Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:55:32.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divergent Responses to Identical Problems: Businessmen and the Smoke Nuisance in Germany and the United States, 1880–1917

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

Frank Uekoetter
Frank Uekoetter
Affiliation:
FRANK UEKOETTER is currently completing a Ph.D. dissertation atthe University of Bielefeld entitled“Air Pollution Control in Germany and the United States of America, 1880–1970.”
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article counters a common misconception that business was universally opposed to air pollution control at the beginning of the twentieth century. In comparing the reaction of German and American businessmen to smoke abatement efforts before World War I, it shows that behavior was primarily shaped by national culture, rather than by a general desire to “externalize costs.” German smoke abatement did not meet significant resistance from industrialists, with regulation being based on a general consensus of all parties involved—a process which turned out to be as much a chance for abatement as it was an impediment for reforms. The American business community was split into two factions: those opposed to smoke abatement because they feared additional costs and the intrusion of factories by officials, and others, frequently organized in Chambers of Commerce or similar civic associations, who took a broader perspective and argued that the economic prospects of their city were at stake. The ultimate success of the latter group was largely due to changes in strategy, which allowed businessmen to develop a more positive attitude toward smoke abatement while simultaneously increasing the effectiveness of regulation. Business, therefore, should not be viewed as an inevitably “negative force” in environmental regulation.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 73 , Special Issue 4: Business and the Environment , Winter 1999 , pp. 641 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Andersen, Arne, Brüggemeier, Franz-Josef, “Gase, Rauch und Saurer Regen,” Brüggemeier, Franz-Josef, Rommelspacher, Thomas, eds., Besiegte Natur: Geschichte der Umwelt im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1987), 70Google Scholar; Gilhaus, Ulrike, “Schmerzenskinder der Industrie”: Umweltverschmutzung, Umweltpolitik und sozialer Protest im Industriezeitalter in Westfalen 1845–1914 (Paderborn, 1995), 424.Google Scholar All translations by the author—F.U. Also see Andersen, Ame, Historische Technikfolgenabschätzung am Beispiel des Metallhüttenwesens und der Chemieindustrie 1850–1933 (Stuttgart, 1996)Google Scholar; Brüggemeier, Franz-Josef, Rommelspacher, Thomas, Blauer Himmel über der Ruhr: Geschichte der Umwelt im Ruhrgebiet 1840–1990 (Essen, 1992)Google Scholar; Brüggemeier, Franz-Josef, Das unendliche Meer der Lüfte: Luftverschmutzung, Industrialisierung und Risikodebatten im 19. Jahrhundert (Essen, 1996)Google Scholar; and Wey, Klaus Georg, Umweltpolitik in Deutschland: Kurze Geschichte des Umweltschutzes in Deutschland seit 1900 (Opladen, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the U.S., see Dale Grinder, R., “The Battle for Clean Air: The Smoke Problem in Post-Civil War America,” Melosi, Martin V., ed., Pollution and Reform in American Cities 1870–1930 (Austin, Tex., 1980), 83–103Google Scholar; Platt, Harold L., “Invisible Gases: Smoke, Gender, and the Redefinition of Environmental Policy in Chicago, 1900–1920,” Planning Perspectives 10 (1995): 67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stradling, David, Civilized Air: Coal, Smoke, and Environmentalism in America, 1880–1920 (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1996).Google Scholar

2 Platt, “Invisible Gases,” 91.

3 Franz-Josef Brüggemeier, Das Unendliche Meer, 299, 303.

4 Dominick, Raymond H. III, The Environtnental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871–1971 (Bloomington, Ind., 1992), 43.Google Scholar

5 See Rosen, Christine Meisner, “Businessmen Against Pollution in Late Nineteenth Century Chicago,” Business History Review 69 (Autumn, 1995): 351–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a rare discussion of the smoke abatement movement that rejects this tendency.

6 On American railroads see the article of Joel Tarr and David Stradling in this issue.

7 Report of the Department of Health, City of Chicago, for the years 1881 and 1882 (Chicago, 1883), 41. It shall be noted that the word “smoke” as used in this article refers exclusively to the visible products of combustion, i.e. dark particulate matter. Other pollutants stemming from the combustion of coal (like carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide) were a relatively minor concern to reformers at the turn of the century and are not the topic of this article.

