96 Rhodora [APRIL 
and distorted, the green coloring matter being completely disorgan- 
ized and filled with small brown granules of “acid chlorophyl” which 
gave rise to the characteristic yellow and brown splotches upon the 
leaves and stems. 
After it had been established by expert testimony that the effect of 
such vapors as would be generated by the burning of tar was identical 
with that produced in the plants of Miss Fay and Mr. Walsh, an 
attempt was made to fix as nearly as possible the actual money 
loss involved. Such well known authorities as Mr. B. M. Watson, 
Mr. John K. Farquhar, Mr. Robert Cameron, Mr. Wm. H. Elliott 
and others equally as competent testified as to the preéminent repu- 
tation of Mr. Walsh as a rose grower and the specific worth of the 
individual plants he had lost. Although there was the natural varia- 
tion in the estimates that would be expected, where so many opinions 
were given independently, the average of all the estimates on the value 
of the roses damaged by poisonous gases amounted to $5,543.47 on 
the plants of Miss Fay and $15,596 on those belonging to Mr. Walsh. 
In addition to this sum it was maintained that Mr. Walsh was 
entitled to special damages for the loss of prizes which he would 
undoubtedly have received and for the loss of advertising due to his 
inability to exhibit and keep his flowers before the public as usual. 
These claims were allowed by the Auditor, who awarded $21,989.32 
as the total amount of damages sustained. The Railroad Company 
subsequently paid $20,000 in settlement, without taking an appeal. 
While somewhat similar cases involving the question of damage to 
vegetation due to certain noxious vapors have been tried in this coun- 
try, no one has ever received anything like such a sum as was paid 
in this instance. As Mr. Morse, in his closing argument, said, *I 
need not say to the Auditor that this case is one of great importance. 
It is important in a certain sense to the profession, not only to the 
profession of law, but to the profession of florists, because no action 
involving so serious a damage to plants or flowers has ever arisen in 
this country, and, while there may not be much law to be settled by 
it, it still will always be of interest." Considering the dignified and 
unprejudiced manner in which the entire hearing was conducted and 
the fair and careful way in which the amount of damage was esti- 
mated, it certainly established a very strong precedent in favor of 
those who have large interests in the growing of flowers for either 
pleasure or profit. 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
