IY\J

LE
 i

UD
-P*
O
-nOl

REGULATION OF FIREWORKS

RESEARCH REPORT No. 1

RESEARCH DIVISION
MARYLAND LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
 REGULATION OF FIREWORKS

Research Report No. 1

Submitted March, 194-0

Prepared by-
Carl N. Everstine
Research Division
Maryland Legislative Council
 The Legislative Council of Maryland

Senate

Arthur H. Brice, Chairman

Wilmer Fell Davis
Philip H. Dorsey, Jr.
Frank J . Flynn
Emanuel Gorfine
Dudley G. Roe
A . Earl Shipley

House of Delegates

Thomas E. Conlon, Vice Chairman

Paul L. Cordish
J. Milton Dick
Walter J. Locke
James B. Monroe
Milton Tolle
John S. White

Secretary and Director of Research

Horace E. Flack
 PREFACE.

The Legislative Council, at its first meeting on October 11, 1939,

referred the subject of the regulation of fireworks to the Research Di­

vision for study and report. Pursuant to this request the study has been

completed and this report is now submitted. It has been prepared by Dr.

Carl N. Everstine, under the direction and supervision of Mr. Robert R.

Bowie, the Assistant Director of the Research Division.

In submitting the first report of the Research Division, it is per­

haps well to call attention to the fact that the law creating the Council

provided that the Research Division should make a factual and legal study

of questions referred to it by the Council. Making recommendations and

decisions as to policies is properly placed in the hands of the Council.

A tentative draft of the report was submitted for criticism to Mr.

John W. Avirett, 2d, of the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness,

to Mr. Raphael Walter, Counsel for the principal fireworks manufacturer

in Maryland, and to Mr. C. H. Fleming,who represents several important out-

of-state companies manufacturing fireworks. Their suggestions and comments

have been carefully considered in completing the final report.

The Research Division is indebted to the Maryland Society for the

Prevention of Blindness for making available its records and statistics

as to injuries from fireworks and to Messrs. Walter and Fleming for supply­

ing information relative to the fireworks industry in Maryland.

Horace E. Flack,
Director,
Research Division.

March 11, 1940.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introductory Statement .......................................... 1

II. Fireworks Casualties in Maryland ............................... A

III. Existing Fireworks Legislation in Maryland ..................... 12

IV. Proposals for Additional Fireworks Legislation in Maryland . . . 21

V. National Regulation of Fireworks ............................... 25

VI. Fireworks Legislation in Other States ......................... 28

VII. Effectiveness of Fireworks Legislation in Other States ........ 33

VIII. The Fireworks Industry in M a r y l a n d ............ ................ 4-6

IX. C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................................... 53

Appendix ........................................................... 54-

LIST OF TABLES

I. Fireworks Casualties in Maryland, 1937-1939 ................... 6

II. Geographical Breakdown of Casualties, 1937-1939 ^

III. Type of Fireworks Causing Injuries, 1937-1939 ................. 7

IV. Parts of Body Injured by Fireworks, 1937-1939 ................. 7

V. Comparative Fireworks Casualties by Cities, 1937 ............... 9

VI. Comparative Fireworks Casualties by Cities, 1939 ............... 9

VII. Summary of State Legislation .................................... 31

VIII. Fireworks Casualties by States, 1937-1939 ..................... 34-

IX. Net Sales and Profit and Loss, Triumph E x p l o s i v e s ............... 51

X. Fireworks Casualties in Maryland, 1903-1916 ................... 55

XI. Contributory Causes of Casualties, 1903-1916 ................... 55

XII. Fireworks Casualties in Baltimore, 1925-1936 ................... 56

 1

X* INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The possible control of the general use of fireworks and firecrackers

in celebration of the Fourth of July has for some years engaged public

attention in Maryland. The whole matter came sharply to the fore in 1939,

when the General Assembly defeated a proposal designed to prohibit the

ordinary sale and use of fireworks and firecrackers.

The wide public discussion of the subject has indicated that two

basically different sets of arguments are advanced by those who favor and

those who oppose regulating the promiscuous use of fireworks.

