We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 July 2014
This study of the Baltimore anti-smoke movement illustrates how Americans altered their approach to environmental regulation during the Progressive Era. After citizen groups came to recognize the limits of common-law regulation, they became enamored with administrative regulation and the promise of rationalized, professional agencies. While Baltimore did mirror the national regulatory trends, the city's unique circumstances limited its capacity to reduce the sooty, black smoke that provoked episodes of public activism. Fearful about the city's economic future, regulators exempted manufacturing from the city's early anti-smoke measures. Furthermore, although railroads were major polluters, they balked at electrifying the bulk of their tracks. Finally, the anti-smoke movement was narrowly based in the northeastern, more affluent parts of the city and failed to expand its support to working-class whites and African Americans. Hence, while the ideas about what constituted appropriate regulation “modernized” in Baltimore, the city did not alter its regulatory practices until the 1930s, long after other cities had done so:
In the heart of a beautiful residence section of our city, there rises a towering factory structure in the most gruesome ugliness, belching volumes upon volumes of black and angry smoke, flooding our very houses with showers of soot…. It is the sworn duty of our legislators to protect the citizens in all their rights, and it is to be hoped that the crying need of protection from this unbearable smoke nuisance will now be recognized.
—PH. H., February 28, 19012The author would like to thank Saul Gibusiwa of the Baltimore City Archives; Damon Talbot of the Maryland Historical Society; and Tucker Cross, Carl Albert Fellow, for helping her to collect the primary sources that informed this article. She also wishes to thank the journal's anonymous reviewers for their insightful and perceptive critiques.
2 Baltimore Sun, Mar. 2, 1901, 8.
3 See, most notably, Novak, William J., The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America, (Chapel Hill, 1996)Google Scholar.
4 See, for example, Bodenhorn, Howard, “Single Parenthood and Childhood Outcomes in the Nineteenth-Century Urban South,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 38 (Summer 2007): 33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Towers, Frank, The Urban South and the Coming of the Civil War (Charlottesville, 2004)Google Scholar; Click, Patricia, The Spirit of the Times: Amusements in Nineteenth-Century Baltimore, Norfolk, and Richmond (Charlottesville, 1989)Google Scholar.
5 Crooks, James B., Politics and Progress: The Rise of Urban Progressivism in Baltimore, 1895–1911 (Baton Rouge, 1968), 8–9Google Scholar; Anderson, Alan D., The Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis: Baltimore, 1890–1930 (Baltimore, 1977), 19Google Scholar.
6 Argersinger, Jo Ann E., Making the Amalgamated: Gender, Ethnicity, and Class in the Baltimore Clothing Industry, 1899–1939 (Baltimore, 1999), 9Google Scholar, 86, 142.
7 Boger, Gretchen, “The Meaning of Neighborhood in the Modern City: Baltimore's Residential Segregation Ordinances, 1910–1913,” Journal of Urban History 35 (Jan. 2009): 236–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garrett Power, “Apartheid Baltimore Style: The Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910–1913,” Maryland Law Review 289 (1983): 289–314Google Scholar; Kyriakoudes, Louis M., “Southern Black Rural-Urban Migration in the Era of the Great Migration: Nashville and Middle Tennessee, 1890–1930,” Agricultural History 72 (Spring 1998): 341–43Google Scholar.
8 Anderson, Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis, 19.
9 Argersinger, Making the Amalgamated, chs. 1–2; Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, Vol. II: Population, 1910 (Washington, DC, 1913), 840Google Scholar.
10 Cunningham, Raymond J., “‘Scientia Pro Patria’: Herbert Baxter Adams and Mugwump Academic Reform at Johns Hopkins, 1876–1901,” Prospects 15 (Oct. 1990): 109–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fee, Elizabeth, Disease and Discovery: A History of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1916–1939 (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar. For a recent account of scholar-activism, see Recchiuti, John L., Civic Engagement: Social Science and Progressive-Era Reform in New York City (Philadelphia, 2007)Google Scholar.
