of what is known upon the subject, what can be done to prevent smoke, and what cannot be done, with the reasons why.

In this connection, I beg to present, in a suggestive way, some questions which seem to me to be pertinent:

1. What are the differences between the various grades of coal on the market, both as to their power-producing units and their ability to burn without smoke? At what cost can they be utilized in a smokeless manner?

2. What conditions and capacity of grate surface, compared with the boiler capacity, have been shown to produce the most perfect combustion with the ordinary grades of bituminous coal? The term perfect combustion, is used on the assumption that where it is obtained there will be no smoke.

3. What are so-called smoke-prevention devices, and what are their limitations ?

4.

What changes, if any, are required in the engines now in use in Chicago? 5. What sized trains, either empty or loaded, may be hauled by an engine of a given boiler capacity without making smoke?

6. Is it practicable for the railroad companies to operate trains within the city limits without taxing their engines beyond their capacity to do their work without making smoke?

7. What part does careful and scientific firing play? and is it possible to secure and retain a competent fireman ?

8. Is the examination and licensing of firemen and engineers by the city necessary? Should a fireman who can not and will not fire a locomotive smokelessly be employed at all; and if he does fire his engine smokelessly, should he be rewarded for his superior skill and care?

9. Can Illinois coal be coked, and if so, what are the obstacles in the way of its adoption as a fuel for locomotives, as to increased cost of operating ? 10. Is it conceded that coke is a smokeless fuel?

11. Are not some of the very inferior grades of coal used largely responsible for locomotives smoking?

12. Do all railroads running into Chicago use about the same grade of coal, or do not some use a very good quality, while others use that so poor that the most careful and intelligent stoker cannot avoid making smoke?

If these and other questions that will occur to your scientific minds could be answered, and a full statement of the whole facts concerning smokeless combustion be made with the weight and authority of this Club's endorsement, I feel sure it would furnish a rational basis for future treatment of the question by the public and by public officials. It would, in addition, open the way for a scientific solution of the question in stationary plants as well.

SANITARY REASONS FOR SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Sunlight is necessary for proper growth and development of human life. It is also antagonistic to all pernicious germ life.

Air laden with unconsumed carbon dust and gases contained in smoke, irritates the air passages, sets up inflammation and renders them susceptible to the invasion of disease-breeding germs and is unquestionably the cause of much nasal catarrh, sore throat, bronchitis and diseases of the lungs, as well as to predispose to such contagious disease as diphtheria.

These are incontrovertible facts. How important, then, for the health of a community that it have both these God-given blessings in abundance. As a public official, charged with the responsible duty of conserving at all times the public health of this great city, the smoke evil is a matter which is forced upon me, calling for my most earnest and energetic efforts to secure its speedy removal.

ECONOMIC REASONS.

But there are other reasons, equally important, why the smoke evil must be abolished, and these we may call economic reasons.

One of the largest drygoods houses in the city, a few years ago estimated its annual loss from the destruction to textile fabrics by smoke to be $150,000. Add to this, all the textile fabrics both on sale and in wear in the city, and the figures would mount up to a fabulous sum.

Anyone who has ever lived in a community free from smoke understands the increased laundry bills in a smoky atmosphere.

Whether the question be discussed upon the sordid basis of dollars and cents or upon the grounds of sanitation, good order, cleanliness and public comfort, we arrive at the same result that the smoke nuisance must be abated. As for myself, I do not despair of sometime seeing a smokeless atmosphere in Chicago. I believe also that smokeless locomotives can be operated without loss to the stockholders or to those who furnish the brain and brawn to manipulate them.

UNNECESSARY NOISES OF LOCOMOTIVES.

It has occurred to me that while the Western Railway Club is delving into the smoke question, it can at the same time, take up that of unnecessary noises. It will not be denied that both bell and whistle have their uses and are in fact indispensable adjuncts of the locomotive. But are they not abused? Is there not a great deal of needless tooting of whistles and ringing of bells upon the locomotives in use in Chicago? Do not engineers from force of habit continue to sound their whistles at crossings where the tracks have been elevated and hence no need of it at all? With the tracks all elevated and grade crossings abolished, why should an engineer need to use either bell or whistle while his train is going through the city? It would seem that under present conditions in Chicago, engines upon the various roads in Chicago might be operated with much less noise than formerly. If this be true, should not the reform along these lines be started at once?

In calling your attention to this subject of unnecessary noises, in so far as railroads are concerned, I have done so in no complaining or querulous spirit. I take it, from the character of men who make up this organization, that you are keenly alive to all questions, the discussion of which will improve the service of your lines and make them popular with the people. In what I have said, I have meant to offer it in a spirit of helpfulness and for the ultimate good of all concerned. I want your co-operation in dealing with these matters, which, as a public official, charged with the responsible duty of conserving the public health, I am sworn to give my earnest and constant attention.

I thank you for your cordial welcome here today, and for your evident disposition to do your full share toward bringing about a speedy and satisfactory solution of the questions which means so much for the comfort and health of the people and for the city's material growth and progress.

Obstacles Preventing the Enforcement of City Ordinances Prohibiting Smoke

By John C. Schubert, Chief Smoke Inspector

As chief of the Smoke Bureau I am brought face to face with the obstacles which lie in the way of a complete enforcement of the city ordinances prohibiting smoke.

I am, therefore, interested in a discussion of the smoke problem from my standpoint. That there are many difficulties to be met with in attempting to enforce the law against violations of the smoke ordinance will, I think, be conceded. Did none exist there would be no need of this conference today, and the members of the Western Railway Club would be devoting their energies to the solution of other problems pertaining to the successful operation of their lines.

