_Philadelphia, December 9th, 1913._
HON. JOHN K. TENER, _Governor,
Harrisburg, Penna._
_Sir_: We have the honor to transmit herewith our report of the
operations of this Commission for a portion of the year 1913, this
being also the final report of the Commission.
Eastern Asia, the home of the San Jose scale, has been found to be also
the home of the chestnut blight. The disease has been found definitely
in northeastern China; probably it is also present in Japan. There is
no reason to doubt that it found its way to this country in the same
way that the San Jose scale did, on nursery stock, and at about the
same time, or perhaps somewhat later. Any system of strict inspection
of imported nursery stock could have kept it out of this country,
but no such system was then in use. It would probably not have been
possible at that time to secure a law authorizing such inspection
because of the lack of public appreciation of the seriousness of
imported fungous and insect epidemics.
The oldest known spots of chestnut blight infection are in the
neighborhood of New York City. Here again the disease could have been
checked at an early date and never found its way into Pennsylvania,
but nothing of the sort was even attempted. In fact, even up to 1911,
no official work was done in New York upon the disease. In 1908
Murrill[1] advocated cutting out all chestnut trees within half a mile
of diseased trees, but this plan was never put into practice in New
York. In general, the greatest conservatism has prevailed regarding
the seriousness of the disease. The view that the fungus was native
to America, and its great virulence due to winter injury and other
temporary climatic effects upon the trees, has been strenuously
advocated. The Commission from the first, however, adopted the theory
of the Department of Agriculture that the disease was of foreign origin
and hence to be considered in the light of a dangerous invader. This
view has since been amply justified. Pennsylvania was the first state
to treat the epidemic seriously, but by the time the Commission was
able to begin work the disease was spread over the eastern half of the
State too completely to make its eradication there possible.
[1] Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, Vol. 9, No. 98, p. 30.
Twenty years ago such an epidemic as the present one would have
attracted little attention, but now the prices of all classes of
timber have been for some years increasing, and promise to continue to
increase indefinitely. It is obvious that every possible care must be
taken of the present forest stand; upon this point there is no longer
disagreement. In Pennsylvania the chestnut is especially valuable,
standing in intimate relation to many of the leading industries of the
State. It is distributed throughout the State, comprising at least
one-fifth, possibly one-third, of the timber. It is naturally adapted
to poor, hilly land not suited for agriculture, and will produce
profitable yields of extract wood, fence posts, rails, etc., in 25 to
30 years; and ties, poles, and saw timber in 40 to 50 years. Because
of its comparatively rapid growth, its superior ability to perpetuate
itself by means of sprouts, and the great variety of its uses, the
chestnut may be considered the most important forest tree in the
State. The ease with which chestnut can be managed according to the
principles of forestry made it, before the appearance of the blight,
one of the principal species depended upon to solve the problem of the
future timber supply of the State. On steep slopes, where the per cent.
of chestnut is high, serious deterioration, washing of the soil, and
reduction in water supply will undoubtedly follow the destruction of
the chestnut trees.
The complete loss of the present commercial stand of chestnut in
Pennsylvania, which, now that the Commission has ceased work, seems
absolutely certain, is a calamity which will be fully realized only in
the future. In matters of this kind we have obligations to the future,
aside from the particular emergency in hand. This is not the last tree
disease that will sweep over the State. All efforts to control this
disease would be justified even if we only learned how to control the
next one. Methods which may not be practicable now will be highly
practicable twenty years from now on account of the steady increase
which is bound to come in timber values. The mere fact that this
campaign against the chestnut blight has been undertaken at all shows a
great advance of thought over that of previous years.
With these facts in mind, it is obvious that three courses were
possible, when the extent and seriousness of the chestnut blight was
first realized in Pennsylvania.
_First_,—Do nothing.
_Second_,—Conduct scientific investigations of the disease with
the hope of determining by laboratory methods and very small field
experiments some method of control.
_Third_,—Conduct scientific investigations, and at the same time
immediately attack the epidemic by any and every means that seemed
to afford any possibility of checking or even delaying the course of
the disease. To follow the first method would have been to emulate
simply the example of New York and New Jersey. The second course had
many points in its favor, but it was obvious that such a course would
yield no results in time to be used on the present epidemic, though
possibly of the largest ultimate value. The third course appealed to
the Commission as the only one possible under existing circumstances.