11 See Stradling, David, Smokestacks and Progressives: Environmentalists, Engineers, and Air Quality in America, 1881–1951 (Baltimore, 1999)Google Scholar; Grinder, Robert D., “The War against St. Louis's Smoke, 1891–1924,” Missouri Historical Review 69 (Jan. 1975): 192–94Google Scholar; Grinder, , “From Insurgency to Efficiency: The Smoke Abatement Campaign in Pittsburgh before World War I,” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 61 (July 1978): 187–202Google Scholar; Stradling, “To Breathe Pure Air: Cincinnati's Smoke Abatement Crusade, 1904–1916,” Queen City Heritage 55 (Spring 1997): 2–18Google Scholar; Stradling and Tarr, Joel A., “Environmental Activism, Locomotive Smoke, and the Corporate Response: The Case of the Pennsylvania Railroad and Chicago Smoke Control,” Business History Review 73 (Winter 1999): 679–81Google Scholar; Platt, Harold L., “Invisible Gases: Smoke, Gender, and the Redefinition of Environmental Policy in Chicago, 1900–1920,” Planning Perspectives 10 (Jan. 1995): 67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 For a study that discusses the Baltimore anti-smoke movement, see Uekoetter, Frank, The Age of Smoke: Environmental Policy in Germany and the United States, 1880–1970 (Pittsburgh, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 See, e.g., Crooks, Politics and Progress; Boone, Christopher G., “Obstacles to Infrastructure Provision: The Struggle to Build Comprehensive Sewer Works in Baltimore,” Historical Geography 31 (2003): 151–68Google Scholar; Williams, Marilyn Thornton, “Philanthropy and the Progressive Era,” Maryland Historical Magazine 72 (Spring 1977): 118–31Google Scholar.
14 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 19, 1896, 6 Dec. 2, 1896, 10, May 6, 1898, 10. Timanus originally represented the Twenty-Second ward in 1897, but after some redistricting and renumbering, his residence would be in the Thirteenth ward after 1901. Baltimore American, Oct. 25, 1897, 8, June 3, 1909, 14.
15 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 18, 1898, 10. Timanus would later acknowledge his pioneering role in proposing this ordinance in 1906. Mayor E. Clay Timanus to David Stewart, Jan. 11, 1906, Timanus Administration, file 96–99, Dec. 1905–Feb. 1906, box 77, RG 9, S13, Baltimore City Archives.
16 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 17, 1902, 10.
17 Stradling and Tarr, “Environmental Activism, Locomotive Smoke, and the Corporate Response,” 679–81; Baltimore Sun, May, 23, 1901, 12, Nov. 18, 1901, 12.
18 Arnold, Joseph L., “The Neighborhood and City Hall: The Origin of Neighborhood Associations in Baltimore, 1880–1911,” Journal of Urban History (Nov. 1979): 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 See Peabody Heights Improvement Association, Minutes (1909–1933), vols. 1–2, manuscript 653, Maryland Historical Society; Boone, Christopher G. et al. , “Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (Oct. 2009): 781–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Peabody Heights would later become part of the neighborhood known today as Charles Village. Kelly, Jacques, Peabody Heights to Charles Village: The Historical Development of a Baltimore Community (Baltimore, 1976)Google Scholar; and Alexander, Gregory J. and Williams, Paul K., A Brief History of Charles Village (Charleston, SC, 2009)Google Scholar.
20 Crooks, Politics and Progress, 129–41.
21 Harwood, Herbert H., Royal Blue Line: The Classic B & O Train between Washington and New York (Baltimore, 2002), 11–56Google Scholar, 85–87; Lee, J. Lawrence, “Baltimore's Belt,” Railroad History 192 (June 2005): 32–33Google Scholar; Hungerford, Edward, The Story of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 1827–1927 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, ch. 8.
22 Harwood, Royal Blue Line, 30–56, 85–87; Lee, “Baltimore's Belt,” 34–36; Hungerford, Story of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, chaps. 8 and 10; Stover, John F., History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (West Lafayette, IN, 1987)Google Scholar, chap. 10.
23 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 18, 1889, supplement, 1, Apr. 21, 1890, 4. Also Hungerford, Story of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 185; Stover, History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 174.
24 The B & O's use of the electric locomotive in the Belt Tunnel constituted the first instance of mainline railroad electrification in the United States. Harwood, Royal Blue Line, 87–93.
25 The city may not have pressed the smoke issue during the late 1890s, as the B & O had been forced to declare bankruptcy in 1896 and would not complete its reorganization until 1899. Stover, History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 178–91.
