52 TRANSACTIONS OF ROYAL SCOTTISH ARBORICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



glowing eulogy of the work of the Selby Commission which he 

 has so ably and attractively presented to us. 



In its essentials the Selby case does not seem to differ greatly 

 from most of the cases with which we are familiar here. 

 Dr Lauder states that "the early history of the dispute . . . 

 followed familiar lines." In 1908 an action was brought against 

 the Selby Smelting and Lead Company by " the people of the 

 State of California " on the ground that the fumes and smoke 

 from their smelting operations were " detrimental to vegetation 

 and to the health of the people." The action was tried "before 

 a judge in the usual manner," and judgment was given against 

 the Smelting Company, " who were required by the Court to 

 carry on their operations in such a manner as not to cause 

 damage to the vegetation or annoyance to the inhabitants of the 

 district." The Smelting Company appealed twice against this 

 decision, but it was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the 

 State in 191 2, and one would have imagined (assuming that the 

 Californian courts have the same powers as ours have) that 

 nothing further remained to be done but to enforce the Court's 

 decree. In the following year (1913) "trouble again broke out 

 afresh." The inhabitants of the country near the works alleged 

 that "a nuisance still existed, and that the terms of the interdict 

 were not being observed " j and apparently instead of steps being 

 taken to have the decree of the Court enforced, and the Smelting 

 Company compelled to implement their obligations, as I am 

 quite certain would have been done here, at the request of both 

 parties the Court set up a tribunal of scientists to re-investigate 

 the whole matter on the ground that "sufficient data did not 

 exist to enable the question to be settled," and it would seem 

 that Dr Lauder favours some such procedure here when he 

 speaks of " the great advance which has been made by the 

 appointment of this Commission in the method of settling 

 disputes involving scientific evidence and investigation," a view 

 which is confirmed by his statement towards the end of the 

 review that "our methods of settling similar disputes are most 

 unsatisfactory, and there is probably no branch of legal procedure 

 in which the necessity for reform is more urgent." 



In the Selby case the scientific commission set up by the 

 Court consisted of three scientific experts — a mining expert, a 

 professor of organic chemistry, and a chemical engineer — with 

 a trained scientific and technical staff, including 10 chemists, 



