Evening star., 1902-03-26
TO HARR|ES
Health Officer Indulges in
Mild Sarcasm.
PREVENTION 0F SMOKE
SAYS CORPORATIONS SHOULD
COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
Regrets the Inability of Department
PREVENTION OF SMOKE
Regrets the Inability Of Department
to Accept His Theory as to
Special Consideration"

DR.. w C. Woodward, health officer. has
forwarded reply to Mr.. George II, Har-
ries. vice president of the Washington
Traction and Electric Company, to recent
letter on the anti-smoke law, saying:
81 have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of your letter of the Goth instant reia-
tive to your promise of July 10, 1901, OF
absolute smoke extinction at every power
plant under your control, and to the con-
tinued unlawful emission of smoke from
such power plants. The letter containing
that promise was embodied in full in the
report of the health department on H. H.
bill No. 11S49. Any criticism or complaint
arising out of the omission of the date OF
that letter when the letter was published
should be addressed therefore. to the own
ers and editors of the newspapers OF TINS
city and not to the health department
1.-THE promise which you then made of
absolute smoke extinction was entirely
voluntary on your part, and in view of Its
appearance in a carefully prepared letter
was accepted literally by this department,
notwithstanding the fact that 1t meant
degree of smokelessness far in excess OF
that required by the act for the prevention
of smoke or demanded by the health de-
partment in the enforcement of that act
1t is with regret that the health department
has received your recent letter 1ntimating
that you may not be able to accomplish all
that you then promised.
Waiting for Data.
"Your allegation that smoke is emitted
unlawfully from the smokestack connected
with the District building is not yet sup
ported by any information in the possess
sion 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
occa sion to submit to the health depart
ment the data which you possess which, In
your judgment supports your allegation
when you claim that Iawbreaking
smoke escapes from the smokestack con-
nected with the U street pumping station 1t
is manifest that you assume. for the pur-
poses of your letter. even if you do not in
the management of your power houses, a
much higher standard for the enforcement
of the smoke law than does the health de-
partment. Smoke does escape from the
stack on the street pumping station, but
in no instance has prosecution been brought
against any citizen or corporation Tor any
emission of smoke such as occurs there.
''If smoke had been emitted from the
smoke stack Of the z street pumping sta
ton in violation of the smoke law, as that
law is administered by the health depart
ment. it is unlikely that 1t would have
escaped observation. as the department has
particularly observed this stack, so that
1t would not require of any one anything
more than is accomplished by the District
government. Your complaint as to the
emission of 1aw-breaking smoke from the
smoke stack connected with the work
house will be Investigated.
Expresses Regret.
1.-THE health department finds your the
ory as to the special consideration which
should be shown your plants interesting
and regrets very much its inability to ac-
he jS under the inn
preston that your corporation exercises
it's quasi-public functions chiefly for the
private profit of its stockholders and that
. the amount of such profit is considerably
increased by reason of the fact that 1t
holds certain valuable franchises granted
gratuitously by the public.
1.-The department believes, therefore. that
its ouasi-public character is one of the
strongest reasons why it should comply
with the public statute passed in the inter-
estS of the community at large, without
delay ir complaint. Your exposition of
your theory as to the special consideration
which should be shown large power plants
with varying loads as against smaller
plants with more nearly constant loads
fails TO mention the comparatively large
income or to suggest the comparatively
large profits which result from the MAIN
tenance of the former class of establish
ments as compared with the latter.
Should Comply With Law.
''It seems to the uninitiated that the rel
ativeiy large incomes of such establish
ments as yours would justify relatively
large expenditures for the prevention Of
smoke. 1t is, of course not to be ex-
pected that smoke e-preventing apparatus
can be installed at your plants for the
same absolute amount of money that will
install them at smaller establishments. but
the relative proportion 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.
I'm 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