26 Baltimore Sun, May 5, 1890, 4, May 23, 1901, 12, July 2, 1901, 10, July 3, 1901, 7.
27 Baltimore Sun, July 2, 1901, 10, July 3, 1901, 7, Oct. 15, 1901, 6, Nov. 20, 1901, 10, Nov. 21, 1901, 12, May 27, 1902, 12, May 28, 1902, 12, May 29, 1902, 7, June 1, 1902, 14, June 4, 1902, 8, June 5, 1902, 7, June 10, 1902, 12, June 14, 1902, 12, June 18, 1902, 10, June 23 1902, 7, July 26 1902, 12.
28 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 10, 1902, 10, Feb. 12, 1902, 4, Feb. 13, 1902, 12, Feb. 14, 1902, 7, Feb. 16, 1902, 4, Feb. 17, 1902, 10, Feb. 18, 1902, 6, Feb. 26, 1902, 10, Feb. 27, 1902, 4, Mar. 7, 1902, 4, Mar. 8, 1902, 6.
29 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 27, 1902, 4, Mar. 7, 1902, 4, Mar. 8, 1902, 1.
30 Washington Post, Mar. 20, 1902, 9.
31 Baltimore Sun, Apr. 1, 1902, 12, June 7, 1903, 14, June 26, 1903, 7, June 29, 1903, 7, July 31, 1903, 7.
32 Baltimore Sun, Nov. 28, 1901, 12, Dec. 5, 1901, 12, Jan. 11, 1902, 7. While the City Council Committee on Police and Jail issued a favorable report on the 1902 ordinance, the City Council as a whole failed to discuss or approve it. Baltimore Sun, June 23, 1902, 7.
33 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9, 1904, 7, Jan. 14, 1904, 7, Nov. 18, 1904, 7, Jan. 23, 1905, 8, Jan. 24, 1905, 12, June 2, 1905, 12.
34 Crooks, Politics and Progress, 129–54; Olson, Sherry H., Baltimore: The Building of an American City (Baltimore, 1980), 257Google Scholar. Even after they bought homes in Roland Park, some members of the city's elite maintained residences in the central city. Waesche, James F., Crowning the Gravelly Hill: A History of the Roland Park-Guilford-Homeland District (Baltimore, 1987), 68–71Google Scholar.
35 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 8, 1905, 1.
36 For the home addresses of BASL's members, see Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Fifth Letter and List of Members,” May 1, 1906, “Smoke Control,” RG 29, S1, Baltimore City Archives.
37 Baltimore Sun, Aug. 9, 1900, 5.
38 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 43–44.
39 Crooks, Politics and Progress, ch. 8 & p.233; Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 23.
40 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 10, 1885, supplement, 1.
41 See Stewart, David and Carey, Francis King, A Digest of the Law of Husband and Wife as Established in Maryland (Baltimore, 1881)Google Scholar; andStewart, The Law of Marriage and Divorce as Established in England and the United States (San Francisco, 1887)Google Scholar. Stewart also authored numerous law review articles about marital law.
42 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 23, 1905, 6; Baltimore American, Dec. 10, 1910, 18; Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 23; Boger, “The Meaning of Neighborhood in the Modern City,” 245–47.
43 Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 20–31.
44 Rosen, Christine Meisner, “‘Knowing’ Industrial Pollution: Nuisance Law and the Power of Tradition in a Time of Rapid Economic Change, 1840–1864,” Environmental History 8 (Oct. 2003): 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robert D. Grinder, “The Anti-Smoke Crusades: Early Attempts to Reform the Urban Environment, 1893–1928” (PhD diss., University of Missouri, 1973), ch. 3.
45 See Baltimore Belt Railroad Company vs. Sattler, 105 Md. 264 (1907).
46 Baltimore American, Jan. 27, 1906, 16.
47 For example, the anti-liquor and anti-vice crusades managed to eradicate the distinction between public and private nuisances in some jurisdictions. According to their variant of common-law regulation, citizens had the right to shut down drinking and disorderly houses without having to demonstrate that they had suffered a particular harm that differed from that borne by the general public. Furthermore, some of these new approaches substantially ignored a legal convention that had long held that courts of equity were barred from enforcing criminal laws. Dudley, L. Edwin, “The Law and Order Movement—Historical Sketch,” Lend-a-Hand 8 (Mar. 1892): 266Google Scholar; Mackey, Thomas C., Red Lights Out: A Legal History of Prostitution, Disorderly Houses, and Vice Districts (New York, 1987)Google Scholar, ch. 3.
