The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-01-02
Justice Gould DiSmisseS
Suit to Prevent Re-
moyal of Historic
Trees.
Says Sentimental Loss "
Should Have Ne)PIaCe
in Court of
Equity.

Justice GsuId today declined to inter
fere witlH5he plans Of the Grant Memo
rial CQHmissiOn 10 establish the GranJ
MemqFlal in the Botanic Garden. lie
denied the petition for injunction OF AT.
toF7ley Conrad H. Syme, who protested
against the'prODOscd action OF the com
mission, on the ground that il would
destroy certain historic trees" AIr.
Syme probably viii enter an appeal
The court prefsced its decision by
saying that the plaintiff was met with
the ursurmountable objection TO his
Plea that he had no right for the relief
sought, because the injury alleged was
one he shared with the public at large
ana not by himself. The court. Justice
Gould said. could noc entertain such q
PRAYER unless The plaintiT specified aud
proved specific injury
No Sentiment in Court.
He briefly reviewed the petition, stat
ing that Attorney Syme, as a citizen
and taxpayer. wished 90 enj0in the
Memorial Commission from erecting q
in the garden, contendins
that such action would entail d loss
upon the citizens Of the United States.
both from a sentimental and financial
standpoint" The financial injuries had
not been proven, the court held, and
Justice Could said courts of equity had
nothing to do with sentimental stand
points" If such existed.
Justice Gould cited a number OF au-
and decisions from other juus-
dictions in support of his ruling. Con
tinuing. he said:
Tested by these principles, this bill
Of complaint cannot be maintained. q
contains no allegations that the plail-
tiff pays any taxes to the United states
or that. If he did. such taxes would
be increased by the proposed action
Of the commission II sets up TO prop
eTty interest whatever of plaintiff thai
viii he. affected by such action.
Loss Is Alleged.
1t does state that the destruction O..
the trees in question viii entail a loss
upon the citizens of the United States
both from a sentimental and financial
standpoint and upon your complainant
as a taxpayer and taxable inhabiJaut
Of the United States
Courts Of equity, as stated by Chief
Justice Fuller. deal only with civil and
property rights and have NJ facility for
preventing loss from sentimental
standpoint whatever that may be.
From the allegations In the bill, II
is clear that Whatever loss may be sui
ieT5d from q financial standpoint, dix
fers IN no respect from that which VIII
be suffered by every other taxable in
ha bitant OF the United States. Nor does
the bill afford the court any opp0rtunity
for concluding that from a financial
standpoint the actor. of the commission
viii result in any loss.
Cannot See the Argument.
Assuming tnat the plaintiff IS a tax
payer. it is impossible to conclude from
the face OF this record that his financial
will be increased by the loca-
ton of the memorial TO General Grant
in the Botanic Garden, rather than ir
some other locality.
For these reasons the bill viii be
As ne concluded his decision. Justice
Could informed Attorney Stuart Nc
Namara. representing the Commission
and the Government, that while his &C
ton was intended as ar opinion. he
was so confident that his position wa
correct that he would sign q formal or
der denying the injunction and finally
disr!'ssirG the case. Mr.. McNamara
was asked TO prepare an order 10 tRis
effect. and al further action. If taken
by the plaintiff. must be before the
Court Of Appeals.
To Appeal as a Test.
Nit. Syme, when acquainted with the
text of the decision, said that he would
probably note an appeal He contended
that any citizen had a right to apply
for an Injunction proceedings when he
was cognizant OF q pa pable violation
OF the law, as he alleges in this in
stance. and said his appeal would be for
the purpose of testing this question.
The present case, he said, had never
had a parallel I'm either England ol
America Mr.. Syme said il now re-
mained for Congress TO either permit
or refuse to allow the destruction of the
trees