The Washington times., 1902-06-26
Rights of the Individual
May Be Carried to
Higher Court.
JUDGE SCOTT IMPOSES FINE
Dupont Had Agreement With Hotels to
Garry Away Refuse-Hauled Up in
COurt-Plea of His Attorneys-May
Be Appealed.

poiiSS IeSuldtioLs, gives promise OF 4
lively legal battle in the higher courts.
which will be regarded as important and
watched with interest by the entire
community.
Dupont is an old man-an ex-Union
soldier. Some years ago he purchased
a small patch of land in Maryland
which is now his sole support For a
number of years prior to his arrest he
had been hauling garbage from this city
to be used on his little farm. either TO
enrich soil or to feed his swine. This
he did under a permit from the local
authorities, and i: is said that his meth
cd of removal and his faithful adher-
ence to his promises received high COM
mendation from the health officials
All went well with Dupont, and others
who were working under similar condi-
tions, until the advent of the Washing
ton Fertilizer Company, when trouble
at once beset them. This company,
composed of a number of rich men. saw
in the collection and conversion of gar
bage into fertilizer a proposition that
promised well at both ends-$7O, 900 a
year bonus from the District for the
collection and handsome profit in the
sale of the converted product as an
enricher of weak soil. That they are
making tempting profit is manifested,
it is said, by the zeal with which they
fetch into court any person who inter
feres with their enterprise by collect
ing garbage on his own account.
Statement Of the Case
II is said that il was at the instance
of this corporation that Dupont was ar
rested. His case was submitted to Judge
Scott on an agreed statement of facts.
which were substantially as follows:
That the Commissioners of the Dis
trict. under authority of an amendment
to the District appropriation bill Of
1900, made contract with the Washing
ton Fertilizer Company, Virginia cor
poration, for the removal OF garbage in
the city Of Washington and the more
densely populated suburbs. for a period
of FIVE years. beginning February l,
1900. agreeing to pay the said COM
pany not less than s51, 500 nor more than
81 500 per year.
That the defendant Dupont, had made
a contract with 0rTen G. Staples, to re-
move for period of one year. begin
ming January l. 1902. the garbage ac-
cumulating at the Riggs House and
National Hotel, Dupont to pay for the
garbage so taken $500.
As Prescribed by Regulation.
That the garbage thus removed by
Dupont was placed in cans prescribed
by the police regulations for such pur-
pose and tightly covered, and that while
in the act of hauling load of garbage
under these conditions he was arrested,
on the charge mentioned.
Robinson White who appeared in the
Police Court as counsel for Dupont, ask
ed Judge Scott TO rule, as matter Of
law. that the Commissioners of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, while having the
right 10 prescribe that garbage should
be hauled through the streets OF this
city in a sanitary condition. had no
right TO absolutely and arbitrarily pro-
hibit the defendant from transporting
such matter bought and paid for by
him. so long as he complied with reas-
enable sanitary regulations IN doing so,
and that such prohibition was unconsti-
tutional ard void-a violation of the
property rights of the defendant.
Authority Of the Commissioners.
It was further asked that the court
rule that the District Commissioners
lad no right to make a contract with
the District Fertilizer Company TO the
exclusion of the defendant. on the
ground that such contract created a
monopoly in favor of the said company
and was a peTversion OF the statute.
contrary 10 law and therefore void: that |
. regulation of the Commissioners pre- !
scribing that garbage shall be removed 1
only by persons under contract with /
them. and only in wagons with iron !
lcdies, is arbitrary. unreasonable and |
void aud against the defendant, who had /
compiled with every sanitary reglila- /
tion in removing such material hauled |
by him.
Each one of these propositions was
oyerruled by Judge Scott. and Dupont |
was fined $50. Exceptions we're noted by |
Attorney White. who gave notice of an |
appeal. Sir. White stated that he would |
endeavor 10 thoroughly test in the upper |
court the legality Of the law and police |
regulations under which his client is
being prosecuted.
This suit is particularly interesting 20 |
motel proprietors. many OF whom de-
nouuce the action OF the fertilizer COM
pany as arbitrary Interference in tleir
business. They claim that so long as
they do not violate reasonable sanitary
rules they have the right TO dispose of |
garbage as they see fit. 1t being as much
property as any other commodity that
may be bought and sold
Offensive Collection Methods.
They also claim that the method OF
collection employed by the fertilizer
company is far more offensive than that
followed by farmers like Dupont. in that
the company dumps the contents Of the
cars into their wagons. violently stir
ring ~ tho whole mass and sending
forth upon the breeze every noxious
odor il may hold to the discomfort and
disgust OF all who come within smelling
range. They contend that when garbage
is removed in the cans in which it
Is originally deposited. little or 10 otfen-
sive stencil is emitted, and that the old
plan Of handling is far preferable to the
one nov in vogue.
Change in Chesapeake Beach Trains.
Effective saturday, June IS. train leaving Dis