The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-18
AFFAIRS OFTHG DISTRICT
Opinion by Attorney Duvall Con
corning the Smoke Law.
Reply to the Question of the wash
3 ington Traction and Electric Com
pnny ns 10 What VIII lie Con-
sidered Compliance With the
Act - Fire Department Expenses.

Attorney A. p. Duyall yesterday rem
dured his opinion in reply to the request
recently filed with the Commissioners
by the Washington Traction and Eleetric
Company for an official statement from
the Commissioners as to what would be
construed as compliance with the
smoke law The opinion is as fellows:
Il have duly considered the com 7-un
cation of the Washington Traction and
Electric Company, by George H. Harries,
its vice president, to the Health oHcer,
stating the consideration the company
had given the question of smoke con-
sumers, and requesting an official state
ment from the Commissioners as to what
they would require as a compliance vita
the smoke law: what per cent OF the
smoke must be consumed, and what con-
sumner or consumers the Commissioners
would recommend, which you referred
to me-
THE act of Congress entitled AN act
for the prevention of smoke in the Lis
trict of Columbia and for other pur-
poses, approved February 2. 1893, pro-
vides:
Section /. That on and after Six
months from the passage of this act the
emission of dense or thick, blacS, or
grey smoke, or cinders from any smoke
stack or chimney used in connection
with any stationary engine, steam boi er,
or furnace of any description within the
District of Columbia. shall be deemed,
and it is hereby declared, to be public
nuisance; provided, that nothing in this
no tn mil n oh
neys OF buildings used exclusively for
private residences.
Sec 9 That the cwner. agent, Lessee,
or occupant of any building OF any de
scription, from the smokestack or Chin
ney of which there shall issue or be
emitted thick or dense black or grey
smoke or cinders within the District of
Columbia or after the day above
named shall be deemed and held guilty Of
creating public nuisance and OF vio,at-
ing the provisions Of this act -
- Sec. g. That any person or persons Hio-
lating the provisions of this act shall. upon
conviction thereof before the Police Court
of the District of Columbia. be punished by
a fine of not less than SO nor more than
S10G for each and every offence; and each
and every day wherein the provisions Of
this act shall be violated shall constitute
a separate offence.
4.
the enforcement OF the provisions of this
act there shall be detailed from time to
rime by the Commissioners OF the District
of Columbia an inspector or inspectors of
the Health Department Of the District of
Columbia. whose duty it shall be under
the supervision of the Health Officer of the
District of Columbia to cause to be prose
cuted all persons violating the provisions
of this act. i,-- -rr,.i7s,o4-
Sec. 5. That no discrimination shall DE
made against any method or, device which
may be used for the prevention of smoke
and which accomplished the purpose-of this
act.
Sec. 6. That all acts or parts of acts
inconsistent herewith be, and the same are
hereby, revoked
THE Court of Appeals. in the case of
Moses ct al. VS.. United States (29 Wash.
Law Rep. 1881, held this act of Congress
to be constitutional, and affirmed convic-
ton Hereunder.
In the course of its instructive opinion
the court said: The defendants offered evil
dence tending to show that they had at
tached to their furnaces at the time the
best-known smoke consumer appliance but
that neither it nor any other then known
would prevent the emission of such smoke
for brief period, upon each occasion that
fire might be started or the furnace coaled
or raked down, provided that soft bitumi-
nous coal be the fuel consumed. The evil
dence was excluded and exception taken
In this there was no error. That there
may be no smoke consuming appliance that
will. under all circumstances prevent the
nuisance is not a matter of relevancy. The
facts concerning them were presumably
within the knowledge Of Congress also
when it took action; and no provision has
been made for their use. The use of smoke
less fuel instead may have been expressly
contemplated
Congress designed by this aci to ac-
complish an express purpose, namely tho
prevention Of the emission of dense or
thick. black or grey smoke or cinders from
any smokestack or chimney used in con-
nection with any stationary engine, etc.
II declared such emission to be public
nuisance, and the Court Of Appeals In the
above mentioned case. has held that t was
within the competency OF Congress 10 so
declare; and that what constitutes pub
lie nuisance under the statute, was pri-
marily for the determination of Congress
and lastly a question of law for the court
1T will be observed that section OF
the act declares that no discrimination
shall be made against any method or de-
vice which may be used for the prevention
of smoke, and which accomplishes the pur-
poses of this act
II am Of the opinion that it is beyond
the province of the Commissioners to rec
ommend any smoke consumer or consum-
ers. the use of which they will consider
a compliance with the smoke law
at is likewise beyond their province 10
advise what per cent OF smoke must be
DESERVES IT