Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-09-25

CUTS, making glue from any dead animals
or part thereof. making or boiling varnish
or oil. making lampblack. turpentine or tar
| distilling ardent alcoholic or fermented
spirits. storing or keeping scraps, fats.
| grease or other offensive animal matter
rendering or trying out lead, undressed
and unslaughtered animals. or any other
business or trade whereby noises, stenches
| and odors and noxious gases arise or are
generated, within the cities of Washington
| or Georgetown, or the more densely popu-
lated portions Of said cities, are hereby de-
clared nuiSances injurious to health; and
| any person who shall cause, erect, create,
! maintain or continue any such nuisance,
and who shall fail after due notice from the
board to abate the same, shall. upon con-
nor more than 500 for every such offense."
Facts and the Law.
Certain business, from which arise or are
generated noxious odors and cases. are de-
| clared by law to be nusances and are
| specifically made the subject Of regulations
| as have just read. The fact is not regard
| ed at ALL The fact was the very thing
which the law meant to guard. 1t declared
| that the nuisance should not be dependent
| upon any other fact than that these doors
and gases were generated Is this estab-
Eshment proposed, to be tolerated by you,
within that law? Are odors and gases
or gases arise, or are they generated?
| They say, on the other hand they do
| arise; but had it in their power to prevent
any injury or detriment to the public aris-
| ing from them. That is not the question
| here. The lawmaker has not thought fit TO
| make the nuisance dependent upon ultimate
detriment or injury. The iawmaker has
| acted as the common law of England has
acted from the beginning, upon the theory
| that there is such probability that certain
| businesses will result in injury, that it is
| wise for the law to declare them to be
nu.sances, irrespective of the possibility OF
| preventing injury or detriment to the pub
| lie. Now. You can read this law for your
| selves. The gist of the law Is that these
| roxious odors or gases arise, or are gener-
| ated. Is it possible that anything can be
palmer than this? Would you countenance
| trade or business that evolved noXious
| doors and gases because the party under
| took to provide against any injury resulting
| to the neighborhood, or otherwise? l take
| that to be the simple point in this case.
That the Congress of the United States has
| defined what shall be nuisance, and that
| definition is: That any business shall be a
| nuisance whereby noxious odors or gases
| arise or are generated. My friend on the
| other side will say they do arise, there Is
no doubt: that they are generated. There
| is no doubt about that. Take the regula-
| tons of the old board of health. which are
| supplemented by the building regulations,
and the language of the last appropriation
| act, and there can be no doubt that Con-
| gress took upon itself the jurisdiction IN
| these matters and specifically provided
| against establishments of the kind that are
| sought to be erected.
Not Justified.
"Now coming to the last appropriation
act If you will read that law You will
find that the whole scope of the law is to
remove this fetid, corrupt matter of gar
| bage, not to bring it into the geographical
| localities protected by the ordinances of the
| board of health, but to take 1t out. That is
the whole scope of the appropriation law
under which you are now acting. There is
| Ia fol- ga herfnp and
| ing tine garbage and what not within the
cities of Washington and Georgetown, and
| the densely populated portions OF the
| county, taking it out, that is the theory OF
| the law And what are you doing now?
| Why, it is proposed that you should use the
| appropriation in question, not to take 1t out
| of these places, where this trade or bust
ness has been denounced, but, in order to
| have this business or trade carried on with
in that locality, and to the detriment and
| injury of a certain portion of it. That is
| the question. DID Congress ever intend any
| such thing as that? Why, you gentlemen
know well as do what is to be the ul-
| innate result of this thing. You put that
nuisance there and the whole section there
| abouts is put under the ban. Improvements
| are abandoned, values of property go down,
because you have dedicated that portion Of
your beautiful city to what is a nuisance.
And why do you do 1t? You have a county
cut here, you have nav!gable river wash
| ing one side Of the city. both of which could
| be taken advantage of in this matter.
Now, l cannot see in what way you are
| to justify to yourselves the granting OF
this permit. The whole inquiry whether
this business proposed to be carried on, the
business of gathering together whatever Is
| most noxious and offensive, that is the first
| part, and incinerating it. Now, no man
with a head on his shoulders will say that
a party who is doing that is not carrying
| on business in which noxious odors arise
Then it is directly against the act of 1880
health. They say, on tine other hand, that
it is true all this stuff cannot be brought
without these odors, also that the process
| of incineration produces noxious doors and
gases. But they are controlled by scientific
appliances, these odors, and stripped Of
| their detr!ment to the public, the appli-
cants say. You have no atom of discretion
| in this matter. for the law has defined a
nuisance, and the law has done so because
| it was not willing to take the chances that
are presented here this morning. Next, I
say that your building regulations are to
| the same effect. Lastly, 1 say that the gen.
eral appropriation act under the act of
March 2, 1895, on its face contemplates TAX
| ing out this refuse from the cities of WASH
| ingtcn and Georgetown, and their more
| populated suburbs, and not bringing it in.
| That the law. general in its character. can
| OF be regarded repeal of the special
| Reproduction in respect to nuisances con-
| tanned in the antecedent act of 1850 con-
| firming the ordinances of the board Of
| health"
After the lawyers had concluded, Mrs.
King asked permission to ask question.
| She desired to know of Mr.. Davis what pro-
South Capitol street plant. He replied that
he I'D not know. If possible, the contractor
OILY wanted to build one plant, and have
that large enough to do all the work
We'll, suppose it breaks down. as ma
chinery is bound TO do in time. How do you
propose to get rid of the garbage2 Won't
you pile it UP at the plant?"
THAT, madam" replied Mr.. Davis, is a
stie we will not cross until We reach 1t.
Besides,the Commissioners would hardly let
us pile the garbage up In the manner you
desc ribe."
Whats to become of the water from the
| garbage?" asked Mrs. King.
THAT will all be consumed"
And you will use soft coal for the fur
caces?"
| Possibly"
| The lawyers took up the subject again.
| and reiterated their arguments. At the
| conclusion, the Commissioners thanked
them for the points brought out. and said
| the subject should have their careful de-
| liberation.
Senator E1kins Injured.
| A special from Kingwood, West Virginia,