8 Smoke Abatement in Saint Louis. Report to the Mayor by the Smoke Abatement Department (1 Mar. 1909), 2. See Report of the Smoke Committee of the Citizens' Association of Chicago (May 1889), 6; City of Pittsburgh, Hand Book of Bureau of Smoke Regulation, Department of Public Health (Jan. 1916), 23; Rochester Chamber of Commerce, Committee on Smoke Abatement, The Abatement of Smoke (1911), 8; Beadle, R. C., “How Smoke is Prevented: Ideal Stoker Practice,” Industrial World 47 (1913): 146Google Scholar; Peebles, T.A., “Suiting the Stoker Design to the Plant,” Steel and Iron 49 (1915): 224.Google Scholar

9 Randall, D. T., The Burning of Coal without Smoke in Boiler Plants: A Preliminary Report (Washington, D.C., 1908), 13.Google Scholar It is to be mentioned that there was a limit to the coincidence of smoke abatement and fuel economy. Usually, combustion was the most economical when the exhausts showed a light gray haze. Every further reduction of the particulate matter content required an additional amount of air, which cooled down the fire and resulted in a corresponding loss of thermal energy. However, since the concern of smoke abatement advocates before World War I was primarily the thick black smoke, and since a complete elimination of all smoke was beyond the scope of reform, this limitation was of only marginal importance for contemporary efforts. For more information on the technology of smoke abatement, see Barr, William M., A Catechism on the Combustion of Coal and the Prevention of Smoke: A Practical Treatise (New York, 1901)Google Scholar; Booth, Wm. H., Kershaw, John B. C., Smoke Prevention and Fuel Economy (Based on the German Work of E. Schmatolla) (New York, 1905)Google Scholar; Hays, Jos. W., Combustion and Smokeless Furnaces (1906; revised second edition Chicago, 1915)Google Scholar; Haier, Ferdinand, Dampfkessel-Feuerungen zur Erzielung einer möglichst rauchfreien Verbrennung (second edition; Berlin, 1910)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reich, A., Leitfaden für die Ranch- und Russfrage (Munich, 1917).Google Scholar

10 Report of the Department of Health, City of Chicago, for the years 1883 and 1884 (Chicago, 1885), 139.

11 Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago (Chicago, 1895), 199.

12 Report of the Special Committee on Prevention of Smoke, St. Louis (8 Mar. 1892), 22.

13 Randall, Burning, 18.

14 On the situation in Germany, see Mehrtens, Joh. H., “Zur Rauchbelästigungs-Frage,” Annalen für Gewerbe und Bauwesen 38 (1896): 88Google Scholar; Grahl, de, “Ueber die technischen Maϐnahmen zur Verhütung der Ruϐ- und Rauchplage in Groϐstädten,” Ranch und Staub 1 (Sept. 1911): 393Google Scholar; Wieck's Gewerbezeitung, 46 (1881): 350–351. This is not meant to suggest that the costs of smoke prevention were totally irrelevant. Since measures depended on the specifics of the individual case, smoke abatement sometimes entailed considerable expenses. However, those cases were the exception rather than the rule, so that, by and large, the issue of costs was inferior to the problem of disinterest.

15 Stadtarchiv Dresden 3.1 (Stadtverordnetenakten) R 24, vol. 1, doe. 1–69; Stadtarchiv Stuttgart Depot B, C XVIII 4, vol. 1:1, doc. 1–82; Stadtarchiv Braunschweig, Sammlung der Statuten der Stadt Braunschweig no. 36 and E 32, 6 no. 5.

16 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 120 BB II a 2 Nr. 28, vol. 1, p. 24–25, 30R (reverse). On the Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act of 1853, see Brimblecombe, Peter, The Big Smoke: A History of Air Pollution in London since Medieval Times (London, 1987), 103Google Scholar; Flick, Carlos, “The Movement for Smoke Abatement in 19th-century Britain,” Technology and Culture 21 (1980): 33–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 120 BB II a 2 Nr. 28, vol. 1, p. 30–32.

18 Rohrscheidt, Kurt von, Die Gewerbeordnung für das Deutsche Reich mit sämmtlichen Ausführungsbestimmungen für das Reich und für Preuϐen (Leipzig, 1901), 777–778Google Scholar; Jaeger, H., Ulrichs, O., Bestimmungen über die Anlegung und Betrieb der Dampfkessel (Die überwachungspflictigen Anlagen in Preuϐen II, Berlin, 1926), 41.Google Scholar

19 For an overview, see A. Reich, Leitfaden, 240–293; Tschorn, B., “Die Rauch-Plage,” in Weyl, Theodor, ed., Handbuch der Hygiene (3. Supplementband, 3. Lieferung, Jena, 1903): 133–136Google Scholar; Pasinski, v., “Rauch- und Ruϐ beseitigung. Technische und rechtliche Gesichtspunkte,” Handwörterbuch der Kommunalwissenschaften (vol. 3, Jena, 1924): 519–520.Google Scholar

20 Crone, A., “Ursachen und Bekämpfung der Rauch- und Ruϐ belästigungen,” Gesund-heits-Ingenieur 51 (1928): 753.Google Scholar

21 Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf III 19508, p. 95R.

