In Madison v

The court refused to impose an injunction on the smelters because they have been conducting their businesses in a lawful way. These businesses only know of one method to operate on and have made all possible efforts to get rid the smoke and noxious vapors. The remedy the farmer-plaintiffs got from the court was that the defendants spent $200,000 in experiments but still no other solution.  If I were one of the farmers, I would have started to conduct my own experiments and research on this issue after this decision was made. 

Georgia succeeded in getting an injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court when the plaintiffs in Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur had been refused an injunction by the Tennessee Supreme Court because the defendants were abandoning the old method of roasting ore in open heaps. There also happened to be a preponderance of evidence that the sulfurous fumes have been causing and damaging a large amount of forests, vegetable life, and human health.  In a separate opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the Court should apply the same standard in nuisance cases brought by public authorities as it would in private nuisance actions. I agree that courts should apply the same standard in deciding nuisance cases regardless of whether the plaintiff is a public entity within the scientific realm. I think that just because an action is done in a ‘legal’ way does not mean that it is not harmful and hazardous. Scientific research on the current method and potential methods should be a responsibility taken seriously. All approachable methods should be as sustainable as possible.