I desire in this paper to present, in as brief and succinct form as possible, some of the chief difficulties which, since the enactment of the laws prohibiting smoke, have stood in the way of enforcing them.

First among these, I would place that of careless and unscientific firing. This difficulty applies alike to all users of steam power of any kind.

Discussing, for a moment, the subject of careless firing, I desire to say that both my experience and observation have taught me that it is not always due to ignorance, but to the indifference of the men. In this day of progress in every line of human endeavor, I take it that the merest tyro in a knowledge of the use of steam power, knows that there is an economic side to the matter of firing a plant. Also, that a plant properly fired consumes less fuel, and makes less smoke, than one that is improperly fired. Hence the conclusion that careless and incompetent firemen are expensive luxuries, and for this reason should be dispensed with.

Next in importance is the character of fuel used. As Commissioner Reynolds has indicated, I believe that this whole subject of smoke prevention should be discussed with perfect frankness on both sides. It is in this spirit that I call your attention to the matter of fuel. I have repeatedly had both engineers and firemen tell me that with the most careful firing it was utterly impossible for them to avoid making smoke. Their reasons were, of course, the inferior quality of coal furnished. Now, I personally know that these men were capable and experienced. I also know that as a direct consequence of their locomotives making smoke, they were liable to be laid off, subjected to a severe reprimand at the hands of their superiors, and possibly discharged altogether; consequently they were anxious, at least, not to be caught violating the smoke ordinance. I take it, therefore, that with the policy now enforced by many of the railroad corporations of Chicago, of laying off men whose locomotives are caught smoking by the city, they will not make smoke if they can avoid it.

I present this problem with the suggestion that its solution rests entirely with the railroad companies themselves, and not with the Smoke Bureau.

Another obstacle, and one met constantly, is the character of trains handled within the city limits. I venture the assumption that you will all agree with me that a locomotive of a given boiler capacity can haul a certain sized train without making smoke. Give it additional work to do, and it cannot do it without making smoke. I am convinced that if the railroad companies will reduce the size of trains hauled through the city, use a good quality of bituminous coal, I care not from whence it comes, and enforce careful and intelligent stoking, there will be so marked an abatement of the smoke nuisance from this source as to call forth the most favorable comment from both the press and public.

Referring once more to the subject of firing, I am pleased to see that the railroad officials are themselves thoroughly alive to its importance, and using their best efforts to enforce their rules regarding the proper stoking of their engines. I hope, too, that they will not require their engineers and firemen to do the impossible; that is, to avoid making smoke with the poorest kind of coal; but with a fair quality of coal furnished, it then becomes a matter of the company enforcing its own rules in order to make a minimum amount of smoke or to prevent it altogether. I cannot close this paper without taking occasion to express my appreciation of the uniform courtesy shown to myself and the inspectors in the discharge of our duties, and their evident willingness to aid us in enforcing the law. I thank you for the courtesy extended in inviting me to appear before your body today. Whatever I have said has been intended in a spirit of helpfulness and to the end that, with a closer co-operation of our forces, we may be able to bring about the speedy abolition of the smoke nuisance in our city.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a pleasure for me, as chairman, to welcome Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Schubert to our meeting on behalf of the Western Railway Club, and I am certain that their papers will be of very great interest to the public at large, and far-reaching in their usefulness.

I take pleasure in introducing Dr. Reynolds, who has kindly consented to review his paper.

DR. ARTHUR R. REYNOLDS (Commissioner of Health, Chicago): Mr. President, and members of the Railway Club, I take it for granted that you have all read what I had to say in my little paper. There is but little that I can add at the present time. I read this morning, much to my surprise, in one of the newspapers, that I was going to take advantage of this opportunity, and the kindness of your invitation to meet with you, to give the railroads a piece of my mind on the question of smoke. Nothing in the world could be farther from my thoughts. How the newspaper got the information I do not know; it was not from me, however. I presume that these pam

phlets have been circulated and have been seen. On the contrary, the prime object of my being here is to endeavor to confer upon these things as reasonable men should. It is an endeavor to get away from the use of the brute force of the police power that is placed in my hands with reference to this smoke question, as applied to locomotives and railroad people.

I think there is scarcely any question in this world, if men can disabuse their minds of their own selfish interests and their own early prejudices and education, but what a conference may settle; hence I am naturally against the use of war in all its phases. There isn't any reason, that I can see, why the railroad companies, or you practical men acting for the railroad companies in this matter, cannot handle it just as you handle other propositions and problems in your individual lines and between the various lines? The only difference is that you are dealing with the people, while I am humbly acting in the capacity of the people in this instance. I feel that it is necessary that some free, frank statement be made with reference to smoking locomotives, as I have stated in my paper.

I think it is not necessary for me to occupy your time; I only want to urge upon you, to insist, if I may, that you take up my suggestions and make some statement upon them. I believe it to be all important, to be quite vital, indeed, that you do so; vital for the railway companies and vital for the people of the city.

THE PRESIDENT: I now have pleasure in introducing Mr. J. C. Schubert.

MR. JOHN C. SCHUBERT (Chief Smoke Inspector): At the present time I do not know that I can add anything to what has been stated in the paper here. You, in the railroad business, noticed two or three months ago that war was opened by one of our papers on locomotives making dense smoke. From that it would appear as if the city was not doing anything. Now, the city has only one way of getting at the railroads when they make smoke, unless the railroads will agree to do something as has been talked of hitherto. The only thing that we can do is simply to take the railroads into court. Dr. Reynolds has told you that that is not the stand the city desires to take; we believe this question can be settled so it will not be necessary to keep on annoying the railroad companies by bringing suit, and, at the same time, so that the public will feel that some effort is being made to correct the nuisance.