22 Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf III 19508, pp. 214, 216. See Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hann. 122 a, no. 3113, pp. 9, 11–12, 110R.

23 Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hann. 122 a, no. 3113, p. 39R; Borgmann, , “Erfolge in der Bekämpfung der Rauch- und Russplage an Dampfkesselfeuerungen in Linden, Hannover,” Zeitschrift für Heizung, Lüftung und Beleuchtung 8 (1904): 257.Google Scholar

24 Nussbaum, H. Chr., “Die Rauchbelästigung in deutsehen Städten,” Deutsche Viertel-jahressachrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege 32 (1900): 566.Google Scholar

25 Stadtarchiv Bielefeld MBV 037, Der Preussisehe Minister für Volkswohlfahrt, Berlin, 27 July 1931.

26 Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hann. 122 a, no. 3113, p. 43.

27 Stadtarchiv Dresden 3.1 R 24, vol. 1, doc. 31, p. 16. See Staatsarchiv Bremen 4, 14/1 IX.c.2.f, proceedings on Dr. Feldmann; Stadtarchiv Frankfurt am Main, Bürgermeisteramt Unterliederbach Sign. 10, proceedings on the Stäcker company.

28 Adreϐbuch der Stadt Heidelbergfür das Jahr 1915, Heidelberg 1915. S. 571.

29 Schicker, K. v., Die Gewerbeordnung für das Deutsche Reich, nach dem neuesten Stande mit Erläuterungen und Ausführungsvorschriften (fourth edition; Stuttgart, 1901), 65Google Scholar; Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 120 BB II a 2 Nr. 28, vol. 3, p. 83R; Ibid. vol. 4, p. 237R, p. 313R; BB II a 2 Nr. 28 adh. 1, vol. 8, pp. 334R–335.

30 Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hann. 122 a, no. 3113, pp. 43R–44. Also see Ibid., pp. 10R–11.

31 Staatsarchiv Bremen 4, 14/1, IX.D.l.bc, no. 16, Fabriken-Inspektor Wegener to the Polizeidirektion, 22 Oct. 1893; 3-G.4.a no. 49, Fabriken-Inspektor Wegener to the Polizei-direktion, 14 Sept. 1891. Similar Rebs, , “Über polizeiliche Maϐnahmen gegen Rauch und Ruϐ in Dresden,” Zeitschrift für Gewerbehygiene, Unfallverhütung und Arbeiterwohlfahrt-seinrichtungen 11 (1904): 102.Google Scholar

32 Stadtarchiv Bielefeld GS 12, 113, Gewerbeinspektion Bielefeld to the chairman of the Stadtausschuϐ Bielefeld, 23 Jan. 1906.

33 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 76 VIII B, no. 2082, p. 101.

34 Hessissches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden Abt. 425 no. 700, proceedings on Zulauf & Co.

35 See Hirschman, Albert O., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass., 1970).Google Scholar

36 Chemnitzer Tageblatt no. 80, 3 Apr. 1883, p. 13.

37 Archiv der Handelskammer Bremen, J I 6, vol. 1, Wilhelm Reinmer to the chair of the Industriebeirat der Handelskammer, 20 Nov. 1902, and note on the Industriebeirat's decision of 28 Jan. 1903. See Staatsarchiv Bremen 4, 14/1 IX.C.5, “Beschwerden über die St. Pauli-Brauerei.”

38 Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hann. 122 a no. 3113, pp. 13R–14R. On the Ringelmann scale, see Randall, Burning, 11; Strong, W. W., “Ueber die wissenschaftliche Behandlung der Rauchfrage,” Ranch und Staub 2 (Dec. 1911): 65.Google Scholar

39 Stadtarchiv Braunschweig E 32, 6 no. 5, Backerinnung zu Braunschweig to the Herzogliche Polizeidirektion Braunschweig, 20 Dec. 1883, and response of the Polizeidirektion, 12 Jan. 1884.

40 Jahresbericht des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller. 1 Apr. 1899 bis 31. Dec. 1899, Theil 1 (Berlin, undated), 114–116; Jahresbericht des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller, Jan. 1901 bis Dec. 1901 (Berlin, undated), 240.

41 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 76 VIII B, no. 2082, p. 72. Similar Rebs, “Über polizeiliche Maϐnahmen”: 77.

42 Bendt, Franz, Die Grundübel im Deulschen Wirtschaftslebcn und ihrc Helmng (Berlin, 1905), 12–13Google Scholar; Jurisch, Konrad W., Das Luftrecht in der Deutschen Gexcerbeordnung (Berlin, 1905), 31Google Scholar; Ulrike Gilhaus, Schmerzenskinder, 441.