On the one hand, those who have proposed strong legislative control

of the use of fireworks have stressed the "numerous" and "unnecessary"

accidents restilting from them, together with the fact that about two-thirds

of all Fourth of July fireworks casualties in this State involve children

under the age of fifteen years. They believe that if such control is to

be effective it must be applied on a state-wide basis. They are frankly

critical of proposals for the regulation of only the "more dangerous" types

of fireworks, holding that in the hands of any but experts all fireworks

"have one tragic dangerous common denominator — fire and powder." So far

as Fourth of July celebrations are concerned, they would permit the use

of pyrotechnics only within the bounds of supervised and authorized public

displays, each of which must be bonded against possible damage to property

or injury to persons. They assert, too, that if "good" results qo not

necessarily spring from legislation in and of itself, still "sound legisla­

tion can furnish the instrumentality of control through which organized

public opinion can effectively handle the problem,1,1

I The quotations have been taken from an address by John W. Avirett

2d, President of the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness,
made at the Fireworks .Session, Annual Conference of the National Society
for the Prevention of Blindness, New York City, December 1935.
 2

On the other hand, those who have opposed the prohibition of the

promiscuous sale and use of fireworj.cs argue that is not the use but the

misuse of fireworks which causes many injuries, and that the remedy is

rather in education than in prohibition. Prohibitory legislation, they

add, would succeed only in putting the legitimate and tax-paying units of

the industry out of business, for bootleg manufacturers would keep the

supply constant. They feel, too, that regulation of the "more dangerous"

types of fireworks and of unreliable imported firecrackers would much

reduce casualty lists, by shutting off the supply of those types most

likely to cause injury; they point ultimately to Federal regulation of the

manufacture of fireworks, possibly in the manner now used by the Dominion

of Canada. Also, it seems to them that the use of fireworks on the Fourth

of July inculcates patriotism, and that a general prohibition of their use

would be counter to the traditions and ingrained character of the American

people. Finally, they have stressed the "harm" which would be wrought upon

the industry and upon those who get any part of their livelihood from it,

if prohibitory legislation is enacted, though agreeing that "profits to

those engaged in the fireworks industry do not justify the sacrifice of a

single life or of a single eye in the celebration of Independence Day.1,1

All these arguments, pro and con, which are reducible to facts will

be treated in the body of this report; those which are but value judgments

are outside its province.

For the first phase of the study, involving the determination whether

a "problem" exists in Maryland, there are presented the best available

figures as to the number of accidents resulting from the use of fireworks.

^ This summary is adapted in part from an address made at the Fire­

works Session of the Annual Conference of the National Society for the
Prevention of Blindness, New York City, December 1935, by C» H. Fleming,
at that time Executive Secretary of Pyrotechnic Industries, Inc.
 3

Then come, in order, a statement of the existing legislation on this

subject in Maryland, an account of attempts to add additional legislation,

a short summary of the methods of national regulation used in the United

States and in Canada, an analysis of fireworks legislation in other states,

and a statistical inquiry into the effectiveness of different types of

regulation. Finally, the fireworks industry in Maryland is examined in

relation to this query: How might it be affected by an act which would

regulate closely or prohibit the promiscuous sale and use of fireworks

and firecrackers?
II. FIREWORKS CASUALTIES IN MARYLAND

The most complete surveys of fireworks casualties ever made in

Maryland have been conducted by the Maryland Society for the Prevention

of Blindness. Beginning in 1937, and continuing through 1938 and 1939,

the Society systematically listed all fireworks accidents of which it

received documentary reports. Furthermore, the Society's statistics cover

only those casualties resulting from the use of fireworks, and only those

for the week before and the week after the Fourth of July.

Describing the procedure under which the surveys were conducted,

the President of the Society wrote1 that "well in advance of each Fourth,

accident report forms prepared by the Maryland Society were distributed

by the Society to each of the approximately 800 physicians in the State

outside of Baltimore City, to the county health agents of each of the 23

counties, and to each hospital in the State. Through the Baltimore Police

Department and the State Police Department, such report forms were distri­

buted to the City police and to each of the State police substations.

Through the Baltimore City Health Department, such accident report forms

were distributed by the Commissioner of Health to each of the approximately

1200 physicians in Baltimore. All were urged to report every accident

caused by the use of fireworks which came to their attention during the

week before and the week after the Fourth. The Maryland Society also sub-

cribed to substantially every newspaper in the State for the same period

and clipped reports of fireworks accidents."

