DAMAGE TO VEGETATION BY SMOKE AND FUMES. 55 



feature in this case — and to my mind the most important one 

 in connection with it — was that in the vicinity of the source of 

 pollution some portions of the plantations had grown better than 

 others, and much better than some of those at a very consider- 

 able distance away from it. The trees were almost wholly of 

 one species. Why this difference in growth? The answer is 

 a very simple one, but one which could only be given by a 

 skilled practical forester. It was a case where an initial mistake 

 had been made in the selection of the crop for the particular 

 soil and locality, and the failure of the crop, instead of being 

 due to poisoning by fumes, was chiefly due to this initial mistake 

 coupled with bad forestry afterwards. I don't think this question 

 could have been properly decided by a tribunal like the Selby 

 Commission, and I don't think the decision which was given was 

 a wrong one. In B the case was essentially similar to A, but 

 the position of the plantations in relation to the prevailing 

 winds was reversed, which placed them under more favourable 

 conditions relatively to the source of pollution than in A. The 

 allegation was practically the same as in A. Many of the old 

 non-coniferous trees, both in the vicinity of the source of 

 pollution and at a considerable distance from it, were stag- 

 headed, and their boles were covered with epicormic branches. 

 Obviously they had been overthinned, and they had almost 

 reached the limit of their existence, and were a long way past 

 financial maturity ; in fact they had made practically no incre- 

 ment for a number of years. In a young coniferous plantation, 

 instead of the dead and dying trees being removed, as would 

 have been the case under good management, I saw the best 

 trees being felled, and the dead and dying left as examples of the 

 effects of noxious fumes and smoke on young conifers ! How would 

 a tribunal like the Selby Commission have dealt with a case of 

 this sort? The chemists would, no doubt, have found sulphur 

 dioxide in the atmosphere. Would they have attributed the 

 condition of these trees to its presence? 



Dr Lauder, referring to our legal procedure, states that " in 

 all such cases the Court should have the assistance and advice 

 of one or more Assessors, who should be men of high standing 

 in the department of science involved, and who should have no 

 partisan interest in the case." As matter of fact, a practice of 

 this sort prevails, and has prevailed for a very long time, in 

 our courts. It sometimes happens that, in order to enable him 