43 Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hann. 122 a, no. 3113, pp. 5, 19, 29, 32, 34R, 37R, 40R, 43R, 54–54R; Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 76 VIII B no. 2082, p. 366R.

44 Jurisch, Konrad W., “Zwei Denkschriften über Luftrecht, dem Ausschuϐ des Bundes der Industriellen in Berlin für das Studium der Errichtung einer gewerblich-technischen Reiehsbehorde mit Benutzung der Ergebnisse der ram Ausschuϐ veranstalteten Umfrage.” Waldsterben im 19. Jahrhundert. Sammlung ton Abhandlungen über Abfiiise und Rauch-schiiden, Heft 4 (Reprint Düsseldorf, 1985), 18–20Google Scholar; Loeser, , “Strafbare Rauchblästigung [sic].” Deutsche Bergwerks-Zeitung 14:257 (1 Nov. 1913): 1Google Scholar.

45 Mellon Institute of Industrial Research and School of Specific Industries, Some Engineering Phases of Pittsburgh's Smoke Problem; Smoke Investigation Bulletin No. 8, (Pittsburgh, 1914), 22Google Scholar; Heim, L., “Nachweis von Russ in der Luft,” Archiv für Hygiene 27 (1894): 381.Google Scholar

46 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7 Mar. 1905, 1; St Umis Globe-Democrat, 16 Nov. 1906, 11. See Chicago Tribune 14 Dec. 1904, 3.

47 Zeitschrift für Badische Vencaltung und Vertcaltungsrechtspflege 14 (1882): 205. See Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 120 BB II a 2, no. 28, vol. 3, p. 84; Ibid. vol. 4, p. 248.

48 Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf III 19507, p. 6; Staatsarchiv Bremen 3-G.4.a no. 49, Fabriken-inspektor Wegener to the Polizeidirektion, 13 Dec. 1889.

49 Jurisch, Konrad W., “Ueber deutsches Luftrecht,” Hygienische Rundschau 6 (1896): 908.Google Scholar

50 See Düsing, von, “Die Rauchplage und die Vorkehrungen zu ihrer Verringerung,” Zentralbhtt für Bauverwaltung 33 (1913):239Google Scholar; Guertler, A., “Der gegenwartige Stand der Rauch-und Russplage in Hannover und ihre weitere Bekämpfung,” Zeitschrift für Heizung, Lüftung und Beleuchtung 8 (1903/1904): 235Google Scholar; Bach, Carl, “Ueber den Stand der Frage der Rauchbelästigung durch Dampfkesselfeuerungen,” Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure 40 (1896): 494Google Scholar; Rietschel, H., Brabbée, Karl, Leitfaden zum Berechnen und Entwerfen von Lüftungs- und Heizungsanlagen. Ein Hand- und Lehrbuchfür Ingenieure und Architekten (Fifth edition; Berlin, 1913), 128–129Google Scholar; Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preuϐischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 120 BB II a 2, no. 28, adh. 1, vol. 6, pp. 150R–151.

51 Stradling, Civilized Air, 6 (quotation), 124, 130, 232, Platt, “Invisible Gases,” 81–82. For a different interpretation, see Rosen, “Businessmen.”

52 Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago (Chicago, 1895), 195.

53 Chicago Record-Herald, 16 Sept. 1909, 18; 27 May 1908, 11; Annual Report of the Dedpartment of Health of the City of Chicago (Chicago, 1895), 212.

54 Charles A. L. Reed, An Address on The Smoke Problem, Delivered before the Woman's Club of Cincinnati (24 Apr. 1905), 2.

55 Baltimore Sun, 13 Feb. 1902, 12; 18 Feb. 1902, 6; 13 Oct. 1905, 7; 14 Dec. 1905, 7; 3 Sept. 1912, 6; 25 Feb. 1915, 6; and 8 Nov. 1916, 6. David Stradling is wrong to assume that property only became a prominent issue with the increasing dominance of engineers. (Stradling, Civilized Air, 232.)

56 O'Connor, John J. Jr, The Economic Cost of the Smoke Nuisance to Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, 1913), 45Google Scholar; Bird, Paul P., Report of the Department of Smoke Inspection, City of Chicago (Chicago, 1911), 25Google Scholar; Benner, Raymond C., “The Smoke Investigation of the Industrial Research Department of the University of Pittsburgh,” Industrial World 46 (1912): 1271Google Scholar; American City 3 (1910): 208.

57 St. Louis Republic, 24 Nov. 1906, 10.

58 See Stradling, Civilized Air, 43–77.

59 Baltimore City Archives, RG 4, Series 1, Baltimore City General Property Tax Books, 1905. The median amount does not include four committee members (of nineteen) who do not appear in these tax records.

