Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-11-20
THE ANT|-SMOKE LAW
Health Officer Reports on Pro-
posed Amendment.
STATES OBJECTIONS
COMMISSIONERS COINCIDE AND
WILL REPORT ADVERSELY.
DR.. Woodward Declares There is No
Demand for Change in Re
quirements
STATES OBJECTIONS

With the approach of the short session
of Congress. the anti-smoke law has AGAIN
protruded its dense black or gray sell
upon the District Commissioners. Dr. w.
C. Woodward. the District health officer
who Is charged with the enforcement of the
law today submitted report to the Com
missioners in opposition to the bill to amend
the smoke law introduced at the last ses-
sion of Congress and now pending in the
Senate The amended bill provides that the
emission of dense black smoke shall not
constitute violation of the law If the du-
ration of the density is no longer than three
minutes. DR.. Woodward declares he sees
no reason for the adoption of the new law
the old one allows sufficient latitude. He
declares that his efforts are in the direc-
ton only of preventing smoke nuisances
and that the prosecutions made by the
health department were not for intermit-
tent periods of dense smoke emission, but
are based upon the general record of the
stack.
Commissioner mcfarland has moved
that the Commissioners report adversely
on the pending bill Oh. r. had and that
DR.. Woodwards report be forwarded to
the Senate committee on the District of |
Columbia when it shall assemble. Dr. |
Woodwards latest discussion of the smoke |
law reflects the policy of the health de- |
partment in dealing with the statute at the |
present time and in the future.
construed literally and apart from any |
other egsiation.' he says. the act for the |
prevention of smoke in the District of Co |
lLmbia. and for other purposes, approved |
February >. 1899. makes unlawful the ennis |
sion of dense or thick black or gray smoke |
or Cinders from certain smokestacks and !
ChimneHs. in any quantity or for any |
length of time The bill now under con- |
sideration will. if enacted. remove all re- |
striCtion from the emission of smoke, not |
only as to density and blackness but as to
all conditions whatsoever, except that the |
smoke emitted must not be allowed to re-
main thick or dense black or gray for
three continuous minutes.
Reason for Amendment
The only supposed reason for the sug-
gested amendment of the existing anti
smoke law which has come to the knowl-
edge Of the health department is it's alIeg-
ed stringency. In order TO determine the
justice of such complaint this law must be
considered not alone but in connection with
approximation acts. current or likely to be
current from time to time. For although |
the anti-smOke law defines the extent of |
the authority of the health officer with ref |
erenCe 10 emissions of smoke, the appro- |
prtation acts limit such authority inasmuch |
Is they fix the number of the inspectors |
through whom the health officer can law |
fully operate
The antl-smoke law gives the health |
officer no discretion to determine the time |
during which the emission of dense black |
or gray smoke may lawfully continue but |
so long as the health officer is provided with |
an inspection force insufficient for the Ht- |
eral enforcement of every law and regrlla- |
ton with the enforcement of which he Is |
charged II is and will be necessary for him
to dispose the force at his command so as
to accomplish the most that can lawfully |
be accomplished toward the preservation |
and betterment of the sanitary condition |
OF the District. and in determining what |
Ch hn tha hAal
order to discharge his duty properly must |
endeavor to secure the end for which these |
laws and regulations were promulyat ed |
rather than blindly insist on literal complf- |
ance with a few laws to the utter neglect |
of all others
Obstacle to Enforcement.
Even, however, if Congress had Dro-
vfded or should hereafter provide force
OF inspectors sufficient to enable the health
officer TO undertake the enforcement of the
anti-smoke law along purely technical lines
and without reference to the good to be
accomplished, an obstacle to such enforce
ment would still exist in the now we'll
established practice of the Police Court of
taking personal bonds instead of imposing
actual penalties A prosecution based upon
a purely technical violation of the law could |
and doubtless would be punished by the i'm
position of a purely technical punishment. |
Without the most positive action on the |
pill VI OOIlBTeSS, therefore, there is like |
lihood that the existing anti-smoke law |
will ever be enforced to a degree beyond |
that which Is necessary for the protection |
Or the community from the smoke nuisance |
Congress must first vastly increase the in |
spect!on force of the health department and |
then prohibit the Police Court from taking |
personal bonds in lieu of penalties,
Not Regarded as Answer.
1t is no answer to say that prosecutions
have already been brought and maintained |
and penalties imposed when the particular
emissions of smoke upon which such prose- !
cutions were based were not considered in
diVidually. substantial violations of the law
Technically. of course, each prosecution is
based upon the emission of smoke during
some specified period in a particular day. |
Practically, however, il Is based upon the |
entire record of the stack That such |
prosecutions as have been brought have
been based upon substantial infringements |
OF the rights of the public is shown by
the fact that the Police Court which oc-
cupies an impartial position between the |
community and the alleged offender has
imposed substantial penalties and not
merely such technical penalties as are so
often imposed In other cases. In deter
mining. however, what degree and dura-
ton of the emission of smoke shall be re-
garded as a substantial infringement of the
rights of the public it must be borne in
mind that If the owner of any one estab-
ishment is permitted to discharge a given
amount of smoke into the open air the
owner of every adjoining establishment
and. in fact. Of every establishment in the
District of Columbia is justly entitled to
the same privilege and the multiplication
OF chimneys. each possibly giving rise to
comparatively little smoke may at any
time in any part OF the District or
throughout the District generally create a
smoke nuisance in fact as grave as can be
found anywhere. Nor is 1t just for the gov
eminent to sit. idly by and allow large
amounts of capital to be invested in heat
Ing and power plants giving rise to more or
less smoke with the expectation of taking
action which will render them useless or
will require more or less expensive modi-
fcations thereof at some later day.
Hardships Not Due to Law.
Such hardships. II any, as have occurred
in correction with the enforcement of the
existing anti-smoke law have not arisen
from the law itself. but from one or more of
the following causes: % Neglect on the
part of those responsible for the emission OF
dense thick black or gray smoke at the
time of the enactment of the anti-smoke
law to adopt any means whatsoever to pre-
vent it within the, time allowed by law or
within the much longer time allowed by the
Commissioners. (O Errors of Judgment on
the port of those responsible for the ennis
sion Of IN "a af