Evening star., 1902-05-08
THE ANT|-SMOKE LAW
Arguments Today Before the
Court Of Appeals.
CASE OF THOS. BRADLEY
TRIED IN LOWER COURT AND
FINED ON TWO CHARGES.
Errors Assigned by Counsel-Statute
Declared to Be Repugnant
to Constitution.

The Court of Appeals today heard argu-
ments In connection with the case Of Thos
Bradley, plaintiff in error, against the Dis
trict of Columbia-the smoke law test case.
Mr.: Bradley was prosecuted upon infor-
nations In the Police Court for Violate
of the act for the prevention Of smoke In
the District of Columbia The informations
charged that the defendant was the occu-
pant of a building in this city, to which
building was attached a smokestack and
chimney used In connection with station
ary engine, steam boiler and furnace in the
building; that MIR. Bradley as such occu-
pant caused, permitted and allowed the
emission into the open air from the smoke
stack and chimney of certain thick and
dense black and gray smoke, which was
then and there a public nuisance, contrary
to the form of the statute, etc.
Mr.. Bradley was arraigned on both in
formations pleaded not guilty and demand
ed jury trials. The demand for jury trials
were afterward withdrawn. He was tried
on both charges a the same time, and on
the trial the District proved that upon three
occasions-tlhe Goth of February and the
26th of February, 1D2-there was emitted
from a smokestack on the building of the
Washington Loan and Trust Company at
the corner of 9th and F streets, in the city
of Washington, District of Columbia dense
thick black and gray smoke, and that on
these occasions the emission of such smoke
varied from one and one-half to three min
utes in durat ton. Mr. Bradley then offered
to prove by an expert witness. who had
charge of the furnaces Of the building, and
by other witnesses, that there was no
known device, machine or method to be
used, in connection with either hard soft or
mixed Goals or other materials which would
cause combustion without emitting any
smoke whatever. and that 1t was physically
impossible to comply with the terms of the
act of Congress referred to.
Exceptions Taken.
To this tender of proof the prosecution
objected on the ground of imma aterality
and irrelevancy. This objection was sus-
tained and the proof excluded, to which
rulings exceptions were taken. Mr.. Brad
ley was found guilty on both informations
and fined. From these judgments appeals
were taken to the Court of Appeals.
Contentious of Counsel.
1t was urged in behalf Of Mr. Bradley
that the statute in question Is repugnant
to the fifth amendment Of the Constitution
of the United States.
Plaintiffs Contention.
The history and present dondition of the
smoke question was statdl by Attorney
John B. Larner, representing Mr.. Bradley.
1T is safe to say" he<concluded, that it
is impossible physically to destroy smoke
absolutely from the moment of igniting
the fire until its extinguishment Yet as
the law has been interpreted by the lower
court, this provision must be complied with
or the offender punished by fine until either
the law is modified or the violator forced to
abandon his business and livelihood"
City Solicitor A. B. Duvall, representing
the District of Columbia took the view that
the act Of Congress does not prohibit the
emission Of any smoke whatever but 1t is
the emission of dense or thick, black and
gray smoke which Is prohibited.