60 Baltimore Sun, 23 Dec. 1905, 6.

61 It is difficult to explain why real estate interests were completely disinterested in smoke abatement in Germany. However, it appears that smoke did not threaten the value of German real estate to the same degree. While it repeatedly occurred that urban areas changed its character dramatically within a brief period of time, the German real estate market was significantly more stable, making smoke less of a factor in influencing property values.

62 Linsky, Benjamin, “Appraisal,” The Chicago Report on Smoke Abatement: A Landmark Survey of the Technology and History of Air Pollution Control (Reprint; Elmsford, New York, 1971)Google Scholar, 3. See Stradling, Civilized Air, 259–270. Smoke Abatement: Report by the Committee on Fuel Supply of the Boston Chamber of Commerce (Apr. 1910), 2–3, 11; Report of the Municipal Committee on the Smoke Nuisance. Adopted by the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce (19 Mar. 1907); Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Smoke Shroud: How to Banish it (1915), 17–19.

63 Baltimore Sun, 11 Jan. 1902, 7.

64 Year Book and Directory of the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, Pa. (1900), 59–60 Civic Club of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Fifteen Years of Civic History: October 1895–Decemher 1910 (1911), 33.

65 The Civic League, Eleventh Year Book 1911–1912 (St. Louis, 1913), 6Google Scholar; MrsKroeger, Ernest R., “Smoke Abatement in St. Louis,” American City 6 (1912): 909Google Scholar; Public Affairs: A Monthly Record of Civic and Social Progress in St. Louis, published by the Civic League of St. Units, 1:5 (1912): 4.

66 Chicago Record-Herald 16 Sept. 1909, 18; Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Convention of the International Association for the Prevention of Smoke (Pittsburgh, Penna., 9–12 Sept. 1913), 87. The Society for the Prevention of Smoke, formed in 1892 by a number of Chicago businessmen, seems to have been a special case, for its main goal was to abate the smoke nuisance in preparation for the World's Fair. See Rosen, “Businessmen,” 358–359.

67 Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Smoke Shroud, 14.

68 A Year's Record of Usefulness: Annual Report of the President to the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh (May 1907), 8.

69 The Civic League of St. Louis, A Year of Civic Effort: Addresses and Reports at the Annual Meeting 1907, 35. See St. Louis Republic, 9 Feb. 1911, 6; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 22 Jan. 1893, 11.

70 Mrs. Ernest R. Kroeger, “Smoke Abatement,” 909. See St. Louis Globe-Democrat. 13 May 1911, 1; St. Louis Times, 13 May 1911, 15.

71 Baltimore Sun, 25 Feb. 1902, 12.

72 Chicago Tribune, 15 Jan. 1897, 1. On the earlier opposition against the activities of the Society for the Prevention of Smoke, see Rosen, “Businessmen,” 373–380.

73 Quoted after A Reply to the Civic League Report on the Smoke Nuisance. Issued by the Smoke Abatement Department of the City of St. Louis (Dec. 1906), 2.

74 Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Smoke Shroud, 17–18.

75 Ibid.i

76 Parsons, Ruth E., The Department of Health of the City of Chicago 1894–1914 (M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1939), 71Google Scholar; Chicago Record-Herald 27 Feb. 1903, 5.

77 Civic League of St. Louis, The Smoke Nuisance: Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee of The Civic League (November, 1906), 8; Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, Annual Report of President F. R. Babcock (11 May 1911), 27; Civic Club of Allegheny County, Fifty Years of Civic History 1895–1945 (undated), 5; Stradling, Civilized Air, 96, 135, 139–140.

78 Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, Sixth Letter, December 1, 1906 (Baltimore City Archives RG 29 S 1, Smoke Control 1905–1946), 4, 6. See Flagg, Samuel B., Smoke Abatement and City Smoke Ordinances; Bureau of Mines Bulletin 49 (Washington, 1912), 11–26.Google Scholar

79 Civic League of St. Louis, The Smoke Nuisance, 24. See St. Louis Republic, 14 Mar. 1901, 5.

80 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 17 Nov. 1897, 3; Chicago Record-Herald, 27 Nov. 1901, 7; Rosen. “Businessmen,” 377, 381. See Annual Report of the Citizens' Association of Chicago (Oct. 1887), 13; Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago for the year 1889 (Chicago, 1890), 120; Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago for the year 1891 (Chicago, 1892), 60; Chicago Record-Herald 18 Nov. 1901, 9.

81 Baltimore Sun, 24 Jan. 1905, 12; 17 Dec. 1905, 8; 13 May 1909, 5; 17 Nov. 1911, 6; 27 Nov. 1911, 6; 5 Dec. 1911, 16; Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Abatement of Smoke, 1; City of Pittsburgh, Hand Book, 3. See Robert Dale Grinder, “From Insurgency to Efficiency: The Smoke Abatement Campaign in Pittsburgh Before World War I,” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 61 (1978): 192.

