Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-20
Justice Gould to Give Decision
Monday Next.
ARGUMENTS HEARD TODAY
Attorney Syme's Appeal for Injunc-
ton Against Statue Commission.
COL. BRoMwELL FILES ANSWER
United States District At
torney Mcnamara Represents
Government and Commission.

The fate of the historic trees of the
Botanic Gardens will be decided Mon
day next by Justice Gould of the District
Supreme Court. Justice Gould today i1st-
ened to the arguments of Attorney Con-
rad H. Syme. who in his capacity as cit
izen and taxpayer is asking the court to en-
Join the Grant memorial commission from
locating the proposed memorial to Ulysses
S. Grant in the portion Of the Botanic
Gardens selected by the commission on
the plea that such location would cause
the destruction of the Crittenden oak
the Beck elm and other trees of historic
interest.
United States Attorney Mcnamara ap-
peared for the commission. Mr.. w. X
Smith. superintendent of the Botanic Gar
dens, and Representative Swager Sherley
Of Kentucky were present In court and
appeared to be deeply interested In the
argument.
Park Commission Criticised.
Mr.. syme urged his right as citizen to
institute the proceedings and criticise the
so-called park commission. He paid his
respects to the charge of Interior motive
said to be imputed to him by member
of Congress, named Smith.
Mr.. Syme declared his sole purpose was
to prevent a violation Of the law and that
the trees of the Botanic Gardens be not
sacrificed by the execution of an act or
Congress passed in the dying hours OF
the last session as rider to the sundry
civil bill. He invited those who cried
Interior motive to look into the constitu-
ton of the so-calied park commission. the
expenditure of the contingent fund OF the
Senate and the literature compiled by the
park commission.
Resuming his argument Mr. Syme said
the Botanic Gardens were esta biished for
the propagation of trees, and In the ma
ture of things would be expected to be oe-
cupied by trees. He claimed that the
such a place should be taken to mean
mot in use by trees"
Mr.. McNamara's Argument.
Assistant United States District At
torney Stuart Mcnamara eontended, on
behalf of the commission and Of Col.
Charles NJ Bromwell. officer in charge Of
public buildings and grounds. who, by
leave of court. has been substituted In
the place of Capt John H. Poole. named
defendant in the original bill. that the
court lacks Jurisdiction Of the matter,
and that Congress should be applied to,
as the location of the statue had been
authorized by Congress In the Botanic
Syme's petition that over thirty trees
would be destroyed by the location of
the Grant memorial as decided by the
commission. and declared that no more
than ten trees would be affected.
He urged that Mr.. Syme was not a tax
payer to the United States and therefore
could not be damaged, nor was he en-
titled to maintain the action. He insisted
the court IL without Jurisdiction, as Con-
gress has entire control of the grounds
and other land In the District of Column
bia the title to which is in the United
States.
He claimed that Congress could direct
the removal of the gardens In toto. and
consequently could order the transplanting
OF any number of the trees.
In answer to the claim that the land Is
occupied. Mr.. Mcnamara urged that no
monument had been erected in this city
where 1t had not been found necessary to
remove trees.
Col. Bromwell's Answer.
Col Cromwell in his answer filed to-
day adopts the answer made by Capt.
Poole to the original petition. and in
forms the court that the Grant memo
rial commission was created by act OF
Congress and vested with the juris-
diction and authority TO locate the pro-
posed memorial in an unoccupied pof-
ton of the Botanic Garden grounds, ana
that. as executive and discussing on
Ger of the commission. he Is proceeding
under it's orders to erect monument
In the precise location determined upon
and adopted by the commission.
In the course of the erection OF the me-
mortal. he states. 1t will be necessary to
remove certain trees. but under directions
of the commission he does not intend to
cut down or ruthlessly destroy the trees,
but to remove them and save them for
planting elsewhere.
He asks that the rule be discharged and
the bill dismissed on the ground that as
the prayer Of the bill is to restrain the
defendants from locating the site Of the
Grant memorial so as to render unneces-
sary the destruction Of the trees and as
no destruction Is imminent there Is moth
ing for the court to enjoin.