48 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 12, 1906, 7, Feb. 28, 1906, 10. The BASL's concern about the extent of municipal authority was warranted given the fate of municipal anti-smoke ordinances elsewhere. For example, in 1897, the Missouri State Supreme Court nullified an anti-smoke ordinance from St. Louis on the grounds that the measure exceeded the city's power to control nuisances. Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 64–65.
49 Rosen, “‘Knowing’ Industrial Pollution,” 568–73.
50 Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Second Letter to Members,” Jan. 1906, “Smoke Control,” RG 29, S1, Baltimore City Archives; Baltimore American, Oct. 4, 1905, 14, Dec. 15, 1905, 15, Dec. 19, 1905, 15; Baltimore Sun, Dec. 14, 1905, 7, Dec. 28, 1905, 12, Dec. 30, 1905, 14.
51 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 20, 1905, 7, Dec. 23, 1905, 6, Dec. 24, 1905, 16, Dec. 29, 1905, 12, Jan. 3, 1906, 7, Jan. 5, 1906, 14, Jan. 9, 1906, 7, Jan. 17, 1906, 7, Jan. 19, 1906, 12; Baltimore American, Jan. 26, 1906, 16.
52 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 11, 1906, 12.
53 The BASL's proposed statute gave the relevant cities the power to “make this act and its ordinances applicable only to certain sections of said city or only to certain classes of furnaces or places in which fires are used.” Baltimore American, Jan. 27, 1906, 16; Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Fourth Letter to Members,” Mar. 1906, “Smoke Control,” RG 29, S1, Baltimore City Archives.
54 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 27, 1906, 12, Feb. 28, 1906, 10, Mar. 3, 1906, 10, Mar. 9, 1906, 10, Mar. 29, 1906, 10; Baltimore American, Feb. 28, 1906, 6, Mar. 2, 1906, 6, Mar. 3, 1906, 7, Mar. 9, 1906, 6. For Stewart's theory that the manufacturers and railroads conspired to kill the legislation, see Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Fifth Letter.”
55 For the socioeconomic background of the Twelfth ward, see Crooks, Politics and Progress, 42–47. For a map of the Twelfth ward until 1918, see “Ward Maps, Baltimore City, Prepared from the Records of the Topographic Survey, 1898,” Government Publications, Maps and Law Department, Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Johns Hopkins University. In 1901, the Maryland legislature enacted a law that renumbered some of Baltimore's wards, but the Twelfth ward was not affected by that measure. Laws of the State of Maryland Made and Passed at the Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly (Baltimore, 1901), 34Google Scholar.
56 Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Sixth Letter, Containing New Anti-Smoke Ordinance and Suggestions for Winter Campaign,” (Dec. 1, 1906), 3–5; “Smoke Control,” RG 29, S1, Baltimore City Archives; Baltimore American, Apr. 25, 1906, 4; Baltimore Sun, Feb. 5, 1907, 7, Apr. 13, 1906, 14, Nov. 20, 1906, 7; Baltimore American, Nov. 23, 1906, 1, Dec. 11, 1906, 14.
57 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 54–55. When seeking reelection, Wachter was typically endorsed by the city's Afro-American Ledger; see, for example, front-page endorsement of Oct. 25, 1902.
58 For instance, when the Michigan legislature enacted the state's first hunting limits in 1859, the statute did not appoint game wardens to enforce it, but instead assumed that citizens would make complaints about illicit hunting, and offered them half of the penalties assessed for wildlife killed during the closed season. Eugene T. Peterson, “The History of Wild Life Conservation in Michigan, 1859–1921,” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1952), 16.
59 Ann-Marie Szymanski, “From Private Policing to Administrative Regulation: The Shift from ‘Regulation without Bureaucracies’ to Centralized Agencies in the United States, 1890–1930” (unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, Sept. 3, 2005).
60 Baltimore Sun, Nov. 20, 1906, 7.
61 Fox, Carroll, Public Health Administration in Baltimore (Washington, DC, 1914)Google Scholar; Roberts, Samuel, Infectious Fear: Politics, Disease, and the Health Effects of Segregation (Chapel Hill, 2009), 12–13Google Scholar, 80, 82, 116, 130; The New Charter of Baltimore City, Revised Edition (Baltimore, 1903), i–iiGoogle Scholar, 60.
62 Fox, Public Health Administration in Baltimore, 58–62; Anderson, The Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis, 37; Sub-Department of Health, Department of Public Safety, Annual Reports, 1901, 4; 1902, 3; 1903, 3; 1904, 3.