82 Annual Report of the Inspection of Boilers and Elevators and Smoke Abatement of the City of St. Louis for the Fiscal Year 1910–11 (St. Louis, 1911), 4; Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago (Chicago, 1895), 191–192; Biennial Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago for the Years 1897 and 1898 (Chicago, undated), 133; Chicago Record-Herald, 27 Feb. 1903, 5; Grinder, Robert Dale, “The War Against St. Louis's Smoke 1891–1924,” Missouri Historical Review 69 (1975): 193.Google Scholar

83 Chicago Record-Herald, 20 Nov. 1901, 9 (quotation), 27 Feb. 1903, 5.

84 Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago for the year 1887 (Chicago, 1888), 100–101. Dito Annual Report of the Inspection of Boilers and Elevators and Smoke Abatement of the City of St. Louis for the Fiscal Year 1910–11 (St. Louis, 1911), 4.

85 Report of the Special Committee on Prevention of Smoke, St. Louis (8 Mar. 1892), 2–3; Smoke Abatement in Saint Louis: Report to the Mayor by the Smoke Abatement Department (1 Mar. 1909), 5; Biennial Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago beingfor the years 1895 and 1896 (Chicago, 1897), 306; Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Convention of the International Association for the Prevention of Smoke (Pittsburgh, Penna., 1913), 74–75.

86 Chicago Record-Herald, 18 Nov. 1901, 9; 17 Apr. 1902, 9; 29 Jun. 1906, 7; 13 Jul. 1906, 6; Chicago Times-Herald, 7 Jan. 1900, part II, 4; St. Louis Republic, 9 Feb. 1911, 6.

87 Citizens' Association, Report of the Smoke Committee, 11; Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Abatement of Smoke, 4. See Annual Report of the Inspection of Boilers and Elevators and Smoke Abatement of the City of St. Louis for the Fiscal Year 1910–11 (St. Louis, 1911), 4; Chicago Record-Herald, 8 Feb. 1902, 9.

88 Boston Chamber of Commerce, Smoke Abatement, 11. See Department of Smoke Inspection, City of Chicago, Notes on Smoke Abatement, Jan. 1st 1914 (typewritten manuscript, Harvard University Libraries Eng. 2650.2), 1.

89 Paul P. Bird, Report, 10. See Department of Smoke Inspection, City of Chicago, Bulletin No. 1 (Chicago, February, 1908), 1; Report of Inspector of Rollers, Elevators and Smoke Abatement for Fiscal Year Ending April 8, 1912 (St. Louis, 1912), 3; Report of Inspector of Boilers, Elevators and Smoke Abatement for Fiscal Year Ending April 7, 1913 (St. Louis, 1913), 3; City of Pittsburgh, Hand Book, 7.

90 Grinder, “Battle,” 96; Stradling, Civilized Air, 221, 227; Platt, “Invisible gases,” 85. However, Joel Tarr, working on post-World War One smoke abatement efforts, has proposed a different perspective. (See Joel A. Tarr, The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective [Akron, 1996], 227–261, and Joel A. Tarr, Carl Zimring, “The Struggle for Smoke Control in St. Louis. Achievement and Emulation,” Hurley, Andrew, ed., Common Fields: An Environmental History of St. Louis [St. Louis, 1997], 199–220.Google Scholar)

91 Paul P. Bird, Report, 52. See Department of Smoke Inspection, City of Chicago, Methods of Approaching the Smoke Problem, Jan. 1st, 1914 (typewritten manuscript, Harvard University Libraries Eng 2650.2), 5; Tunnicliff, Sarah B., “Smoke Elimination in Chicago,” Educational Bi-Monthly 10 (1915/1916): 401Google Scholar; Chicago Record-Herald, 12 Nov. 1907, 10; 5 May 1908, 8; 16 Sept. 1909, 18.

92 J. W. Henderson, “Up-to-date Smoke Regulation,” Proceedings, Eleventh Annual Convention, Smoke Prevention Association, Hotel Planters, St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 27–29, 1916: 91. See City of Pittsburgh, Hand Book, 7–8; Benner, Smoke Investigation, 1273; Gerrish, William H., “Spirit of Co-operation Takes Hold in Boston,” Industrial World 48 (1914): 139Google Scholar; St. Louis Republic, 12 July 1911, 7; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12 July 1911, 2.

93 Report of the Department of Health, City of Chicago (1881–1882): 35; (1883–1884): 136; (1885): 102; (1886): 81; (1887): 99; (1888): 20; (1889): 117; (1890): 128; (1891): 58; (1892): 50; Paul P. Bird, Report, 57. Therefore, Stradling is wrong to assume that “engineers appointed to head smoke departments often abandoned the prosecutory paths taken by previous inspectors.” (Stradling, Civilized Air, 216–217.)

