smoke of great cities: British and American efforts to control air pollution, 1860-1914, The

Environmental History, Jan 1999 by Stradling, David, Thorsheim, Peter

Concerns about the military consequences of physical deterioration were connected to fears about its effect on Britain's ability to compete economically. Rejecting arguments that a period of low profits and increasing foreign competition was no time to advocate stricter enforcement of anti-smoke laws, William Bousfield asserted in 1882 that "there is but one way of maintaining our industrial ascendancy, and that is by the excellence and the artistic beauty of our manufactures." Bousfield insisted that the design and quality of manufactured goods deteriorated in an environment of "gloom and ugliness," and maintained that the smoke that had "arisen in the creation of our trade .

. . must be removed if we are to preserve it."35 Smoke, often described as unconsumed coal, struck many as visible evidence that the nation was "wasting in the most irresponsible manner" its most precious natural resource. If Britain used up its supplies, other countries could charge high prices for their coal and force Britain into a state of dependency. In 1907, John W. Graham, who went on to chair the Smoke Abatement League, predicted that as Britain's coal supplies dwindled, its industrial base would collapse: When our coal has gone the manufacturing and mercantile part of the greatness of England and all that depends upon it will have gone too. London will live by running hotels in which Americans can spend their holidays, and as a centre of culture and fashion; in Lancashire and Yorkshire sheep will wander over the ruined heaps of former towns; Manchester and Leeds will be visited chiefly for their Art Galleries and Libraries, their impoverished Universities and interesting old Town Halls, doubtless cleaned at last.36 In December 1898, Brabazon chaired a meeting of prominent individuals who wanted to resume the fight against smoke. The organization they formed, the Coal Smoke Abatement Society, adopted a strategy quite different from that of the National Smoke Abatement Institution of the i88os. Instead of directing its efforts toward education and persuasion, this new group focused on insuring greater enforcement of anti-smoke laws. Its president, Sir William Blake Richmond, explained that local officials were often "averse to convicting themselves or their friends; and a kindly and amiable transfer of good-will went on between our local governors, their friends, and inspectors. Inspectors did not see the smoke, and denied, therefore, that it existed."37 Local sanitary authorities held primary responsibility for enforcing the law against smoke, but if they failed to do so, higher levels of government were supposed to intercede. For the vestries of London, this body was the London County Council; elsewhere in England, the Local Government Board had this responsibility. One of the society's first projects was to put pressure on the London County Council to indict polluters when vestry authorities would not act. As a result of these efforts, the society claimed that the number of smoke nuisances within the immediate metropolitan area had fallen from 187 cases in 19oo to only 15 in 19o8. Leaders of the society complained, however, that much of the smoke obscuring London's skies came from factories situated outside the council's jurisdiction. The society repeatedly asked the Local Government Board to take action, but the board invariably ignored its requests. Frustrated with this inattention, activists hoped to extend the authority of the London County Council so that it could deal with smoke from neighboring districts. The government declined to give the board this power, but it did grant another of the group's requests: in 1904, the Foreign Office asked British ambassadors stationed in Washington, D.C., and several European capitals to furnish information about how other industrialized countries regulated smoke. The ensuing report, presented to Parliament in 1905, focused particular attention on the United States; it even included a copy of the legal notice that Chicago's chief smoke inspector issued to violators of the city's smoke ordinance.38 The United States in the 1900s If British anti-smoke organizations hoped to learn something from a study of American ordinances, American reformers hoped to learn from British organizations. In the spring of 1905, Dr. Charles Reed, Cincinnati's noted surgeon and gynecologist, used what he had learned from his travels in Europe, particularly Britain, to develop a strategy for a smoke abatement movement in the United States. While in Manchester, Reed had become familiar with that city's Smoke Abatement League. He quickly saw the value of such an organization and brought the idea home with him to Cincinnati. In an address on the smoke problem delivered before that city's Woman's Club, an exclusive organization of 15o prominent citizens, Reed proposed that the women of Cincinnati initiate a smoke abatement league, and indeed, that they attempt to create some national anti-smoke organization, no doubt to be modeled on Britain's Coal Smoke Abatement Society.39 In his address, Reed made clear that he understood his audience's particular interest in smoke abatement. Noting that women were martyrs to the growing smoke problem, he charged that "the extra drudgery in housekeeping imposed upon women is never taken into account by the company whose factories fill the air with soot that filters alike into the parlor and bed-room." Moving beyond the issue of cleanliness, Reed also emphasized the health aspects of air pollution, relating smoke to tuberculosis, catarrh, and other respiratory diseases. No doubt, many of the club members well understood the implications of the city's dense smoke. For nearly a year, the club's Civics Department had studied the smoke problem, observing offensive stacks, gathering information concerning effective abatement equipment, and inviting Reed to speak before the larger organization on the issue.40