Sylvan Dell. The park land was chosen on account of the assured co-operation of Mr. F. B. 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, hut one infected tree could he 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 ^vsiB an admirable place in which to study the blight, for it was present in every stage of development. Sprouts, saplings, young 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 leaves 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 l)ase 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. 237 the tendency is to pnt out tliese 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, etc. 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 alloioed to go without managetnent 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' woodlots, ranging in size from a few acres np 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 Grame 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 live acres fully thirty trees Avere 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 young saplings (of which there were three or four growing from the base), were badly infected. It seems reasonable to suppose that this infc^ction lias been present for two or three years. 23d Infections of every kind were fonnd 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 circular spot fifty yards 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 Avould be en- countered, and this new spot would be studied in the same way. Here an'd 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. Fisher 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. HoAvever, there is a solid strip of chestnut timber four to five miles wide and eight to ten miles long, stretching from the Ogdonia dow^n 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 ycouted. 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 T>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 fungu-s is fouud to be as below : 16 242 "Philadelphia, April 19, 1912. Mr. I. 0. Williams, 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 groAV. I then began again, 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. I was 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 T\ill return the speci- men in the bottle to you at once. Very truly yours, (Signed) CAKOLINE KUMBOLD." EEGISTERED 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. 243 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. Conn S. C. demons, 431 Dearborn St., Chicago, 111. B. F. Cocklin, Mechanicsburg, R. F. D., No. 2, Cumb. Co., Pa. Prof. J. Franklin Collins, Washington, D. C. W. G. Conklin, Troxelville, Pa. Hon. Robert S. Conklin, Commissioner of Forestry, Harrisburg. I'a 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. Critchtield, 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. Ck)mm'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, Maiden, 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. Smithfleld, R. I. 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, Anihert, 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, Field 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. E. 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, Harrlsburg, Pa. Oliver D. Schock, Hamburg, Pa. F. D. Search, care 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. INDEX. A. rage. Act creating Chestnut Tree Blight Commission, 131 Address of welcome by Governor Tener, 15 Address by Chairman R. A. Pearson , 19 Air currents as carriers of conidia, 51 Appropriation to investigate blight, 45 Appropriation by Penna. Legislature, 106 Appropriation , how used , 205 Ascospores , vitality of, 219 Atwood , George G. , remarks by , 24 Atwood , George G. , effect of drought , 110 Attractions of Harrisburg, 123 B. Backenstoe , Dr. J. M. , remarks by, 165 Bacterial investigation, result of, 191 Baker, Dr. H. P., The blight and practice of forestry, 137 Barrus, G. L., Report as to prevalence of blight in New York State, 158 Beetles on chestnut trees , 184 Benson, W. M., A possible remedy for chestnut blight, 229 Besley, Prof. F. W. , Report upon the blight in Maryland, 169 Bif ds and chestnut tree insects , 200 Birds as distributors of blight spores , 103 Birds in the chestnut groves , 97 Blight, medical treatment of the, 57 Blight in New Jersey in 1898 , 102 Blight , plan to combat , 140 Blight, possibility of control ^ 181 Blight, infections in Lycoming county, 239 Bodine , Samuel T. , remarks l)y , 20 Braunberg, Mr., Value of Penna. chestnut and damage sustained, 171 Bureau of Plant Industry, Report on ))Iight, 177 Burning stumps, necessity for, 213 Burr worm , ravages of the , 95 C. Cassell , Mr. , Remarks by I95 Cause of chestnut blight , 70 Chestnut bark disease — can it be controlled? 