94 Chicago Record-Herald, 24 Apr. 1908, 3; 31 Jul. 1908, 7. Interestingly, Platt abstains from any discussion of the performance of the Department of Smoke Inspection, instead vaguely blaming them for “the triumph of a socially constructed vision of technological progress.” Grinder offers a number of quotations to substantiate his argument of ineffectiveness, but a review of these statements shows that all of them were made before smoke inspection started in the respective cities. (Platt, “Invisible gases,” 91; Grinder, “Battle,” 98–99.) The most conspicuous example is the way Grinder quotes an editorial from the St. Louis Republic. In order to suggest that the newspaper was criticizing the educational approach, he writes, “Does anyone doubt that … (smoke inspection by moral suasion) has been a failure?” However, the full quotation reads, “Does anybody [sic] doubt that the policy of threatening complaints, securing occasional convictions and recommending frequent remissions of fines on promises to do better, has been a failure?” In other words, the editorial criticized prosecution and the way it was handled in St. Louis, and not, as Grinder suggests, education. (See Grinder, “Battle,” 98 and St. Louis Republic, 9 Feb. 1911, 6.)

95 Flanagan, Maureen A., “The City Profitable, the City Livable: Environmental Policy, Gender, and Power in Chicago in the 1910s,” Journal of Urban History 22:2 (Jan. 1996): 174–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grinder, Robert Dale, The Anti Smoke Crusades: Early Attempts to Reform the Urban Environment, 1893–1918 (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri-Columbia, 1973), 95Google Scholar; Platt, “Invisible Gases,” 86, 90–91; Stradling, Civilized Air, 191–195, 221, 225–229.

96 Tunnicliff, “Smoke Elimination,” 401–402. See Chicago Record-Herald, 17 Apr. 1909, 4. Although her article deals predominantly with the Woman's City Club, Flanagan does not mention this line of activity. See Flanagan, “City Profitable,” 168.

97 Women's Civic League of Baltimore, History of the Women's Civic League of Baltimore 1911–1936 (Baltimore, 1937), 34Google Scholar; Baltimore Sun, 21 Jan. 1914, 14.

98 Department of Smoke Inspection, City of Chicago, Annual Report 1911–1912 (Chicago, Feb. 1912): 8Google Scholar; Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Convention of the International Association for the Prevention of Smoke (Pittsburgh, Penna., 1913), 59.

99 Department of Smoke Inspection, Notes, 4. On the potential of nonlegalistic approaches (revelation and persuasion) in the related field of industrial hygiene, see Sellers, Christopher C., Hazards of the Job. From Industrial Disease to Environmental Health Science (Chapel Hill, London, 1997), 87–98.Google Scholar

100 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Convention of the International Association for the Prevention of Smoke (Pittsburgh, Penna., 1913), 71.

101 Henderson, “Up-to-date Smoke Regulation,” 90. See Hays, Samuel P., Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)Google Scholar; Rodgers, Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10:4 (1982): 126–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102 Chicago Record-Herald, 13 Mar. 1908, 3. See Gerrish, William H., “Boston Smoke Report,” Steel and Iron 49 (1915): 236Google Scholar; Searle, J. M., “Record of the Year in Smoke Abatement, in City of Pittsburgh,” Industrial World 48 (1914): 131.Google Scholar

103 Walsh, George Ethelbert, “Smokeless Cities of To-Day,” Harper's Weekly 51 (1907): 1139.Google Scholar

104 Boston Chamber of Commerce, Smoke Abatement, 11.

105 Chicago Record-Herald, 25 Oct. 1909, 3.

106 Industrial World 48 (1914): 137.

107 Chicago Record-Herald, 27 Oct. 1909, 8; City of Pittsburgh, Hand Book, 3. See Henderson, J. W., “Smoke Abatement in Pittsburgh,” Domestic Engineering 78 (1917): 45Google Scholar; Monnett, O., “Chicago's Record for the Year 1912,” Industrial World 47 (1913): 132Google Scholar; Mrs. Ernest R. Kroeger, “Smoke Abatement,” 907; Rochester Chamber of Commerce, The Smoke Shroud, 18–19; Tunnicliff, “Smoke Elimination,” 401; Chicago Record-Herald, 27 May 1908, 11; Oct. 25, 1909, 3.

108 Flagg, Smoke Abatement, 37; Civic League of St. Louis, Year of Civic Effort, 3.5; Boston Chamber of Commerce, Smoke Abatement, 2; Report of the Inspection of Boilers, Elevators and Smoke Abatement for the fiscal year ending April 12th, 1915 (St. Louis, 1915), 10.

