Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-28
JUDGES ON SMOKE LAW
Recent Communications to the
Commissioners.
CRITICISM RESENTED
STATEMENTS BY ATTORNEY
DUvALL AND MR.. MACFARLAND.
Police Court Justices Characterize Ger
tain Statements as Grossly
Erroneous.

Controversy among officials of the Dis
trict relative to the enforcement Of the
District anti-smoke law has broken out
afresh, and President Roosevelt and mem
bers of the Senate and House committees
another opportunity to peruse interesting
correspondence relative to this subject.
From communications made public today
it appears that Judges Scott and kimball
of the Police Court resent the criticism of
their judicial actions which was con-
tanned in the Commissioners letter of jan
| uary addressed to the President of the
United States.
The letters OF the two judges of the
| Police Court, referred to, constitute an I'M
| portant contribution to the literature
which has emanated from official sources
within the past few months in connection
| with the enforcement of the present anti
| smoke law. The correspondence made pup
| lie by the Commissioners conslStS Oh lwo
| letters. one from Judge Scott and one from
| Judge Kimball of the Police Court, state
| ment by Corporation Counsel A. d: Dusail
| and a statement of Commissioner Mac1ar-
| The iudges of the Police Court charac-
| terized the comment of the CommlssioheI ,
| relative to the action of the court as .ne
| very erroneous statements, cue. 1,iio. 49,
! term used by one of the Judges with ielei
| euce to parts of the Commissioners state
| ment is grossly erroneous. The JUDGES
state their side of the case In language
considered as both vigorous ana uhhls '-s.i-
able as to its tenor. Whatever blame may
he attached to any official in connection
with the practice in smoke cases, the Judges
Intimate should not be attached TO theH'
but instead to the prosecuting dtloiiieJ
at the Police Court.
Judge Scott's Letter.
The letter of Judge Charles F. Scott bears
date of January 10. The text of his COM
munication to the Commissioners is as FOL
lows:
Your letter of January D, 1909. address,
ed to the President of the United States
being based on erroneous premises, has leo
YOU to mistaken conclusions. l can't think
YOU would willingly write that portion OF
it which seeks to throw blame upon the
Judges of the Police Court If you mad not
been misled by some one mlsrepresentins
the facts. You say in your letter that the
enforcement of the law has been hampereo
in the past by the inadequacy of the lines
imposed or the collateral eXacted by the
Police Court, Notwithstanding the represen~
tations to the court of the assistant cor
poration counsel representing the District
in the prosecution, that higher penalties
should be imposed and the notorious fact
that in some instances a particular plant
by indicated as an habitual offender. In
other words, that the judges of the Police
Court have embarrassed the assistant cor
poration counsel by imposing inadequate
fines and exacting inadequate collateral
You may not know, gentlemen, that the
judges of the Police Court know no more
about who gives collateral, the amount
thereof or when given, at the time it is
given, than you gentlemen do, and the first
information in relation thereto is, or should
be, first brought to the attention OF the
court in open court by the assistant corpo-
ration counsel prosecuting in said court.
Such being the fact when he learns that
the collateral eXacted somewhere by some
body is inadequate he should ask the judge
for an attachment to bring the party or
parties before the court for an increase.
Therefore, if the collateral has heretofore
been inadequate, the remedy is with said
assistant corporation counsel, and not with
the judges, as charged, and it is very
simple and efficient remedy.
Alleged Embarrassment.