63 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 44, 54–55; Grinder, “The Anti-Smoke Crusades,” 98–99; 104–05.
64 Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Sixth Letter,” 7–8; Baltimore Sun, Jan. 18, 1907, 12, Feb. 2, 1907, 14, Feb. 4, 1907, 6, Feb. 15, 1907, 14.
65 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 3, 1908, 14, Oct. 6, 1908, 16, Oct. 29, 1908, 8; Baltimore American, Oct. 28, 1908, 14, Oct. 30, 1908, 13.
66 Baltimore American, Apr. 5, 1908, 14, Apr. 7, 1908, 14, Mar. 23, 1909, 16, Apr. 13, 1909, 13. Such measures were adopted elsewhere; New York City had recently adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of steam locomotives south of the Harlem River, which led to the electrification of lines passing through Grand Central Station. Michael Bezilla, “Steam Railroad Electrification in America, 1920–1950: The Unrealized Potential,” Public Historian 4 (Winter 1982): 34–36.
67 Baltimore Sun, Nov. 17, 1908, 12, Dec. 8, 1908, 14; Baltimore American, Dec. 8, 1908, 12.
68 Baltimore American, Dec. 8, 1908, 12, May 4, 1909, 16, May 11, 1909, 14, July 31, 1909, 8.
69 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 55–58, 66–77; Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 31–39.
70 For the geography of class in Baltimore, see The Baltimore Book: New Views of Local History, eds. Fee, Elizabeth, Shopes, Linda, and Zeidman, Linda (Philadelphia, 1991)Google Scholar, particularly these chapters: Karen Olson, “Old West Baltimore: Segregation, African-American Culture, and the Struggle for Equality,” 57–74; Jo Ann E. Argersinger, “The City that Tries to Suit Everybody: Baltimore's Clothing Industry,” 81–101; and Linda Shopes, “Fells Point: Community and Conflict in a Working Class Neighborhood,” 121–43.
71 Baltimore American, Dec. 8, 1908, 12, Apr. 10, 1909, 14, May 4, 1909, 16.
72 Rosen, Christine Meisner, “Business, Democracy, and Progressive Reform in the Redevelopment of Baltimore after the Great Fire of 1904,” Business History Review 63 (Summer 1989): 314–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
73 Bruchey, Eleanor S., “The Development of Baltimore Business, 1880–1914, Part I” Maryland Historical Magazine 64 (Spring 1969): 32–34Google Scholar; Bruchey, , “The Development of Baltimore Business, 1880–1914, Part II,” Maryland Historical Magazine 64 (Summer 1969): 157–60Google Scholar.
74 Baltimore American, Feb. 28, 1904, 8, Sept. 28, 1904, 12, Apr. 28, 1905, 11, Mar. 4, 1906, 4.
75 Bruchey, “The Development of Baltimore Business, 1880–1914, Part I,” 32–33.
76 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 8, 1910, 7. In 1913, Stewart's wife, Alice, accused him of trying to defraud her of an inheritance, and she secured a divorce from him in Paris. In 1914, Stewart secretly remarried his secretary, Edith Davis, who died during their Paris honeymoon. Initially, Stewart was suspected of poisoning Edith, but doctors later determined that she died of natural causes. In 1916, Stewart pled guilty to charges that he had sent an obscene letter to a nurse in the Springer Sanatorium at Govans. He was also sued that year by a maid of his first wife, who accused him of assault and breach of promise. Washington Post, June 30, 1913, 3, July 13, 1913, 6, June 27, 1914, 3–4, June 28, 1914, 10, May 13, 1916, 3; Baltimore Sun, May 3, 1914, 12, Jan. 23, 1916, 14, Jan. 25. 1916, 1.
77 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 20, 1894, 8; Croly, Jane, The History of the Woman's Club Movement in America, vol. 1 (New York, 1898), 580–87Google Scholar.
78 Baltimore Sun, Jan. 11, 1902, 7, Nov. 10, 1904, 7, Jan. 18, 1907, 12; Baltimore American, Dec. 8, 1905, 16; Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 41–46; Crooks, Politics and Progress, 169–78.
79 Baltimore American, June 19, 1906, 13, June 20, 1906, 14, June 21, 1906, 13, June 23, 1906, 9, Aug. 27, 1910, 16; Baltimore Sun, Nov. 30, 1911, 14.
