410 
D. E. SALMON. 
This arsenic was deposited, to a greater or lesser extent, upon 
the fodders of the pastures, and when ingested hy live stock, 
caused ailment and sickness. The most rational view is that the 
volume of the smoke stream, with its arsenic contents, is at times 
carried by air currents upon the lands adjacent to the smelter; that 
sometimes the volume is much more dense than at other times, 
depending upon atmospheric conditions, but that when the smoke 
is dense and low, there is a precipitation of more or less arsenic 
upon the fields, and that a sufficient quantity is precipitated to 
poison the pastures, so that animals feeding thereon are poisoned. 
Naturally, owing to variable winds, there is no rule of distribution 
of the smoke, so that there,is no uniform extent of the results of 
the smoke upon animal life. Hundreds of animals which grazed 
in the vicinity near the smelter have never shown the slightest 
symptoms of poison; cows in the city of Anaconda have thrived 
in the highest degree; perhaps but a few animals, out of a large 
number grazing in the same field, have been affected at all—yet, 
after all, when the facts, as well as expert opinions, are assembled 
and harmonized, the strength of the whole proof is such that it 
practically excludes any general cause for animal unthriftiness 
other than arsenical poisoning. 
“ But, while the conclusion just reached is the only accurate 
one under the evidence, still, it must not be taken that it was ar¬ 
rived at without overruling a strong challenge to every single 
issue pertaining to live stock conditions. To some of these matters, 
it is proper to advert briefly. For instance, it is not to be inferred 
that the complainant has sustained his contention that the sickness 
in animals has been fatal, or that it has been so general through 
the Deer Lodge Valley as to make the raising of live stock either 
impossible or unprofitable in all parts thereof. Complainant called 
as witnesses less than half of the farmers in the farmers’ associa¬ 
tion, whereas defendants introduced the testimony of a number 
of farmers, not members of the association, who have lived for 
years in the vicinity of the smelter, within the so-called ‘ smoke 
one’ (smoke zone?), and who said that they had no trouble with 
their stock or crops since 1903, and that their ranches were profit¬ 
able. Nor can it be doubted that upon the cross examination of 