The greatest handicap was the extent to which the disease was already
present in the State.
In the eastern half of the State the disease was obviously beyond
control. In the western half the best course available, and in fact the
only method that has been proposed at all for control of the disease,
was that of cutting out the advance infections. While this method is
open to many criticisms, nothing better has been proposed even to the
present time. The Commission adopted the cutting out methods advocated
by the U. S. Department of Agriculture with two exceptions: (1). Spots
of considerable size were cut out in some cases; that is, the cuttings
were not limited to strictly advance infections. (2). No immune zone
was established at first, although this might have been done later.
The method was essentially that advocated by Murrill in 1908, except
that trees were not cut to as great a distance as half a mile from
the source of infection. Detailed reports of the cutting out work are
appended. It is sufficient to say here that the progress of the disease
in the western half of the State has been set back five years, and
west of the line extending from Bradford to Somerset counties there is
little infection, and what infection there is dates from 1913. There
is no reasonable doubt that the disease could have been kept _instatu
quo_ indefinitely, had the work of cutting out continued. As set forth
in the appended reports, the methods of cutting out have been improved,
the cost determined and reduced, and winter scouting established as a
practical method. These methods developed by the Commission are now
in active use in the States of Virginia and West Virginia, where the
campaign of eradication is being vigorously pursued.
One of the most valuable results of the Commission’s work was the
establishment of the fact that the wood of a blighted tree is entirely
fit for use, and if utilized soon after the death of the tree from
blight, can be disposed of in the regular way and at normal values. The
Commission has advocated the cutting out of all diseased trees, since
on account of the prejudice against blighted poles and timber, and
the possibility of the market becoming glutted, this is the best plan.
Also the cutting of diseased trees was urged because it would reduce
the sources of infection. Since utilization was all that remained to be
done in the eastern half of the State, the Commission secured a special
reduced freight rate on blighted lumber, determined what demand there
was in and out of the State for chestnut lumber and other chestnut
products, and proceeded to bring owners and dealers together. This
work had just reached the point of its highest efficiency when the
Commission ceased work. As there is no longer any means of inspection
and certification of diseased lumber, the reduced freight rate is no
longer available.
When the Commission began work but few investigations had been made of
the chestnut blight, and other States, as well as the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, were working on the disease without special funds.
The Commission by its example and by its direct efforts, assisted in
securing Congressional and State appropriations, and practically all of
the scientific work and all of the practical work which has been done
on this disease since 1910 was made possible by the efforts of this
Commission. A National law was passed which requires strict inspection
of all imported nursery stock and the prohibition from entry of certain
classes of stock, and which makes the repetition of such an event as
the importation of the chestnut blight impossible, or at least highly
improbable. The work of this Commission was one of the greatest factors
in bringing about the passage of this law.
Not only has the work of the Commission aroused public attention
throughout the Eastern States regarding this disease, but the public
is awakened as never before by the example of the destruction of one
species to the necessity of conservation of all timber resources. In
this State the Commission has carried on a liberal educational campaign
in which it has had the hearty co-operation of the State Forestry
Department, the Conservation Association, such organizations as the
Boy Scouts, various lumber and trade associations, and many other
organizations, institutions, and individuals.
In conclusion, it seems necessary to call sharp attention to the real
lesson to be learned from the chestnut blight epidemic—viz.: the
necessity of more scientific research upon problems of this character;
to be undertaken early enough to be of some value in comprehending, if
not controlling the situation. We have seen that the blight might have
been kept out of the country in the first place by inspection, or once
in, that it might have been destroyed, or at least checked before it
had gotten widely distributed. But instead it was permitted to enter,
and to spread for many years without scientific notice, and for several
more years without any organized attempt to control it, or even to
study it seriously. Are we doing any better now with reference to the
future?
China has been shown to be the home of the chestnut blight. China,
then, would seem to be the obvious place to study it; but no
pathologists are there, and state and federal parsimony has so far
failed to provide for any investigations of the disease on its home
ground by American pathologists.
It has been proposed to replace the chestnut in southern New England
by plantings of white pine, in itself the most important eastern
timber tree; but the white pine is in turn subject to a newly imported
disease, the blister rust. It is not certain that very serious and
united efforts are being made to investigate and control this disease
even in the States that introduced it. As in the case of the chestnut
blight, scepticism has even been expressed as to its seriousness.