40 Chestnut bark disease — its I'emarkable spread, 44 (247) 248 Page. Chestnut bark disease infections , 50 Chestnut bark disease — recent notes on , 48 Chestnut blight in Connecticut, 81 Chestnut blight and forestry , 137 Chestnut blight and constructive consen'ation, 144 Chestnut blight a National loss , 145 Chestnut blight, history of, 29 Chestnut blight, method for locating infections 216 Chestnut blight and possible remedy, 229 Chestnut blight , work of the 34 Chestnut burr worm , the , 84 Chestnut culture, 83 Chestnuts as stock-food , 101 Chestnut timber — growth and value, 144 Chestnut timber in Penna. , 16 Chestnut trees, destruction of, 17 Chestnut tree diseases of the past, 83 Chestnut trees, general distribution of, 38 Chestnut trees , how to perpetuate , 209 Child, Chester E., Remarks by, 107 Cicada in chestnut orchards, 95 Clark, Prof. W. D. , Remarks by Ill Clinton , Prof. George P. , Remarks by , 21 Clinton, Prof. George P., Chestnut blight facts and theories, 75 Clinton, Prof. George P., Report upon blight in Connecticut, 154 Collins, Prof. J. Franklin, Illustrated lecture, 28 Collins, Prof. J. Franklin, Treatment of orchard and ornamental trees, .. 59 Collins, Prof. J. Franklin, Cutting out blight process, 192 Combating plant and animal pests , 49 Commission, Penna., Chestnut Tree Blight, 7 Commission's policy, 134 Committee on Resolutions , 99 Committee on Resolutions, Report of, 206 Committee to escort Governor, 220 Conference, necessity for holding, 7 Connecticut, blight in , 107 Control of the blight, 63 Cook , Dr. Melville T. , Remarks by, 28 Cook , Dr. Melville T. , The blight in New Jersey , 161 Cranmer, J. C, Remarks by, 118 Cutting out diseased parts, experience with, 67 Cutting out experiments at Washington, D. C. , 77 D. Danger signals of the blight , 236 Davis, Prof. Nelson F. , Address by, 83 Dead-line, establishing, 221 Defining Diaporthe parasitica , 71 Delegates and guests , list of, 242 Detwiler, S. B., birds and the chestnut blight, 104 Detwiler, S. B. , "The Pennsylvania Programme," 129 Devastation by insect pests , , 138 249 Page. Development in sapwood and hardwood , 54 "Devil's paint brush ," how eradicated, 203 Diaporthe parasitica in Pennsylvania groves, 100 Diaporthe parasitica in the South, 80 Diaporthe parasitica, infective material of, 50 Diseased trees , locating , 44 Drought favorable to blight, 81 E. Early history of Disporthe parasitica , 72 Eliminating blight infected trees , 143 Endothia gyrosa , 79 Enterline , S. M. Remarks by , 21 Epidemics , sudden ". 71 Eradication of blight by cutting out, 82 Experimenting with cutting out process, 193 F. Faking tree doctors and empirists, 59 Farlow, Prof. W. G. , paper by, 70 Field studies at Orbisonia, Pa. , 54 Field work of the Commission , 233 Fighting enemies of the chestnut , 95 Fisher , J. W. , Remarks by , 27 Fisher, Dr. A. K. , Habits of the woodpeckers, 103 Fisher, J. W. , Reports no blight in Tennessee, 174 Food and mouth disease , how suppressed , 148 Forest acreage in Pennsylvania , 130 Forest and laboratory tests , 202 Forestry management, meaning of, 212 Foreword , 3 Francis, Thomas E. , Report upon field work, 233 Fulton, Prof. H. R., Address by 48 Fungous diseases , treatment of, 43 G. Germination of conidia and ascospores 52 Giddings, N. J., Means of control, 105 Giddings , N. J. , Remarks by , 26 Giddings, N. J., The blight situation in Wi-st \'ir-ini:v 173 Grafting chestnut, how successful , 87 Grafting native chestnut sprouts, 84 Graves , Dr. A. H. , Remarks by , 105 Groves chestnut , to be kept clean , 90 Growing chestnut trees , 98 Growth of blight on other material than chestnut, 53 Gussow, Dr. H. T. , Remarks by, 27 250 H. Page. Harrisburg Board of Trade, Letter from the, 125 Harshberger, Dr. J. W. , Remarks by, 106 Harvesting cultivated chestnuts, 93 Historical and Pathological Aspects of the blight, 28 History of the chestnut blight, 29 Hopkins, Dr. A. D. , Insect injuries, 180 Hopkins, Dr. A. D., The chestnut bark disease, 180 I. Immune pure-bred varieties of chestnut, , 69 Immunity of chestnut trees , 68 Immunizing chestnut not possible, 178 Implements for treating infected trees , 62 Infectious character of blight , 116 Infections , how to find , 197 Insects affecting chestnut trees, 200 Insects and the chestnut blight, 181 Insects destroyed by cold , 188 Insects, relation to spread of the blight, 68 Insect traps in chestnut groves 96 Investigations in Pennsylvania , when commenced , 130 Investigations of chestnut bark disease, 39 Italian authorities upon blight quoted, 73 J. Jewett , F. B. , Remarks by , 112 K. Keezell , Hon. Geo. B. , Remarks by, 25 L. Laboratory experiments , 134 Lesson from the San Jose Scale , 147 Ijightning injury seat for inoculation , 53 Lime in chestnut wood ashes , 229 Lime water as a remedy for the blight , 231 Longevity of conidia and ascospores , 52 Loss incurred in Penna. by chestnut blight, 130 M. Machine for removing chestnuts from burrs, 98 Main Line investigations of blight, 164 McFarland, Horace, Letter from, 125 , Meetings to discuss blight, 