The evening times., 1899-10-31
THE SMOKE law CRUSADE
Warrants Served on Citizens for
Alleged Violations.
The Health Department OMcfals
Take Action Arainst WeIl-KnOwn
Business Men-The Question OF
Fines and imprisonment - To
BE Given Hearing Tomorrow.

Warrants charging violations of the
smoke ordinance were served late this aft
ernoon on Orrin C. Staples, A. Lisner, and
Belt & Dyer, all Of whom were notified to
appear in court for a hearing tomorrow
morning.
The warrants were issued on the COM
plant of the Health Department late yes
terday afternoon, and were placed in the
hands of the police for service. Specid-
cally, the defendants are charged with be
ing then and there occupants Of certain
buildings from which dense grey and black
smoke does arise and are therefore
amenable to prosecution.
Because of the fact that the defendants
are prominent in business circles it has
been stated that the prosecutions are for
the purpose of testing the law. The health
officials, however, claim that the law does
not need testing and declare that 1t will
be rigidly enforced without discrimina-
tion.
With the advent OF the enforcing of the
smoke ordinance arises considerable spec
ulation as to the power of the judges OF
the Police Court to sentence convicted Of
tenders in default of their paying lines.
The act of Congress providing for the en-
forcing of the law, simply makes provision
for a fine. and says nothing of an alterna-
tive Imprisonment.
That section of the ordinance known as
Section 3. and which provides the penalty
to be imposed on offenders reads:
That any person or persons violating
the provisions of this act shall, upon con-
viction thereof. before the Police Court OF
the District of Columbia. be punished by
~ 3 thav,
800, for each and every offense; and each
and every day wherein the provisions OF
this act shall be violated shall constt-
tute a separate offence"
As will be readily seen, while a fine is
provided for as penalty for violation
of the smoke ordinance, no provision Is
made for term OF Imprisonment in the
event that the person or persons fined
should be unable TO or refuse to pay such
fines.
When the matter was called to the at
tention OF Chief Clerk Mclean. of the
Health Office, he stated that he had not
noticed this apparent neglect on the part
of Congress Mr.. Mclean said that he
had not had an opportunity to confer with
District Attorney Mullowny concerning
the matter, but was of the opinion that
the law was defective. He thought, how
ever, that the Police Court judges were
empowered to impose sentence IN de-
fault of a fine, when the act under which
a conviction is secured does not provide
for such a sentence.
District Attorney Mullowny, when seen
in regard TO the matter stated that a
general statute governed all cases where
a fine and no sentence was provided for
a misdemeanor. He stated further that
the judges OF the Police Court could i'm
pose sentence in the event that a con-
victed person was unable or refused to pay
the fine imposed. The term Of the SEN
tence, he said, would be at the discretion
OF the court.
In answer to a question as to what
would prohibit judge from being arbi-
trary and imposing a too severe sentence,
Mr.. Mullowny replied that the Constitu-
tion of the United States provided for
that. and declared invalid any exorbitant
sentence.