Again, it would seem that the obvious place to determine the
seriousness of the blister rust was in Europe, its home; yet to date
neither state nor National government has dispatched a scientist on
this errand. In this connection it may not be amiss to call attention
to the fact that in Pennsylvania there is, aside from the employees
of this Commission, only one professional plant pathologist! Yet the
preventable damage which this one plant disease—chestnut blight—has
done, would pay for the work of more plant pathologists than are now at
work in the entire world.
The Commission closes its work with regret, knowing well that the
blight will now spread over the State without hindrance. There is
some satisfaction in knowing, however, that the work left undone in
Pennsylvania has been actively taken up in Virginia and West Virginia,
and that the States of Ohio and North Carolina are making studies
preparatory to combatting the disease as soon as it appears in those
States. The scientific research carried on by the Commission will be
continued by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. We may be certain
that the war against this and other foreign epidemics will not cease
until science is so far advanced in both theory and practice that they
can be controlled.
Very truly yours,
WINTHROP SARGENT,
_Chairman_.
[Illustration]
Report of
Hon. I. C. Williams
Deputy Commissioner of Forestry, Collaborator
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
A common mark of the blight. Small leaves which developed in the early
spring on a top recently girdled by the blight, showing midsummer
condition. Withered leaves above the canker; sprouts below.]
A HISTORY OF THE EARLY PENNSYLVANIA EFFORT TO COMBAT THE CHESTNUT BARK
DISEASE.
BY HON. I. C. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FORESTRY, COLLABORATOR,
HARRISBURG, PA.
Preliminary to the final report of the Chestnut Blight Commission,
it is thought desirable to make a statement detailing the history of
the chestnut bark disease in Pennsylvania so far as known, and of the
efforts to combat it, leading up to the formation of the Commission
under the law of 1911, and the extended work of repression begun at
that time.
The attention of the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry was first
attracted to the appearance of the chestnut bark disease in this
State by a letter from Mr. Harold Peirce, of Haverford, dated July
18, 1908, reporting its presence in Lower Merion Township, Montgomery
County, and by an article appearing in the November, 1908, number of
“Conservation,” from the pen of Dr. John Mickleborough, of Brooklyn.
Subsequent correspondence with Dr. Mickleborough revealed the fact
that he had been a student of the disease for over a year and had
become familiar with it in all of its ordinary aspects. To these
two gentlemen, therefore, the State is primarily indebted for the
subsequent efforts made to study more particularly, and to attempt to
control this vicious tree disease.
The facts relating to the discovery of the disease in America and
its identification are pretty well known. It was first detected by
Dr. Hermann W. Merkel, in the Bronx Zoological Park, New York City,
in 1904, although it is almost certain that it existed in that
neighborhood for probably more than a year prior to Dr. Merkel’s
discovery. Referred for identification to Dr. W. A. Murrill of the New
York Botanical Garden, he published a description of it in 1906[2],
and by him the fungus was named _Diaporthe parasitica_, so called
because it was believed to be the only parasitic species of the genus.
The naming of the fungus has since been corrected by means of the
researches of Anderson, Clinton, Farlow, Shear and Stevens, and it is
now known systematically as _Endothia parasitica_.
[2] See “Torreya,” Vol. 6, No. 9.
Some controversy has been had over the origin of the disease and the
case is probably not yet settled. Dr. Clinton’s contention is and has
been, that it is a native fungus, which, by means of weather conditions
and possibly other factors, has taken on new attributes. Dr. Metcalf,
his co-worker Prof. Collins, Dr. Shear, and others believed and still
maintain that it is of foreign origin, introduced into America by the
importation of horticultural stock. Its first known appearance in the
region of New York City and its spread in concentric zones from that
point as a centre of infection, lent much plausibility to this theory.
The recent discovery made by Mr. Frank N. Meyer, of the same fungus in
northeastern China, where it is parasitic on _Castanea_, and where,
it appears, the host trees have become rather highly resistant to its
attack, leads further probability of correctness to Metcalf’s theory.
Possibly a great hope for America lies in this Chinese discovery.
Pathologists and foresters are anxiously looking forward to the results
of experiments now being made and which will be attempted, we hope, on
a much larger scale in the future. The regrettable, ever-present fact
is that this disease is with us here and now, and must be reckoned with
from every angle of attack. There seems to be no present diminution
sufficient to warrant the belief that it is likely to wear itself out,
or that our trees will become sufficiently resistant to ward off the
attack prior to the destruction of the trees themselves.
