Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-20
TO KEEP RIVER CLEAN
STEPS TO PROTECT YACHTsMEN
AND CANorxsTs.
It is Claimed District Code Prohibits
Discharge Of Gas Tar Into
the Potomac,

The petition submitted yesterday to the
Commissioners by the officials of boating
clubs In the District, protesting against the
discharge into the Georgetown channel of
gas tar and other oily substances from es-
ADJUSTMENTS On the shore, was today re-
1erred TO the corporation counsel for an
opinion as to the Commissioners authority
to prevent this alleged nuisance.
Inc case now before the Commissioners
for consideration recalls the attempts made
by residents along the Anacostia river, or
Eastern branch to prevent the Washington
Gaslight Company from permitting gas
tar, oil and other waste matter to flow
into the Eastern branch from the gas COM
panys establishment along that river.
Proceedings to prevent this alleged nui-
sance were first begun In the courts in
March. 1900, but the efforts of the citizens
IN that instance, 1T seems, were not sue
cessful. Later, In October 1902, resident
IN the vicinity of the gas plant complained
Of the alleged pollution of the waters Of the
Eastern branch by the waste matter from
the gas plant, and the president of the COM
pany was proceeded against in the District
Polce Court; The case was continued for
hearing until in May, 1903, when the trial
was held before Judge Kimball. Attor-
neys for the gas company vigorously con-
tested the case, but Judge Kimball return
$50 against the defendant
Old Cases Pending.
The gas company, through its attorneys.
appealed the case to the District Court of
Appeals, where the cause Is still pending.
The case Is one first on the special calen-
dar to come up at the opening of the Oc-
tober term.
The official Of the gas company was ar
raigned on charge Of violating section 9O1
OF the District code, which reads as fol-
lows:
deposits Of Deleterious Matter-No per-
son shall allow any tar. oil, ammoniacal
liquor or other waste products of any gas
works or works engaged in using such pro-
ducts, or any waste product whatever
Of any mechanical, chemical, manufacture
ing or refining establishment to flow into
or be deposited in Rock creek or the Poto-
mac river or any Of it's tributaries within
the District of Columbia or into any pipe or
conduit leading to the same"
Judge Kimball, in his opinion on the for
mer case in the Police Court, mentioned
that the first law on the subject was
passed in March, 1886. The law was to be
operative for period of five years. Prior
nected with the point at issue, related to
fish protection and did not include the de-
post of gas tar, Oil or other waste pro-
ducts. For four years after the expiration
Of the law passed in 1885 there was no law
on the subject Of depositing waste products
in the Potomac, but in 1884 the law of 1885
was re-enacted by Congress to extend over
period Of ten years.
When the new District code went into eff
feet, it Is pointed out, the former law pro-
hibiting deposit in the river and Rock creek
Of gas tar, oil and other substances Of a
similar nature was inserted as section 9O1
of the code.
police jurisdiction over the Potomac river
as we'll as over the Eastern branch. The
Commissioners, however, in view Of the CIR
cumstances desire to wait until the corpora
ton counsel advises them on the question
as to their authority in the premises be-
fore they take any action In the matter OF
the boating clubs protest.