Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-08-18
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

Fifty years ago there was evident
among the people Of Washington de-
cided spirit Of revolt
Asphalt Boiling against various UNI
d.. wholesome and OBJ
1ots. noxious conditions
which made life miserable. but which
seemed to be regarded by those In au-
thority as necessary nuisances. One OF
these relate to the evil-smelling fumes
which accompanied the paving Of the
streets and in its issue Of August IA,
1879. The Star makes the following edi-
torial comment on the subject:
There can be no doubt that either
the District Commissioners or the health
officer or both, have the power to sup
press the ASPHALT coal tar boiling ana
all other diseaseAproducing nuisances
located in the city OF washington. we
understand that the Commissioners ex-
plain their failure to deal with these as
phalt- boiling concerns on the ground
that while the smell Of melting the coal
tar and asphalt together Is unpleasant
to most people, and very Offensive to
many yet sanitary men have decided
that 1t is not injurious to health. and
that 1t is actually necessary that these
melting establishments should be To-
Gated In the vicinity Of the streets to
be improved, as the material has to be
laid hot.
LAS regards the first of these propo-
sitions. we do not know who the sanitary
authorities may be who declare these
concerns not unhealthful. but We do
know that medical men of flrst-class
standing here take the position that
anything Is injurious to health that
creates nausea. unsettles the stomach,
affects the nervous system unfavorably,
destroys rest, ETC..
y L. hal
of smoke and stink must be tolerated In
the central portions of the city for the
convenience Of the contractors Is yet
more astonishing, especially to those
who have seen how these things are
managed in other places, where citizens
have. some rights. In Paris, for in
stance the home Of asphalt pavement,
what would be thought Of the PROPOSE
ton to set up an asphalt-b con-
Germ in the central part OF the city to
helch out dense black. smoke and poi
sonouS fumes like the nuisance estab-
lished on north B street. opposite the
Smithsonian Institution, and within a
stones throw of Pennsylvania avenue?
Again. 1t Ia said that the District au-
thorities have no power to control the
paving contractors in this matter. II
so, the fault is with the authorities.
This nuisance on B street is an old
subject of complaint. and energetic pro-
tests were made last year to its eontin-
uance. 1t was promised that the con-
Germ should be removed as soon as the
contracts Of last year were completed.
but the promise was broken; the same
contractors get yet larger contracts
this year and instead Of removing their
works are absolutely enlarging them as
IL meaning to make permanent stand
there. It would have been the easiest
thing in the world for the Commits
sioners to have secured control over the
contractors and the power to abate this
evil by specifications In the contracts. 1t
Is alleged as q further reason why the
Commissioners cannot deal with this
particular B street nuisance, that 1t Is
located, not on District ground, as
has been supposed. but on ground be-
longing to the United States. This
ground Is land reclaimed In Milling up
the old canal; and, as the taxpayers
Of Washington had to pay for the work
of reclamation, 1t seems pretty hard
that its sole use should be the mainte-
nance of O nuisance most tntolerable
to them.
who first gave the paving contrac-
tors the authority to use this ground?
Who permits them to remain there?
What has Col Casey to say about the
matter? II 1t IL United States property
he Is In charge and is responsible for
their; continued occupancy, whoever
may have first permitted them to 60
there. Let US know who shoulders the
responsibility"