The writer of this report has carefully examined the data which are

the source of the Society's statistics. He has verified, first, that the

Society has documentary evidence to support each name listed on its summaries

of accidents, and secondly, that there are no duplications. For the purposes

1 In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated February 1, 1940.

 5

of this report he is able to present the Society's figures as his own,

unless otherwise noted.

The figures thus compiled and verified show the number of injuries

in 1937, 1938, and 1939, and the county in which they occurred; they are

given in Table I and in Table II.

The Society also subdivided its figures to show what types of fire­

works caused the injuries, and what parts of the body were affected. The

distinction between some of the categories in these tabulations is some­

times vague, and since two persons may logically place the same accident

under different headings, the writer was not able to make a satisfactory

audit of them. He therefore cannot present Table III and Table IV as his

own figures, but has no hesitation in thinking them substantially correct;

certainly the totals agree with the statistics already given.

A. Injuries caused by the use of fireworks. In the three years of

1937, 1938, and 1939 there was a total of 906 casualties attributable

to the use of fireworks in Maryland. The figures showed a slight tendency

to increase year by year. Approximately two-thirds of all injuries oc­

curred to children under fifteen years of a g e .

These figures, it should be noted, give no indication of the serious

or trivial nature of the accidents listed, although each injury required

medical attention. To specify the degree of injury would seem to be an

impossible task, considering the variety of sources from which the data

are drawn together.

B- Deaths caused by the use of fireworks. Four of the 906 injuries

mentioned above were fatal, during this three year period. Two of the

deaths were caused by the use of sparklers, one by an improvised cannon,

and one by a delayed aerial bomb. Three of the four fatalities occurred
 6

Table I. Fireworks Casualties in Maryland, 1937-1939, as Compiled by

the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness.1

Year Under 15 Over 15 Age Totals

vears of age vears of age unknown

1937 216* 72 7 295

1938 188-;;-* 107 9 304
1939 193 96* 18 307

Totals 597 275 34 906

* Each asterisk denotes one fatality.

Table II. Geographical Breakdown of Fireworks Casualties in Maryland,

1937-1939, as Compiled by the Maryland Society for the Prevention
of Blindness.

County 193.7 1938 19-39. Totals

Baltimore City 206 222 229 657

Allegany 15 5 14 34
Anne Arundel 5 19 15 39
Baltimore County 14 10 7 31
Calvert - - 5 5
Caroline 4 - 6
Carroil - - 3 3
Cecil 6 2 6 14
Charles 3 - -
3
Dorchester 5 1 - 6
Frederick 5 - 1 6
Garrett - - 8 8
Harford 3 2 2 7
Howard 1 - 1 2
Kent - 1 - 1
Montgomery 5 9 5 19
Montgomery-Pr. Geo^ 3 - - 3
Prince George's 5 7 4 16
Queen Anne's 1 1 - 2
Somerset 2 1 2 5
Talbot - 1 1 2
Washington 8 12 1 21
Wicomico 6 7 2 15
Worcester - - 1 1

Totals 295 304 307 906

1 These figures do not include industrial accidents.

These accidents occurred in Takoma Park, which lies in both
counties, and the part of the town was not specified.
 7

Table III. Type of Fireworks Causing Injuries in Maryland, 1937-1939,

as Compiled by the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness.

Tvoe of Fireworks 1321 12M 1323 Totals

Sky rockets 7 5 10 22
Roman candles 8 4 6 18
Sparklers 3* 6* 2 11
Torpedoes 10 8 6
Ordinary firecrackers 247 258 248 753
Miscellaneous types 20 23* 35* 78

Totals 295 304 307 906

* Each asterisk denotes one fatality.

Table IV. Parts of Body Injured by Fireworks in Maryland, 1937-1939,

as Compiled by the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness.

Part of Bodv 1232 1238 1232 Totals

Face 38 41 30 109
Neck 8 8 4 20
Eyes 20 20 26 66
Hands or arms 181 169 187 537
Feet or legs 25 35 34 94
Other 23 31 26 80

Totals 295 304 307 906

to children under the age of fifteen years.