109 Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of Chicago for the year ended December 31, 1894 (Chicago, 1895), 192.

110 “There is probably not a single establishment in the business section of the City where the installation of adequate boiler capacity, or a change from soft coal to coke or coke waste, would seriously affect the profits of the owners,” the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce justly proclaimed. (Year Book and Directory of the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, Pa. [1900], 63.)

111 The first issue of Ranch and Stauh was published in 1910, the first Feuerungstechnik in 1912. See Rauch und Stauh 3 (1912/13), 124.

112 For the most sophisticated system of monitoring, see Paul P. Bird, Report, 45–48.

113 Stadtarchiv Düsseldorf III 19508, pp. 63, 195–195R (quotation p. 195R).

114 See Evans, Richard, Death in Hamburg: Society and Politics in the Cholera-Years 1830–1910 (Oxford, 1987), esp. chapters 1 and 2.Google Scholar

115 Staatsarchiv Hamburg 111–1 (Senat) Cl. VII Lit. F d, no. 1, vol. 52, doc. 67 b, 68–69, Verhandlungen zwischen Senat und Bürgerschaft im Jahre 1901 (Hamburg, 1902), 247–248.

116 Staatsarchiv Hamburg 111–1 (Senat) Cl. VII Lit. Q d no. 210 b, vol. 1 a, doc. 1–3; Ibid., vol. 1 b, doc. 1, 3–4, 13; 321–2 (Baudeputation) B 441, pp. 42, 45–47; Haier, Ferdinand, “Die Rauchfrage, die Beziehungen zwischen der Rauchentwicklung und der Ausnutzung der Brennstoffe, und die Mittel und Wege zur Rauchverminderung im Feuerungsbetrieb,” Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure 49 (1905): 21, 88, 167–172.Google Scholar

117 Staatsarchiv Hamburg 111–1 (Senat) Cl. VII Lit. Q d no. 210 b, vol. 1 b, enclosure to doc. 1, Satzungen des Vereins fur Feuerungsbetrieb und Rauchbekampfung, 3.

118 Lehnigk, Jens, Luftverschmutzung um 1900: Der Fall Hamburg (M.A. thesis, Hamburg University, 1993), 72Google Scholar; “Bericht des Vereins fur Feuerungsbetrieb und Rauchbekämpfung in Hamburg üiber seine Tätigkeit im Jahre 1912,” Rauch und Staub 3 (1912/13): 218. See Ranchund Staub 12 (1922): 74–75.

119 Kershaw, John B. C., “A Flourishing German Smoke Abatement Society,” Metallurgical and Chemical Engineering 13 (1915): 261.Google Scholar

120 Gaab, Franz Carl W., “Feuerungsbetrieb und Rauchbekämpfung in Hamburg,” Staid und Eisen 29 (1909): 1371–1372Google Scholar; Hauser, , “Die Rauchplage in den Stadten,” Deutsche Viertel-jahresschrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege 42 (1910): 136Google Scholar; Niederstadt, , “Die rauchfreie Verbrennung, deren Mittel und Wege zur Abhilfe der Rauchfrage,” Zeitschrift für angeiamdte Chemie 19 (1906): 143Google Scholar; Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure 49 (1905): 793–794; Gesundheits-Ingenieur 50 (1927): 902.

121 Wehler, Hans-Ulrieh, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Band 3: Von der ‘Deutschen Doppelrevolution’ bis zuin Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs (Munich, 1995), 664–675.Google Scholar

122 See Geheimes Staatsarchiv PreuBischer Kulturbesitz Rep. 76 VIII B no. 2082 p. 107; Mullen, R. “Die weiter zu treffenden Massnahmen für Grossfeuerungen, die Schadigungen durch die Feueningen in Kleinbetrieben und die Mittel, diesen Schädigungen entgegen zu wirken.” Zeitschrift für Heizung, Lüftung und Beleuchtung 8 (1904): 255Google Scholar; Ascher, , “Die nächsten Aufgaben der Rauchbekämpfung,” Ranch und Stauh 1 (1910): 10Google Scholar; de Grahl, “Ueber die technischen Maϐnalimen,” 395.

123 Beilage zur Düsseldorfer Zeitung, vol. 166, no. 646 (19 Dec. 1911), Zweites Blatt, v. Pasinski, Ranch und Ruϐ in der Groϐstadt.

124 The Civic League of St. Louis, Year Book. Addresses and Reports at the Annual Meeting 1909, Address of Woodrow Wilson, President Princeton University, at the Annual Dinner, 9 Mar. 1909, 19.

125 Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv MWi 660, German Consulate, Cincinnati, 20 May 1914.

126 Baltimore Sun, 28 Dec. 1905, 12. See George Ethelbert Walsh, “Smokeless Cities,” 1139.