Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-24
Public Printer Guilty of Vio-
lating Smoke Law.
JUDGE SCOTT'S VIEWS
SUSTAINS DEMURRER FILED by
THE PROSECUTION.
Letter From the Attorney General Read
During the Hearing-Appeal
to Higher Court.

In a decision rendered today
Judge {. +. Scott OF the Police
Court held that Public Printer
Palmer was guilty of violation of
the anti-smoke law, which decision
establishes, SO far as the Police
Court is concerned, that the enact
ment by Congress under which the
case was prosecuted applies to gov
ernment buildings as well as to
those owned and occupied by pri-
vate corporations. An appeal was
noted.
| Frank w. Palmer public printer. was
held guilty by Judge Scott today of having
violated the smoke law and a fine of so
| was imposed. The imposition of the pen-
! atty was change from the rule adopted by
| the court some time ago of imposing the
| lowest fine, SO, upon defendants when they
| appeared for the first time
An appeal was noted by United States
| Attorney Morgan III. Beach and his assist
ant. Mr.. Alexander r. Mulowny. and the
case will be taken to the Court of Appeals
The court decided to accept the personal
bonds of the public printer for his appear
arce. -t..
During tn discussion of the case yester-
day which was upon a demurrer fled hy
Mr.. Thomas and Mr. Pugh the prosecuting
officers, it became evident that the Presi-
dent and Attorney General Moody were
interested in the matter. This was brought
out by Mr.. Beach speaking to the court OF
letter he had received from the Attorney
General This letter. the contents of which
he stated TO the court, reads:
The plea to the information which you
| filedseashsSl lAth7 of March sets forth SUBJ
stantfally all that desire shoSld appear
to the court, with one exception You
state that during the time covered by the
information the defendant used as he
was required to use by the appropriations
made by Congress, soft coal, with the re-
suit that certain thick and dense black
and gray smoke was emitted The only
additional fact which 1 desire stated
orally to the court is that after the LIST
of July the public printer has provided
for the use of hard coal l can see no
reason why the simple statement of this
tion of the case. l therefore think the
fact should be stated to the court as the
President wishes
The Courts Conclusions.
In disposng of the case the court said:
''The law as / understand it was passed
by Congress, having the authority to do SO.
to prevent the nuisance, from smokestacks
connected with engines and boilers, of
smoke of the character described-tbat is,
thick, dense black or gray smoke or cin-
ders, the emission of which is declared in
the act to be nuisance III Itself
Il take ii that the object or the intention
of Congress was to do away with or pre-
vent that nuisance. That is evident on the
face of the act itself. The declaration that
1t is a nuisance stands as the basis upon
which / have heretofore convicted those
who were brought into court, and under
the decision of the Court of Appeals Of
the District the mere emission of smoke OF
the character described is declared in itself
to be a nuisance.
IF it was the object of Congress to do
away with the emission of dense. thick
black or gray smoke, the purpose of Con-
gress was to keep our national capital IN
its most beautiful condition If the purpose
Of Congress was as broad as that, as doubt
less it was, then the emission of any smoke
of that character, it would seem to me.
was contemplated by the act unless it was
otherwise excluded, and the exception TO
the general statement is that private
houses or residences are not to be held re-
sponsible. There is no other exception men,
toned in the act
Rules of Construction.
THE rules of construction as given and
well presented yesterday by the United
States, 1 think. thoroughly meet the cases
to which reference was made and were
appropriate in those cases. But / was not
and am not able to see that in this partic-
ular case the rules cited apply, inasmuch
as the application of this act as bounded
by the boundaries of the District of Co
lumbia, applies only TO citizens of the DIS
trict and applies only to the character OF
the offenSeS described.
Il am constrained to think the intention
of Congress was to prevent the emission OF
smoke from any chimney connected, as
stated in the act, with any boiler, sta ton
airy engine, etc If am right in that, then
1t follows that those who control the smoke
would be violators of the law.
Congress knew exactly what the existing
conditions were. The members themselves
are here every year. They must have OBJ
served the effects Of the emission of the
smoke 1t was not as though they were
one thousand miles away from it and only
heard of those effects. IL was not as
though they were not entirely conversant
with every condition in this District They
were not dependent upon the representa-
tions of others, but had the benefit of actual
vision; SO. in my judgment, there was no
reason why they were not thoroughly well
acquainted with everything that was dele
terious to the citizens and their property,
and that which would constitute nuisance.
They were thoroughly acquainted with 1t by
actual vision and observation. SO say that
1t must have been intended by Congress thar
those who controlled the chimney from
which was emitted smoke of this character
would be liable under the law.
Agency and Occupancy.
The question OF agency and occupancy
was well presented, and yet / incline to
this impression: That even IN the special
plea set up there is almost a virtual ad-
mission that there was some kind of con-
troll by this officer. The Court of Appeals
describes the agent or occupant as such .
person as has control of the engines and
smokestack from which smoke is emit
ted; and they go farther-they say par
ties who have not only entire control, but
who have an agency in the control It
occurred to me that this officer does have
some agency in this, inasmuch as he re-
cefves from Congress the appropriation
for the character of fuel which he usea
and from which the smoke 10 emitted