80 Baltimore American, June 19, 1906, 13; Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Sixth Letter,” 7–8.
81 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, 52–55; Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 2, 1904, 4, Apr. 4, 1905, 9.
82 Chicago Tribune, Feb. 17, 1909, 9.
83 Ann-Marie Szymanski, “Citizen Arrests, Private Policing, and the Development of American Constitutionalism” (unpublished paper, presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA., Jan. 4–6, 2007). Some genteel men even found private policing to be so unpleasant that they hired private investigators to collect evidence for them.
84 History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 1911–1936 (Baltimore, 1937), 6–9Google Scholar; Baltimore Sun, Apr. 3, 1911, 8; Baltimore American, Apr. 9, 1911, 2.
85 Early league members who had connections with the BASL included Mrs. George H. Cook, Mrs. James Swan Frick (first chair of the Smoke Abatement Committee), Mrs. Thomas B. Harrison, Miss Amelia Marburg, Mrs. Henry C. Matthews, Mrs. William Painter, Mrs. Josias Pennington, Mrs. Edward Shoemaker, and Mrs. Miles White Jr. Those who had connections with the Municipal Art Society included Mrs. Henry Barton Jacobs (first president), Mrs. W. W. Spence, Mrs. Josias Pennington, Mrs. James Swan Frick (first chair of the Smoke Abatement Committee), Miss Amelia Marburg, Mrs. William Thomas Wilson, Mrs. Francis M. Jencks, and Elizabeth C. Jencks. Members of the Civic League who had connections with the Arundell Club included Mrs. Benjamin W. Corkran (second president) and Mrs. George Washington Sadtler.
86 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1911, 16, Dec. 11, 1911, 9, Apr. 18, 1912, 16; Baltimore American, Dec. 17, 1911, 9; Mrs. Frick, James Swan, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Civic Courier 1 (Apr. 1912): 5–6Google Scholar.
87 Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 31–39.
88 Mrs. Frick, James Swan, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Civic Courier 1 (Feb. 1912): 5–6Google Scholar; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34; Baltimore Sun, Apr. 21, 1912, 6, May 15, 1912, 11, May 24, 1912, 11.
89 Baltimore Sun, Apr. 18, 1912, 16, July 27, 1912, 12, Aug. 3, 1912, 6, Nov. 24, 1912, 12, Aug. 23, 1913, 3, Nov. 19, 1913, 10, Apr. 14, 1915, 5; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1912, 5–6; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34.
90 Baltimore Sun, July 13, 1913, LS1, Aug. 23, 1913, 3, Apr. 14, 1915, 5; Mrs. Frick, James Swan, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Civic Courier 3 (Apr. 1915): 20–28Google Scholar.
91 Mrs. Frick, James Swan, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Civic Courier 2 (Apr. 1914): 6–7Google Scholar; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34.
92 In the realm of privately sponsored common-law regulation, public-private partnerships were most common in the humane movement, which sought to abate child and animal abuse. See McCrea, Roswell C., The Humane Movement: A Descriptive Survey (New York, 1910), 18–24Google Scholar; Shultz, William J., The Humane Movement in the United States, 1910–1922 (New York, 1924), 216Google Scholar, 297–99. For discussions of public-private partnerships in social provision, see Fetter, Frank A., “The Subsidizing of Private Charities,” American Journal of Sociology 7 (Nov. 1901): 359–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fleisher, Alexander, “State Money and Privately Managed Charities,” The Survey, Oct. 31, 1914, 110–12Google Scholar; Slingerhand, William H., Child Welfare Work in California: A Study of Agencies and Institutions (New York, 1915)Google Scholar.
93 Williams, Marilyn Thornton, Washing “The Great Unwashed”: Public Baths in Urban America (Columbus, OH, 1991), 110–24Google Scholar.
94 Arnold, “The Neighborhood and City Hall,” 8, 26n12.
95 Baltimore Sun, Feb. 27, 1915, 6; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1914, 6–7; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1915, 20, 24; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34.
96 Baltimore Sun, Apr. 14, 1915, 5, Apr. 16, 1915, 5, May 8, 1915, 16, May 9, 1915, 10, May 12, 1915, 14; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1915, 2–25, 27; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34.
