The label was neatly framed and affixed to the tree at about 
the level o£ the eye. This proved to be a matter of considerable 
public interest— more, in fact, than was anticipated. Most per- 
sons who passed the tree read the label, and several high school 
teachers included a study of it in their field lessons with classes 
in the Garden, the classes copying the label into their note 
books. 
Figure fi shows the tree in full foliage and with the label 
affixed, as it appeared on August 14, 1911, shortly after the bark 
was removed. As predicted, the tree failed to put forth leaves 
the following season, except a few scattered and poorly developed 
ones, though the catkins appeared in profuse numbers. This 
was not unexpected, for it is rather usual, when the vegetative 
functions of plants are interfered with, for the reproductive activity 
to become more vigorous. 
Figure 7 shows the tree as it appeared the following spring 
(May 14, 1912), with abundant foliage appearing on adjacent 
trees. The tree has since been cut down. 
It was somewhat discouraging to find that, in spite of the 
botanical and ethical teaching of the label above described, a 
similar offence was committed again, in the spring of 1913, on the 
opposite side of the Garden. This would tend to support the 
theory that vandalism is sometimes, at least, intentional and 
malicious. However, the second offence, like the first, was utilized 
to press home the needed lessons in plant life and personal con- 
duct, and the label was affixed to the second tree. Here, as 
elsewhere, education must proceed in accordance with the old 
formula: “Line upon line, precept upon precept.” 
C. S. G. 