C . Geographical breakdown of casualties. In.iuries resulting from

the use of fireworks were reported from all parts of the ttate, involving

such diverse combinations of rural and urban areas and of regulating and

non-regulating communities that only one geographical factor stands out

clearly; substantially more than two-thirds of all accidents were reported

in Baltimore City, which has about half the State's population and like­

wise an ordinance against the ordinary sale and use of fireworks.

D. Type of fireworks causing injuries. A number of types of fire­

works were listed as the cause of the injuries during 1937, 1938, and 1939,
 3

with two aspects of these figures being of primary interest: (a) more

than 80% of all injuries were caused by "ordinary firecrackers;" and

(b) two of the eleven injuries resulting from the use of sparklers were

fatal.

E. Parts of body injured. The 906 injuries were well scattered over

all parts of the body; the one figure which stands out in this compila­

tion is that more than half of all injuries were to the hands or arms.

F. Compilations of the American Medical Association. Another

compilation of fireworks casualties for the same period of three years —

1937, 1938, 1939 — has been made by the American Medical Association.

This survey has in each instance covered the entire country, so that it

necessarily has been conducted in somewhat less painstaking fashion than

that of the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness. Its results

are of interest, however, particularly in consideration of the prestige

of the Association.

The 1937 survey of the American Medical Association was based upon

questionnaires sent to hospital. Of 4-292 such inquiries sent out, 2^63

were answered; no poll was made either of first aid stations or of physi­

cians. In this year, according to the Association's compilation, Mary­

landers suffered 114- burns and lacerations and 9 injuries to the eye; one

of the accidents was fatal. Crackers and torpedoes v/ere to blame for 113

of the accidents; displaj/- fireworks, 7; and cannon and firearms, 3*

The Association also showed in 1937 the accidents in each ot a number

of large cities, in which the factor of comparative population was taken

into account. These figures are shown in Table V; the wide variation may

well be a reflection of the large number of unanswered questionnaires.

The 1938 survey of the American Medical Association showed that 110
 9

Table V. Comparative Fireworks Casualties by Cities, 1937, as Compiled

by the American Medical Association.

City Number of casualties Rate per 100, 000 population

St. Louis 322 39-17

Philadelphia 201 10.30
New York City 52A 7.56
Cleveland 64. 7.11
Baltimore 56 6.95
Chicago 225 6.66
Detroit 62 3.95
Los Angeles 45 3.63

Table VI. Comparative Fireworks Casualties by Cities, 1939, as Compiled

by the American Medical Association.2

City Number of casualties Rate per 100.000 population

Kansas City, Mo.* 243 60.83

Los Angeles 258 20.91
Baltimore 135 16.75
New York City 828 11.85
St. Louis 76 9.24
Boston* 71 9.01
Chicago 226 6.69
Cleveland 42 4.66
Detroit 65 4-13
Philadelphia 23 1.17

* Not computed in 1937

persons in Maryland were injured by fireworks. Burns and lacerations com­

prised 102 of the accidents; loss of one or both eyes, 1; injury to eye,

2; loss of finger, hand, or other member', 2; internal injury, fracture,

or other serious accident, 3* Two of the accidents resulted in death.3

Finally, the 1939 survey of the American Medical Association showed

169 Marylanders to have been injured by fireworks. Of the total, 156

were burns and lacerations, 9 were injuries to the eye, 2 were the loss

of a finger or a hand, and 2 were internal injuries or fractures. One

Ifhe Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1937),

109 : 1806- 1808 .
2lbid. (January 6, 194-0), 114:40.
-Ibid. (January 21, 1939), 112: 236-238, 24-2.
 10

of the injuries was fatal.1

The Journal also published with its figures for 1939 another summary

of accidents in a number of principal cities, which is presented in Table

VI.

The statistics published by The Journal of the American Medical

Association may be liable to criticism in one respect, for they seem some­

times to include injuries which possibly are not directly the result of

the use of fireworks, or which are of such character that the ordinary

regulatory or prohibitory bill would not have prevented them. If such is

the case, of course, such injuries should be deducted from the totals

already given, for the purposes of the present inquiry. It should also

be noted, however, that whenever the J ournal has itself divided the inju­

ries into "direct" and "indirect," this report has excluded the latter

group.

