Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-21
REPLIES TO CRITICISM
HEALTH OFFICER WOODWARD
MAKES SPECIAL REPORT.
Response to Allegations Made by Mr..
August Peterson in Communica-
ton to- Commissioners.


The letter of Mr.. Augustus Peterson to
| the Commissioners. relative to the emission
of black smoke in the vicinity of Staughton
and Chaplin streets and yelling place,
which was published in yesterdays Star,
has elected a special report from Dr.
Woodward, health officer on the matters
referred to in the letter. In his report
made to Commissioner mcfarland today
DR.. Woodward replies to the criticism of
the health department with respect to the
enforcement of the anti-smoke law, and
information in detail is furnished relative
to the matters alleged in Mr.. eterson's
letter.
Among other things DR.. Woodward says:
THE Chaplin parchment house has been
under observation from time to time by
this department and prosecutions have been
brought against the owner and the man
ager as the facts in the possession of the
health department seemed to warrant.
Fines have been imposed or collateral for
| feted as follows:
July %, 1869. two fines, SO each; Octo-
Der TO- 1902 fined $40; June 8. 1903, three
fines, $40 dollars each; February 8, 1904,
forfeited collateral, $40; October 3, 1904,
two convictions. personal bonds taken by
the Police Court in each case.
One Case Dismissed.
company owning this apartment house was
made defendant, was tried November 2, and
dismissed by the Police Court. On Decem-
Der 10 three cases against the manager
of this establishment were called and jury
trials demanded in each. These cases are
still pending.
The Victoria apartment house. to which
reference is made by Mr.. Peterson, and
the Berkshire apartment house, in the i'm
| mediate vicinity, have so far as the health
department has been able to discover, con-
tributed practically nothing to the condi-
lions of which Mr. Peterson complains.
SO far as relates to the specific incident
cited in Mr.. Petersons letter, in which the
health department is criticised because of
the procedure locking toward the disposal
by the Police Court of q case in which Mr..
Peterson was interested, l beg to state,
first, that, in the opinion of the health Of
ficer, the health department is not RESPONSE
BILE for Police Court procedure; and, second,
that even If the health department was so
responsible, it more than fulfilled it's duty
in this particular case. The prosecuting
inspector advised the judge, before the
judge disposed of the case, that certain wit
nesses We're in court who felt aggrieved be-
cause of the omission of smoke from the
establishment maintained by the defendant,
| and that they desired to be heard. The in
spector was informed by the judge that as
the defendant had pleaded guilty the testi
| mony of these witnesses was not needed A
fine of $40 was thereupon imposed upon the
defendant
No Occasion for Notification.
'As the case was disposed of in open
court and, it may be inferred from Mr..
Petersons letter, in full view of the wit
nesses, there would seem to have been no
occasion why the inspector, who was prose-
cutting witness in the case, should have no
titled such witnesses, after the had
terminated, of the fact that their presence
was no longer required. The inspector did,
however notify one of the group of Wit
neSses OF that fact.
"The health department will continue to
keep the vicinity of Staughton and Chaplin
| streets and yelling place under observation
from time to time. the inspection forge
| at it's disposal permits, and will take such
| action as may be ted for Mr.. Peter
| sons relief 1t is respectfully recommend
| ed that this letter be referred to corpora
| ton counsel for consideration in connection
| with the cases now pending against the
| manager of the Chaplin apartment house.