The Washington times., 1902-03-27
Health Officer Woodward's
Answer Regarding
Smoke Law.
NO ROOM FOR SPECIAL FAVOR.
Traction ComPany's Assurance of "Abso-
lutte Smoke Extinction" Has not Ma
terialized-Claim of Quasi-Public Ser
vice by Railway Company.

DR.. William c. Woodward. the District
Health officer. has replied to the recent
letter of Gen. George H. Harries criti-
cising the formers use of a letter written
many months ago in a report upon the
bill providing for amendments to the
smoke law.
General Harries. in his letter, which
was published recently in The Times, took
the ground that conditions had changed
since the communication was written and
that references made therein had ceased
TO be pertinent to the question at issue
DR.. Woodward says:
Dr.. WOodward's Letter.
81 have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 10th inst
relative to your promise of July 10. 1901.
Of absolute smoke extinction at every
power plant under your control and to
the continued unlawful emission of smoke
from such power plants. The letter cor
tanning that promise was embodied in full
in the report of the Health Department
On H. R. bill 11.Si9. Any criticism
or complaint arising out of the onis-
sion of the date of that letter when the
letter was published should be addressed
therefore, to the owners and editors of
the newspapers of this city. and not to
the Health Department
Absolute Smoke Extinction.
THE promise which you then made of
Ln
voluntary on your part. and in view OF
its appear ance in a carefully prepared let
ter. was accepted literally by this de-
partment, nOtwiths and.ng the fact that il
meant degree of smokelessness far n
excess Of that required by the act for
the prevention of smoke. or demanded
by the Health Department in the enforce
ment of that act. 1t is with regret that
the Health Department has received your
recent letter intimating that you may
not be able to accomplish all that you
then promised.
Your allegation that smoke is emit
ted unlawfully from the smokestack con-
nected with the District Building is not
yet supported by any information in the
possession of this department, although
inspectors have for some time past kept
that stack under special observation and
although you have been requested on
more than one occasion to submit to the
Health Department the data which you
possess, which, in your judgment, sup
ports your allegation. When you claim
that 'law-breaking smoke escapes from
the sInokestack connected with the L
Street pumping station it is manifest that
. ha ~ Let
ter, even il you do not in the management
OF your powerhouse, a much higher
standard for the enforcement of the
smoke law than does the Health Depart
mSut.
v Street Pumping Station.
Smoke does escape from the stack on
the L Street pumping station. but in no
instance has prosecution been brought
against any citizen or corporation for any
emission of smoke such as occurs there.
II smoke had been emitted from the
smOkestack of the L Street pumping sta
ton in violation of the smoke law, as
that law is administered by the Health
Department, it is unlikely that it would
have escaped observation, as the depart
ment has particularly observed this stack
so that it would not require of anyone
anything more than is accomplished by
the District Government Your complaint
as to the eHission OF 1aw-breaking
smoke from He smokestack connected
with the workhouse will be investigated.
The Health Department finds your
theory as to the special consideration
which should be shown your plants in
teresting and regrets very much its ina
bility TO accept ii. The department is
under the impression that your corpor-
alton exercises its quasi-public func-
tons chiefly for the private profit of its
stockholders, and that the amount of
such profit is considerably increased by
reason OF the fact that it holds certain
valuable franchises granted gratuitOusly
by the public. The department believes
therefore, that its quasi-pubiic character
is one Of the strongest reasons why it
should comply with the public statute
passed in the interests of the community
at large, without delay or complaint.
Must Comply With Law
Your exposition of your theory as to
the special consideration which should
be shown large power plants with vary
ing loads as against smaller plants with
more nearly constant loads, fails to men
ton the comparatively large income or
TO suggest the comparatively large profits
which result from the maintenance OF the
former class of establishments as com
pared with the latter. Ii seems to the
uninitiated that the relatively large in
comes of such establishments as yours
wsuld Justify relatively large expendi
lures for the prevention of smoke 1t is
of course, not to be expected that smoked
preventing apparatus can be installed at
your plants for the same absolute amount
Of money that will install them at smaller
es establishments, but the relative proper
ton between the initial cost of smoke
prevention and the gross value Of the
plants would probably be no greater in
the former instance than in the latter.
In view Of the foregoing facts. the
Health Department is unable to discover
any reason why the various corporations
under your direction should not do what
less wealthy citizens and corporations
have done in order TO comply with the |
law
Amendment to Garbage Resolution.