97 Baltimore Sun, Mar. 9, 1915, 6, Mar. 13, 1915, 8, Mar. 14, 1915, 8.
98 Baltimore Sun, Sept. 3, 1912, 6, Sept. 11, 1912, 6, Sept. 21, 1912, 14, Sept. 28, 1912, 14, Nov. 13, 1912, 11.
99 Baltimore Sun, Apr. 9, 1913, 8, May 29, 1913, 6, June 22, 1913, 6.
100 Baltimore American, Mar. 15, 1911, 15; “Reports of the City Officers and Departments Made to the City Council of Baltimore for the Year 1911” (Baltimore, 1913), 15–23; Anderson, Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis, 35; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1914, 7.
101 Baltimore Sun, Sept. 17, 1912, 6, Nov. 27, 1912, 10, Apr. 14, 1915, 5.
102 Baltimore Sun, Sept. 9, 1913, 8, Nov. 21, 1913, 6, Mar. 2, 1915, 6. One interesting critique of the smoke inspector was lodged by a citizen who accused Thompson of being too lenient on his former employer, the Consolidated Gas, Electric, Light and Power Company. Baltimore Sun, Aug. 3, 1912, 6.
103 Baltimore Sun, May 1, 1912, 16, Sept. 21, 1912, 14, Sept. 28, 1912, 14, Oct. 6, 1914, 3, Mar. 2, 1915, 8.
104 Arnold, “The Neighborhood and City Hall,” 14; Baltimore Sun, Jan. 17, 1913, 10, Jan. 18, 1913, 14.
105 Baltimore Sun, July 13, 1913, LS1.
106 Baltimore Sun, July 18, 1913, 3, Apr. 16, 1915, 4, May 9, 1915, 10, May 12, 1915, 14; Frick, “Report of the Smoke Abatement Committee,” Apr. 1914, 7; “Reports of the City Officers and Departments Made to the City Council of Baltimore for the Year 1918” (Baltimore, 1919), 26–28, 84–85.
107 Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 36–42.
108 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 10, 1921, 8, Nov. 21, 1926, 8; Peabody Heights Improvement Association, Minutes (1916–1933), vols. 1–2, manuscript 653, Maryland Historical Society. For other discussions of possible solutions to Baltimore's smoke problem, Baltimore Sun, Feb. 2, 1919, 6, Feb. 10, 1919, 6; Feb. 14, 1919, 6, Mar. 9, 1921, 6, July 10, 1921, 13, July 12, 1921, 6, Dec. 28, 1921, 8, Oct. 23, 1924, 10, Nov. 28, 1924, 10, May 3, 1928, 12, Oct. 16, 1928, 14, Jan. 22, 1929, 12, Dec. 27, 1929, 8.
109 Baltimore Sun, July 27, 1921, 7, Aug. 4, 1921, 6, Dec. 6, 1921, 8, Feb. 26, 1923, 6, Mar. 3, 1923, 20, Mar. 10, 1924, 18, Sept. 25, 1929, 3, Apr. 2, 1931, 26; History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 34.
110 Boone, Christopher G., “An Assessment and Explanation of Environmental Inequity in Baltimore,” Urban Geography 23 (Aug/Sept. 2002): 588–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goron, Joshua, “A ‘Euclid’-Turn: ‘R. B. Construction Co.’ v. ‘Jackson’ and the Zoning of Baltimore,” Maryland Historian 22 (Spring/Summer 1991): 26–43Google Scholar.
111 Baltimore Sun, May 14, 1931, 26, Aug. 13, 1931, 8. That this measure was far more comprehensive in its operation than the ordinances of 1905 and 1906 can be seen by comparing the BASL's ordinance in Anti-Smoke League of Baltimore, “Sixth Letter,” 3–5, with “Bureau of Smoke Control, City of Baltimore” [1932] “Smoke Control,” RG 29, S1, Baltimore City Archives.
112 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, chs. 4–5; Grinder, “The War Against St. Louis's Smoke,” 192–94.
113 Stradling, Smokestacks and Progressives, ch. 5. See also Grinder, “The Anti-Smoke Crusades,” chs. 8–10.
114 Uekoetter, Age of Smoke, 23–25, 34–39.
115 History of Women's Civic League of Baltimore, 5–7, 20, 33–35.
116 Second Industrial Survey of Baltimore: A Quarter Century of Progress in the City of Industrial Advantages, 1914–1939 (Baltimore, 1939), 20–23Google Scholar; Baltimore Sun, Jan. 16, 1929, 3, Jan. 23, 1929, 28, Sept. 25, 1929, 3, Dec. 30, 1929, 16, Mar. 17, 1931, 10.