Subsequent correspondence between Dr. Mickleborough and the Department
of Forestry culminated in a letter from him under date of March 9,
1909, in which he outlined a definite plan for the examination of
a supposedly infected territory in southeastern Pennsylvania, and
offered his services to the Commonwealth for carrying out plans of
investigation. The proposed inspection was approved by the Department
on March 17, 1909, and the services of Dr. Mickleborough thus enlisted.
The first inspection visit was made by him in company with the writer,
March 29, 1909, at Mt. Holly, in Cumberland county, but where no
evidence of the disease was found at that time.
Prior to the beginning of this work in 1909, Dr. Mickleborough had
been invited by Dr. Jane Baker, physician in charge of the Chester
County Insane Hospital, to speak before an educational conference at
Embreeville, Chester county. At this time the disease was not generally
prevalent in that region, but a number of infected chestnut trees were
found.
The work of inspection over the southeastern portion of the State thus
undertaken under the direction of the Department of Forestry, as stated
above, was conducted by Dr. Mickleborough, and carried through or
into almost every county east of the Susquehanna. During the progress
of this examination the chestnut blight was not found north and west
of the South Mountain, although prior to this time the United States
Department of Agriculture had reported the existence of two spot
infections in the western portion of the State, near Altoona, and a
re-examination of the material relating thereto by Dr. Metcalf and his
assistants, seemed to leave no doubt as to the correctness of this
report. Certain it is that in May, 1909, there was no large or extended
infection west of the Susquehanna. Had there been in existence at that
time the means to carry on work of control along both sides of the
Susquehanna River, who can tell what the result might have been, looked
at in the light of our present knowledge?
The report of Dr. Mickleborough’s inspection and study was published
by the Department in the autumn of 1909. This is a 16 page pamphlet
illustrated by drawings showing a portion of the structural formation
of the fungus, and by a Lumiere color photograph of a stem section
of chestnut covered externally by the fruiting fungus. This specimen
of infected chestnut wood was sent in from Pike county, in the upper
Delaware valley, and was incubated and developed in a moist cell in the
Department of Forestry during the summer of 1909.
In the early part of the study of this bark disease, it was believed
that the Japanese species of _Castanea_ was either immune or highly
resistant to attack. Several specimens of Japanese chestnut were under
observation on Long Island, and fairly gave rise to this belief. One
grove examined near Westbury, in June, 1909, showed the Paragons and
common chestnuts badly attacked. The Japanese showed no attack at all.
Through the courtesy of the Hicks nursery at Westbury, forty-five
young chestnut trees supposed to be Japanese, and one hundred grafting
scions were sent to the chestnut orchard of Mr. Levi Wise, at Gap,
Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, and distributed among four persons of
the neighborhood for planting and testing out for immunity. The bark
disease was at that time particularly prevalent in the chestnut woods
at this place. Some of the newly planted trees died from other causes,
but enough of them were attacked and killed by the blight to show that
these particular trees, at least, were not immune.
On the 29th day of March, 1910, Dr. Mickleborough delivered a lecture
on the subject of this tree disease before the Main Line Citizens’
Association at the Merion Cricket Club, Haverford, Pa. This meeting
was arranged largely through the efforts of Mr. Peirce, who at that
time was the owner of several acres of chestnut woodland, and of which
tract Dr. Mickleborough made a rather extended examination, finding the
chestnut blight present in a number of trees. This discovery and the
lecture delivered on the subject brought the matter prominently to the
attention of the citizens of that neighborhood, and later led to some
very important developments with respect to studying and combating the
disease.
Following this address by Dr. Mickleborough, Mr. Peirce was in
correspondence with the Department of Forestry, calling attention to
the inroads being made upon the chestnut trees by this disease in the
neighborhood of his residence, requesting the Department to render such
help as it might be able in assisting the people to understand the
situation better, and, if possible, to eliminate or at least attempt
to control the trouble. This correspondence culminated in the calling
of a meeting on May 23, 1910, at the house of Mr. Robert W. Lesley, at
Haverford, which was attended by a number of the residents and land
owners of the neighborhood, by Dr. John W. Harshberger, the botanist,
representing the University of Pennsylvania, and by the Deputy
Commissioner, representing the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry.
