Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-09
LAW AGAINST SMOKE
Continued from Third page.)

=
Continued from Third Page)
cuted. / think that we ought to see that |
the work of one inspector reaches eff |
fective conclusion before we appoint 9TH |
ers to duplicate their observations 1t Is |
possible that the appointment of more than |
one inspector would be valuable for the
reason that a check against laxity in OFF, !
cial duty might be afforded / do not be-
lieve that this is necessary in the present |
case, because the inspector has honestly re- |
ported violations which he did not prose-
cute; but occasion might arise in the fu-
ture wherein if the one Inspector was blind |
to offenses committed by certain estab-
lishment, the Commissioners would be kept, |
snder the present system. In continual ig-
norance, unless they observed the violations
or 1T was reported to them from outside
sources of information.
Not Fair to Police Court.
Second, it Is not entirely fair to the
Police Court to place upon it the burden
of the responsibility for non-enforcement of
the law 1t is true that in that court the
practice prevails of allowing persons ac-
cused of violating the smoke law to forfeit
$40 collateral. On the other hand, only
small proportion of violations of the law
are ever brought to the attention of the
court.
Third That there seems to be no just
ana unO1SCflnlndtl1lS HttHou VI PoSSSus-
ing offenders Some persons who Violate
the law are constantly arrested; others APP
parently escape prosecution altogether.
Il would not suggest an amendment OF
the law if it was the practice to take into
court all cases where the inspector OBJ
serves an emission of smoke for one min
ute This is not the case. The number OF
partment houses. office buildings, business
plants, etc. reported during the month OF
November as violating the law (emiss:on
of smoke for one minute or longer) was
forty-five. The number of times the yio-
lations were observed was, of course, much
greater, aggregate ting considerably over ~
Prosecution was recommended in twenty
one cases and this number would be less
if it were not that the prosecutions IN these
cases were against parties already includ-
ed 1t is also interesting to note that, ex-
cept in seven cases, prosecutions were not
recommended until last Saturday. Deem
Der 3. this action being taken, in some in
stances, nearly one month after the OF
Tense had been committed. These eleventh.
hour cases have not yet been brought, so
far as the record shows, to the attention of
the Police Court In the case of the Cecil
Apartment House. warrant is said to
have been issued on November 49, but there
is no record of action nor does the name
of the person against whom the warrant is
said to have been issued appear on Mr..
Pugh's report.
Cases Cited.
1.-THE record also shows that the Wash
ington Loan and Trust Company violated
the law one day during November tho
periods being two and one-haif, one and
one and one-half minutes There was pros
ecution for this one days delinquency and
the forfeiture of SO collateral. On the
same day Bovee's bath establishment vio-
lated the law. the emission periods being
one, two and one minutes, respectively but
there was no prosecution. A few of the
other offenders who were not molested were
the Evans building. Belmont dairy. Glover
building, Fleming building National Safe
Deposit building, Hotel Richmond, st.
James Hotel and, in fact, all violators ex-
cept the twenty-one already referred to.
The most fragrant case is that of the Cairo
apartment house. which violated the law
repeatedly during October and November,
twentyfour offenses during the former
month and seventeen during the latter, one
instance being of six minutes and several
other instances being three minutes. Not
withstanding this, there is no record OF
prosecution recommended or taken. 1 no
tice that in the case of the Chaplin apart
ment house in October the court dismissed
the case on the ground that the owner,
against whom the warrant was obtained,
was not responsible. No further steps to-
ward prosecution seem to have been taken.
If there are legal technicalities by reason
of which the apartment houses can escape
punishment it is evident that an amend
ment to the law is necessary, but that fact
should have been brought to the attention
of the Commissioners and not remained for
me to extract it from personal examina-
ton of routine reports. If there are no
legal technicalities 1 do not understand why
prosecution is avoided
States His Conclusions.
at is not necessary for me to assert that
do not desire to weaken the law or to
increase the smoke nuisance. On the con-
trary / want law that can and Will bs
enforced. and hope some day to see smoke
practically abolished In the national cap
ital. My position is, briefly that If the law
is perfect, enforce 1t: If 1t Is wrong, amend
il. 1 suggested amendments last April Tx
ing a maximum period of not. over three
minutes in every hour and also bringing
chimneys of government buildings within
the law. After nearly eight months delay
these suggestions are returned without APP
prevail although I find by the record that
the smoke Inspector does not In actual
practice regard the one-mintute Limitation.
In almost every case where prosecution
the offending chimney for period OF three,
| four, five and even six or eight minutes.
My purpose was to insure law which
could be rigidly and yet justly executed,
| and abolish the haphaZard. uncertain and
ineffective system now in vogue. AS an
amendment seems to be deemed inadvis-
| able l think that the law ought to have
been enforced AS 1t Is found upon the
construction asserted to have been placed
| upon it by the Police Court. 1 sincerely
| hope that this will be done; and to make
nv position effective / move that the health
officer be instructed to direct the smoke in
without exception. every violator and every
1 olott Of no