The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-06-26
The burning Of soft coal.

There has been a good deal 81 loose
talk In the community about ~" burn
ing Of soft coal beng illegal. II not GRIM
inal. II l. asserted that the burning ~
soft coal il "A violation Of the sanitary
Code, and that. ~ every violation 81
the code u a misdemeanor, any person
using soft coal is liable 10 punishment
by fine and Imprisonment.
Under tho city Charter the Sanitary
Code in forco in this city on Jan. l..
1912, Is declared to bc binding and in
force. and 1t Is provided that II shall
continue TO be 80 binding and in force
except "a the same may from time TO
time. he revised. altered. amended or
annullcd, IA In the Charter provided
The same section gives the Board #
Health power TO add TO and to alter,
amend or annul any part Of the Sanitary
Code. So il would appear that the
Board Of Health has the legislative
power TO enact an ordinance forhlddlng
the use Of soft coal.
When we come. however, 10 examine
the actual language Of the existing
Sanitary Code. W fail 10 find INV ex-
plicit provision prohibiting the burning
Of soft coal. Section III say that Nor
shall any smoke. ctniCrs, dust, gas steam
or oFcnsiro odor, be diIor,d 10 escape
from any such building, place or premises
10 the do'umcHt or annoyance Of any per
son not bong hsrstn or hsrcupoa en-
gagged" while the next section provides
that = Every furnace employed in the
working If engines by steam. " or in W
building used for the purposes 81 trade
or manufacture, hal be- 80 constructed
n To consum- or burn the smoke arising
thercfrom. unless "A permit TO the - n
trarv be- obtained from this depart
ment.-
These provisions do not forbid the use
Of soft coal in explicit terms, and the
inhibition against the escape Of smoke
10 the detrIInent or annoyance of any
person Is vague and indefinite. and de-
pendent for its efficacy on the theory
that all smoke arising from the consump-
ton Of soft coal il "A detrimcnt or an
annoyance
IL il not az all clear that the use Of
soft coal j. a dctriment or injury to the
community, or any particular annoyance
10 the public at large. OF course, IN an
ideal city or Spptless Town . It would
be- undoubtedly cleaner and more agree
able to burn anthracite coa only. but the
question now practically arises whether
all business and trade should cease and
stop, lest for the time being our a,mos-
phere should become less clear than
normally and should become more like
that of Chicago or Plttsburg
The letter of the law and its natural
construction do not favor the drastic IN
depreciation put upon II by the Health
Department. and in the ace of the pres
ent public necessity. II would seem idle
and almost absurd for the authorities
10 waste their energy In attempting t.
enforce a doubtful and harsh construc-
ton Of the ordinance.
The same section Of the Sanitary Code
forbids the escape Of any dust To the
detriment or annoyance of any person.
and no one al walk along our ragged
and exCavated streets and avenues with
out realizing that the subway con-
tractors are violating, daily and hourly,
this section 81 the code. Smoke from
soft coal fires. escaping from lofty chin
neys. and floating ~heavenward. certainly
cannot bc as detrimental to the health
OF our citizens as the enormous GUAM
titles Of dust which are scattered along
the very surface 81 our thoroughfares
In the making Of continuous and tardy
excavations.
II the Board OF Health imagines that
the Sanitary Code Is really being violated
by the burning % soft coal. let the board
have some conmon sense, and promptly
the prohibition.