The preliminary arrangements for beginning an extensive survey of this
region were discussed at this meeting. The Department representative
made his report to the Forestry Commission at its meeting held on
June 3, 1910. On motion of Dr. Rothrock, the Commission directed
that the Department render the desired help, and on the same day a
letter to this effect was sent to Mr. Peirce, the secretary of the
citizens’ meeting. On September 1, 1910, a corps of inspectors from the
Department in charge of the Deputy Commissioner, arrived at Haverford
and Ardmore, prepared to begin their work. Offices were speedily
fitted up in the building of the Merion Title and Trust Company at
Ardmore, and the first inspection of trees was made on the property
of Mr. Lesley on Saturday, September 3rd. From this date forward
until December 19, 1910, the work was vigorously carried on, and a
close inspection made of 296 properties, covering most of the region
extending from Overbrook to Paoli, and from the Schuylkill River on the
north, to a considerable distance south of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
A draft of each property was prepared showing the location of all
chestnut trees and indicating those which at that time were apparently
free of disease, as well as those showing the infection. Each property
owner was then furnished with a copy of the report and draft relating
to his own land.
To show the interest taken in this work by members of the Main Line
Citizens’ Association, it is necessary only to state that the work
was carried on almost entirely at the expense of the association. The
individual contributions for the purpose amounted to $2,707.70.
During the progress of this inspection, a second public meeting was
held in the auditorium of the Merion Cricket Club, at which time a
preliminary report was submitted and discussion had with respect to
the situation as it then existed. This meeting was attended by a large
number of ladies and gentlemen, members of the association, and much
interest was shown in the progress reported. The final report of the
committee of the association having the work in charge was printed and
rendered to the members under date of May 8, 1912. This committee was
as follows: Messrs. Harold Peirce, Chairman; Theodore N. Ely, Allan
Evans, Edgar C. Felton, William Righter Fisher, Alba B. Johnson, and
Robert W. Lesley.
In a letter bearing date the 12th day of March, 1909, addressed to the
Commissioner of Forestry at Harrisburg, Dr. Mickleborough used this
language. “As to remedy, the best that can be suggested by anyone at
present is _Control_ and not _Extermination_, for various reasons.
This I think is also true of the San Jose scale.” It will thus be seen
that the original idea involved in the attack on the chestnut blight
in Pennsylvania was _control_, just as the Department of Agriculture
of this State has always aimed at _control_ of the San Jose scale,
suggested in the letter just quoted. After the preliminary studies were
completed, no one believed that extermination or eradication could be
accomplished with the means at hand; but it was thought then, and is
still the belief of those who are most closely associated with the
work, that a _control_ is possible, and that it was much more possible
then than now, after the lapse of a period of five years.
During the progress of the inspection along the Main Line, it became
apparent that more than a local effort was demanded if any substantial
progress were to be made towards preventing the spread of the disease.
Steps were taken to enlist the active interest of the Governor and
the Legislature, (then in session). On the evening of April 10,
1911, Governor Tener sent a special message to both houses of the
Legislature, calling direct attention to the situation, and asking the
help of the General Assembly to combat the disease. The Governor’s
message was as follows:
“Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
“Executive Chamber,
“_Harrisburg, April 10, 1911_.
“Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
“I have the honor to call your attention to a new and
virulent disease of the wild chestnut tree, commonly known
as chestnut blight, recently discovered near New York City,
and hitherto unknown in America. The disease has continued
to spread, destroying the chestnut trees in the neighborhood
of New York City and well up the Hudson. It has invaded Long
Island, beginning at the western end, sweeping eastward,
practically covering the island. It has progressed to the
southwest, through the whole of the State of New Jersey,
and all the chestnut trees there appear to be doomed to
destruction. It has entered Pennsylvania and is prevalent in
the Delaware Valley. It has been discovered in the following
counties: Pike, Monroe, Northampton, Bucks, Montgomery,
Chester, Philadelphia, Delaware, Lancaster, and southern
Berks. In isolated places it has crossed the Susquehanna,
and is now detected in eastern York, eastern Perry and one
portion of southwestern Perry. Other points of infection
have been found near Altoona and Greensburg.
