The Washington times., 1904-12-12

framed since the proposed legislation be-
gan It's travels from office 10 office in
the District building.
The opinion OF Colonel Biddle about
the bill has not been expressed. though
the matter was today referred to him.
Commissioner West. on his part. an
nOunced ne would make no further state
ments regarding his position beyond say
ing that he b ieved the law should be
enforced in all cases. and that the law
should specify the time limit Ia which
smoke may be elected from chimneys
without prosecution.
Health Officers Views.
The Health Department rushed into
the fray this morning, when Dr. Wood
ward presented Ia Commissioner Macfar-
land long statement defending the ac-
ton OF the department IN not prose
cutting ali violations OF the smoke Law,
which was criticised BY Commissioner
West.
Commissioner Macfarland said:
Il shall propose 10 the Commissioners
20 recommend To Congress that the
smoke law be made 10 cover locomotive
and other movable engines Of every
sort. The nuisance from engines OF this
character has Increased OF late in con
nection witt the large construction
works going on. as is shown by com
plants from citizens. especially in
Northeast and South Washington
For Government Buildings.
There seems TO be some misunder-
standing about the status Of United
States Government buildings and apart
ment houses. The smoke law clearly
covers both. and needs TO amendment in
tha; respect. IL Is true that the Police
Court held that il did not apply 10
United States Government buildings. but
the Corporation Counsel IS confident tina.
on appeal its decision will be reversed.
Moreover. the President, by stringent
order. has applied the same restriction
10 all Government buildings. which the
law sought 70 do.
Apartment houses have been under
observation and prosecution and will
continue 10 be. The act exempts only
buildings used exclusively for private
residences. and. while the claim has
been made in the Police Court that this
exemption applies 10 apartment houses.
IL has not Deen sustained"
DR.. Woodwards Statement.
The Health Departments statement
is. Ia part. as follows:
Exception Is taken to the law on the
ground that II one Board OF Commits
sIoners can fix a Limit OF one minute as
the basis for prosecutions another
Board can TX a different limit. and.
therefore, those who must live under the
law cannot know tn advance exactly
what the law will require Of them.
While an objection OF this character
is more or less plausible from a prac-
tical standpoint IL has less weight when
applied To the smoke law than il has
when applied 10 the police. building. and
plumbing regulations, and 10 sundry
other regulations which the COmmls-
slOueTs are authorized 10 make for no
decision OF the Commissioners with ref
erence To the smoke law IS binding upon
the court or upon any citizen. Yet IL
has never been seriously proposed 10
have the regulations referred 10 con-
yerted into acts OF Congress. and ON
the other hand the tendency has been
10 broaden the authority OF the Com
mlssiOueTs with respect To such matters.
And II the rights Of the community
are not JeOpardized by reason Of the au-
tnOrlty OF the Com mmisSlOutrS 70 MAKE,
amend. alter, revise and repeal the reg
uIatiOns referred 10, such rights would
seem 10 be In no serious danger because
OF the authority, II any vested In the
/ Commissioners by the smoke law.
ANY proposition. therefore, looking
toward the amendment Of the smoke
law based upon anticipated yaCillatiOu
by various Boards OF Commissioners
with respect 20 the sO-called OEe-minutc
limit. should, 10 be consistent, be broad
enough 70 guard against similar danger
arising out OF the right Of the COmmis-
siOners 10 make. alter, and repeal regu-
latiOHs OF various kinds from time 10
time as they deem proper.
Calls 1t Misrepresentation.
Two OF the Endorsements indicate
either an entire misapprehension OF the
significance of the one-minute limit ou
the emission of smoke on the part Of
one or more Of the Commissioners or on
the part Of the Health Department. The
Health Oficer was present at the public
hearing referred 10 in the earlier Of
these Inducements, and the understand
ing then reached between the Commis-
sioners and the interested parties pres
ent was merely IA ratification o. "a prac-
tice previously prevailing. This under
standing was TO the effect that no pros
ecuti0n should be based on any emission
OF smoke lasting less than one minute.
There was no understanding that one
minute should be the maximum period
allowed Tor the emission OF smoke. ana
iH the very nature OF the case there was
no occasion fOr such an understanding.
Has Abided by Rule.
The Health Department has consist
entity abided by the one-miaute rule
above referred 70. except IN one IN
..s..Fs....4 ~. g..r,a