234 Medicinal remedies for chestnut blight, 57 Merkel , Dr. Herman W. , Pennsylvania's unselfish law , 116 Metcalf , Dr. Haven , Address by , 28 251 Page. Method of controlling blight, 40 Mickleboroiigh , Dr. John , Remarks by , 114 Mowry , Jesse B. , Remarks by , 25 Murrill, Prof. W. A., Treatment of diestuut blight, 194 Murrill, Prof. W. A., Questions for scientific investigation, 210 McCue, Prof. C. A., The chestnut blight in Delaware, 166 N. National scientific campaign against blight, 148 Necessity for co-operation of States , 7 Newspaper publicity valuable and urged, 152 New York , blight in , 117 Norton , J. B. S. , Remarks by , 22 Nursery stock spreading blight, 4S Nut planting for trees , 9y Officers of Harrisburg Conference, IS Official call for Conference 5 Official programme of Conference, ; 9-14 Orchard and ornamental chestnut trees, , . 59 Origin of the blight, 177 P. Paragon chestnut culture , 83 Peach Yellows, lesson from the, 148 Pearson, Hon. R. A. , Introductory address by, 19 Pearson, Hon. R. A. , Resolution of thanks to, 222 Peirce, Harold, The need of co-operative work, 225 Peirce , Harold , Remarks by, 18 Pennsylvania Forestry Department: Co-operation of, 215 Pennsylvania's programme , 129 Plans for controlling the blight 146 Predictions regarding the blight, 76 President Taft's letter, I75 Preventive treatment , 58 Profitable utilization of chestnut, 135 Programme of Conference , 9 Protecting native chestnut sprouts 85 Q. Question as to control of the blight, 211 Questions for scientific investigation , 210 R. Rane , Prof. F. W. , Need of co-operation 203 Rane , Prof. F. W. , Remarks by , 23 Rane, Prof. F. W., Urging co-operative work, 202 Rane, Prof. F. W. , Report of blight conditions In Massachusetts, 150 Rankin, Prof. W. Howard , Address l)y , 46 Reclaiming mountain land , 84 Reed , Dr. 11. S. , Chestnut in Virginia , 120 Reed, Dr. H. S., The blight situation in Virginia, 172 252 Page. Register of delegates and guests , 242 Relation of birds to spread of blight, 103 Rumbold, Dr. Caroline, "Possibility of Medicinal Remedy for Chestnut Blight," 57 Rumbold, Dr. Caroline, Report upon test of old spores, 241 Research work to control blight , 46 Resolutions adopted by the Conference, 206 Resolutions , Committee on , 99 Rothrock, Dr. Joseph T. , How to combat the chestnut blight, 123 S. Sap , flow in chestnut trees , 65 Scout work in Lycoming county, 235 Selby, Dr. Augustine D. , Remarks by, 24 Seventeen year locusts in chestnut grove, effects of, 95 Sheep in cultivated chestnut orchards , ^ 93 Sheppard, Mr., Remarks by, 126 Smith, Dr. J. Russell , Effect of drought on trees, 118 Smith, Dr. ,T. Russell, Chestnut blight and constructive conservation, .... 144 Smith, Dr. J. Russell, Value of chestnuts for stock food, 101 Spaulding, Dr. Perley, Remarks by, . 121 Spores, how carried by birds and rain 105 Spores , how spread , 46 Spores , spread by air currents , 51 Spores, varying kinds of, 190 Spores , vitality of , 217 Spring, Mr. , Report upon blight in Connecticut, 154 Sproul, Hon. William C, Remarks by, 224 Spruce moth or Nun , ravages of, 139 State and Federal control and investigations , 184 Stevens, F. R., Remarks by, 203 Stewart, Prof. F. C. , Controlling the chestnut bark disease, 40 Surface, Prof. H. A., Bird and insect life, 200 Symptoms of the blight, , . 235 T. Taft, President, Letter from, 175 Tannic acid , 221 Taylor, William A., Report to Secretary Wilson upon the blight, 179 Tener, Gov. , Opening address by , 15 Tener , Gov. , Closing address by , 227 Temperature, effect of early growth, 52 Temperature, effect on germination, 52 Thalheimer, A. , Remarks by , 110 Thalheimer, A. , Obsei'vations upon insect life, 211 Thanks to Hon. R. A. Pearson , Chairman , 222 Theories regarding the chestnut blight, 78 Treatment of diseased trees 42 Treatment of individual trees , 59 Tree doctors , harm done by , 165 Tree surgery in treatment of blight , 62 Trees , how grown from nuts , 98 Trees injured by insects , 185 253 V. Page. Value of chestnut in Pennsylvania 129 Value of chestnut timber, 16 Value of individual trees , 60 Vitality of old spores of the blight , 241 W. Walton , R. C. , report upon field studies , 54 Weather conditions affecting blight, 57 Webb, Dr. Wesley, Remarks by, '. . . 22 Weimer, E. A., Experiences in combating the blight, 215 AVeimer, E. A., Remarks by, 114 Wells, H. E. , Report of special scouting operations in Lycoming county, .. 235 Wild chestnut in Pennsylvania , 16 Williams, Hon. I. C. , Blight in forest preserves, 162 Williams, Hon. I. C, Pennsylvania's effort to check blight, 108 Williams, Hon. I. C. , Naming official reporter, 19 Williams, Hon. I. C, Best methods to combat blight, 196 Wilson, Hon. James, Letter relating to blight, 175 Wind spreading chestnut blight, I 115 Woodpeckers and insects, relation to blight, 135 Z. Ziegler, Mr. , Remarks by, 213 ^s^smsaasm (254)