ARSENICAL POISONING OF FRUIT TREES. 
WM. P. HEADDEN. 
I was called upon at one time to investigate the cause of the 
death of some shade and ornamental trees, and the bad condition 
of the property in general. The claim was advanced that arsenic and 
lead were the cause, more particularly the former. The assertion 
was made that animals had died as the result of feeding upon the 
grass growing on the premises. Examination of the grass, the 
bark of the trees, the soil, and the dust which had collected in un¬ 
used portions of the buildings, all showed an abundance of arsenic, 
lead and copper. 
In connection with the preceding facts, the probable cause of 
the death of the trees seemed apparent and yet certain consid¬ 
erations led me to be cautious in insisting upon the arsenic present 
as the cause. For instance, calcic arsenite was at that 
time being used on our fruit trees to destroy the codling moth— 
the whole tree from the outermost twigs to the very base of the 
trunk was, I well knew, literally bathed with this arsenical prepara¬ 
tion several times in the course of a season. The whole of this 
arsenic sooner or later found its way to the soil. I had not, at 
that time, proved by direct experiment, nor learned that any one 
claimed that the fruit trees had been injured by this arsenic. This 
seemed to me so strong an argument against the too ready assump¬ 
tion that arsenic was really the cause of the death of the trees, that 
I felt obligated to caution the attorneys that it was not clear to 
my mind, that neglect had not contributed more to the condition of 
the property than the causes complained of. Still the facts were 
well established, i. e., the trees were dead and arsenic was present, 
also lead and copper, and in spite of the fact that our apple and pear 
trees were being sprayed, a number of times annually with arsenical 
preparations and no injury reported, except in cases where the 
arsenic had been applied in a soluble form, I was quite fully con¬ 
vinced, that the arsenic had contributed largely to the death of the 
vegetation on this property. 
The protection against arsenical poisoning in the case of our 
orchard trees is the insolubility of the arsenical preparations used 
in spraying and further that these preparations shall not be changed 
or become soluble in the soil. In the case referred to, it would have 
been judged that the iron and especially the lime present, both as 
carbonate and sulfate, was sufficient not only to render the arsenic 
insoluble but also to prevent its being brought into solution again, 
still it was my opinion that the arsenic was really the principal cause 
in the destruction of the vegetation in question. 