“Experiments made by the Department of Agriculture at
Washington demonstrate that it is possible to prevent the
spread of the disease by removing spot appearances as they
are detected, and destroying the trees in which the disease
occurs. By this means the region around Washington has
been freed from the blight for at least two years, and it
has not re-invaded this area. In the southeastern portion
of Pennsylvania, where the infection is severe and almost
complete, little hope exists for saving the trees, but in
that portion of the State west of the Susquehanna and north
of the Blue Mountains, it is hoped, by prompt action on
the part of the State, to prevent further damage. If this
disease can be held within the southeastern portion of the
State, it will mean the saving of the wild chestnut trees
in the other parts of the Commonwealth, the value of which
extends into the millions of dollars.
“I therefore recommend that the Legislature give immediate
attention to this important subject and that a Commission be
created with sufficient power and appropriation of moneys to
determine upon and employ efficient and practical means for
the prevention, control, and eradication of this disease,
and that said Commission be authorized, in conjunction
with the Department of Forestry, or otherwise, to conduct
scientific investigations into the nature and causes of such
disease and to adopt such means to prevent its introduction
and spread as may be found necessary.
“JOHN K. TENER.”
The next day, April 11, 1911, a bill having this purpose in view, and
which had been previously carefully drawn and vigorously criticised,
was simultaneously introduced in both House and Senate. This bill
became a law by the signature of the Governor, June 14, 1911[3]. The
law creates a Commission of five members and vests them with almost
plenary power to carry out its mandates. An appropriation of $275,000
became available at once. The appointment of the members of the
Commission followed after an interval of about two weeks. Organization
was effected, officers and assistants chosen, and on August 23, 1911,
the Commission was prepared to proceed with its work.
[3] See Pamphlet Laws, 1911, page 922.
While the major effort of the Commission from the beginning was to get
a control, the subject of eradication was vigorously debated, and, as
will be seen in subsequent pages, determined efforts at eradication
were undertaken under the advice and direction of the Commission. The
feeling was that if there be any merit in such effort, opportunity
ought not to be lacking to prove it. The early announced and decisive
plan involving the cutting-out method, proposed and outlined by Dr.
Murrill, contributed very considerably toward the decision to try out
this method.
The Murrill plan ([4]) was as follows:
“Owners of standing chestnut timber within the affected area are
advised to cut and use all trees, both old and young, that stand within
half a mile of diseased trees, unless protected from infection through
wind-blown spores by dense forest growth or some other natural barrier.
This may not prevent the spread of the disease through the agency of
storms, birds and squirrels, but it will at least retard its progress.
Old weathered chestnut trunks that have been dead several years have no
power to spread the disease, and these may be cut at leisure for the
tannic acid factory or for firewood. Trees of good size recently killed
should be turned into lumber as soon as possible; the fungus affects
only the bark, but other fungi may afterwards impair the value of the
wood if allowed to stand too long. Discarded branches and young trees
of no value that are cut near the edge of the infected area should be
burned at once in order to destroy the spores they contain; but if they
are well within the zone of infection, such precaution is useless.”
Every element in the Murrill plan has been employed both by the
Commission and by the State Department of Forestry. The fact that
subsequently Dr. Murrill partially shifted his ground[5], did not seem
sufficient reason to warrant the abandonment of a plan of attack which
in many cases was productive of satisfactory results.
The history of what work the Commission did, and of the results
accomplished form the substance of several preliminary reports
submitted to the Governor from time to time. The final report is what
follows.
[4] W. A. Murrill: Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, Vol. 9,
No. 98, p. 30. February, 1908.
[5] Harrisburg Conference Report, 1912, pp. 194, 201, 202.
[Illustration]
Report of
Mark A. Carleton
General Manager Pennsylvania Chestnut Tree
Blight Commission
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
Summer condition of a blighted tree. The withered leaves of the top
above the canker, and the vigorous sprouts below the canker are
characteristic signs.]
THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE CHESTNUT TREES; FINAL REPORT OF THE GENERAL
MANAGER.
By MARK A. CARLETON, GENERAL MANAGER, PENNSYLVANIA CHESTNUT TREE BLIGHT
COMMISSION.
In closing the active work of this Commission, it is a great
satisfaction to be able to report constant progress to date, and the
attainment of good, practical results. The work began two years ago in
the midst of much skepticism as to its possibilities, but the optimism
of the Commission and the wisdom of its methods of operation have in
the main, been amply confirmed by the results since obtained.