Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-07-10
Select Council Sends the Ordinance
Regulating the Nuisance, Back
to the Committee.
THE CATTLE MEASUREsGOES ALSO.
Both Branches Pass the Bill Making In
creased Fire FacilitieSSWith
Little Opposition.
REGULATIONS FOR FRACTIONS ROADS.
For the First Time The Veto of Mayor GOurley Is
Sustained by Vote.

Councils held the first special meeting of
the summer vacation yesterday afternoon.
Several important measures were up for
consideration, and more seats were nlled
than have been for q long time. In the Com
mon branch every member waspresent ex-
cept Chairman Holiday, whose place was
filed by W. A. Magee, and in Select only
two OF three were absent. The ordinance
Ior the Improvement of the Bureau of Fire
went through with little opposition, as did
the police disability bill. Owing to vigor-
Gus protest from drovers the ordinance reg
ulating the driving of cattle through the
streets was sent back to the committee. The
subject of regulating street railways came
up IN the shape of two ordinanceS-one re
quiring all cars TO come to a halt before
crossing an intersecting line, and another
providing for q license on each car, the pro-
ceeds TO go toward hiring cornermen.
Talk On the Smoke Consumer Ordinance.
The measure creating the most discussion,
though no action was taken on it, was the
smoke nuisance ordinance. The Public
Safety Committee held a meeting shortly be-
fore Councils convened and recommended
il.
The ordinance bears the title: IAN ordi-
nance to regulate and suppress the produc-
tion and emission of smoke from bituminous
coal. and to provide penalties fer the viola
ton thereof" 1t provides that after the or
dinance is passed the emission of smoke
from bituminous coal or escape of such
smoke from any chimney, smokestack or
1iue within the city shall be declared q
nuisance. 1t shall be unlawful for any firm
or individual to permit such escape, a pen
atty of from $40 to $50 being provided for
each and every violation over and above ex-
listing nuisance penalties Buildings used
as residences are exempt from this law. The
fifth section provides against discrimination
in favor of or against any device or method
which may be used TO accomplish the pur-
pose of the law.
After the reading of the ordinance Mr..
Benz asked for an explanation of its object,
saving he thought it an imposition on manu-
facturers.
Mr. Keating-As a manufacturer 1 am in
favor of the ordinance. 1t is step forward
in science and civilization, and can be ac-.
complished with economy to the people and
the manufacturers also. Smoke consuming
devices are not yet brought to that perfec
tion which will eventually come but there
are already smoke consumers on the market
that are positive preventatives of smoke
and SCOT While costing considerable,
perhaps, in first cost to a large con-
cern they are economical in the long
run and viii more than pay for themselves
in years use. Such device is already in
use in Oliver Bros mills, and is eminently
satisfactory not only as a preventative of
the smoke nuisance, but in economy. Other
firms have adopted smoke consumers and
the use of them has gotten beyond the ex-
perimental stage.
A Shame to Spoil Fine Buildings.
1T is a shame" continued Mr. Keating,
''that handsome blocks erected in the city
during the period when natural gas seemed
TO have come to stay should now be ruined
by black smoke. 1 refer to the stack of the
Arbuckle building, close to the magnificent
buildings of the Duquesne Club, the Ger
man National Bank and the Bank of Com
merce on Sixth and W ood street. They are
being ruined. as are many other buildings of
handsome and costly design. This ordi-
nance is not expected to stop smoke alto
Eether. but it will go great way.
toward il, and if properly carried out will
save thousands of dollars. Other cities are
abOlishing the smoke nuisance, and Pitts
when the step involves not an expense but
a great economy.
DR.. McCord-I am opposed to the ordi-
nance. The city has no right to compel
manufacturers to be economical if they
do not want to be. The business men of
PittsburC are already held down by too
many restrictions. They should be given
any privileges in reason because they are
the life of the city.
Mr.. WarmcaStle-Mr. Heating, who is a
manufacturer, has covered the case very
thoroughly. He knew what he was talking
about when he said smoke consumers saved
money to manufacturers using them. Take
the instance OF the Hamilton building as one
of many of its kind in the lower part of the
city where large quantities of coal are used.
Mr.. Hamilton put in a smoke consuming
device at the expense of n few hundred dol
lars that effectually prevented SCOT and
smoke. thus demonstrating the practicability
of such devices and at the same time saving
money. Fifteen per cent at the least can be
saved in the cost of coal. Pittsburg has
lived under clear skies now for a few years
and there is no sensible reason why she
should go back to her former condition when
her name was synonym for smoke and
dirt. If this ordinance is made a law it can
be tried and its practicability demonstrated.
ii il then proves impracticable il can easily
be abolished, but by all means give it a trial
Mr. Benz-It will be curtailing the rights
of the manufacturers of the city and an i'm
position upon them, in spite of the other
gentlemen's remarks to the contrary. While
a smoke consumer may be practicable in a
building like the Hamilton it would not be
in a big rolling mill or any other concern
where large batteries of boilers are used be-
cause il would be too expensive.
On the vote to pass the ordinance on sec
ond reading it was defeated by a vote of 12 to
:. and then on Mr.. Keating's motion, was re-
feTred back to the Public Safety Committee