It is often urged by the manufacturers of fireworks that those in­

juries resulting from the use of improvised (or, as sometimes described,

"home-made") fireworks should not be included under those attributable

to Fourth of July pyrotechnics. This claim is debatable, for the essen­

tial ingredients of such combinations are fireworks and explosive materials

which presumably came from an uncontrolled source. The American Medical

Association and the Maryland Societjr for the Prevention of Blindness uni­

formly included such accidents in their compilations.

A specific inquiry was directed to the American Medical Association,

asking for more detailed information about the fatal injuries occurring

during the past three years. On the basis of the answer received it is

clear that at least a large majority of the Association's list of fatali-

Ibid. (January 6, 194-0), 114.: 40. These figures were made available
to the Legislative Council in advance of publication, through the courtesy
of Dr. Morris Fishbein, Editor.
 11

ties are the result of "direct" Fourth of July injuries. In 1937 there

were four deaths caused by rifle or pistol cartridges: they possibly

should not be included as direct injuries, although the circumstances

surrounding some of these casualties make this a debatable point. One

of the fatalities reported for 1938 and another reported for 1939

appear to have been industrial accidents, and thus to be "exceptions."

All others seem to have been injuries which may legitimately be listed

as "direct" Fourth of July casualties.

As for fatal injuries occurring at public displays (which would not

be "prevented" by the usual prohibitory law), the Assistant Editor of

the Association's Journal writes:-*• "It may be noted that only two of

these accidents in the course of three years happened as the result of

public displays. One of these, namely, that which occurred in Mississippi

in 1938, was a type of public display which undoubtedly would not occur

under any satisfactory law covering the fireworks question."

G. Statistics for the years |->rior to 1937. The statistics compiled

by the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Blindness and by the American

Medical Association give the best available statement of the "problem" of

fireworks injuries in Maryland during recent years. For uhose whose

interest in such figures antedates 1937, there are three other sources of

material. First, the American Medical Association made a series of earlier

studies of fireworks casualties, covering the period from 1903 to 19l6j

secondly, the Police Department of Baltimore City has a compilation of

Fourth of July injuries covering (for Baltimore City only) the years from

1925 to 1936; and thirdly, the American Museum of Safety in 1935 sponsored

a country-wide survey of such accidents. All three collections of data

are admittedly fragmentary, and since the figures are not currently important

they have been placed in the Appendix to this report.

_j^Jhi_a^J1d^tei^_tq_bhe Legislative Council, dated February 14, 194-0.

 12

III. EXISTING FIREWORKS LEGISLATION IN MARYLAND

The General Assembly of Maryland has dealt with the problem of

fireworks in three different ways. First, many of the State's munic­

ipalities have been authorized to pass fireworks ordinances ; secondly,

the legislature has passed local laws applicable to limited parts of a

number of counties; and thirdly, the Insurance Commissioner was recently

given a regulatory power over explosives (including fireworks), by which

authority he has drafted a tentative set of regulations which had not

yet been officially promulgated when this report was completed (March 1,

1940).

A. Municipal Ordinance. Maryland has no general law giving to munic­

ipalities, or to any particular class of municipalities, the authority

to regulate the sale or use of fireworks as they may deem best, although

the act giving the Insurance Commissioner his regulatory power possibly

grants such authority by implication.! However, in a surprisingly large

number of instances, the local laws which comprise the code for a munic­

ipality have in them a provision which expressly or impliedly gives the

town such authority. Of the approximately 145 incorporated towns in the

State, no fewer than 60 have such a clause in their codes. In many cases

the town commissioners have a clearly-worded grant of power to prevent the

firing of guns, pistols, and fireworks. Occasionally their specific author­

ity extends only to regulating the storage of explosives, and in a very few

instances the wording of their authorization to prevent and extinguish fires

might cover ordinances on the subject of fireworks.

It is an open question, of course, whether a municipality in Maryland

needs any specific authorization in order to regulate by ordinance the use

■••Acts 1935, Ch. 470.

 13

of fireworks. It is a usual provision of all codes that the town may-

preserve peace and public order within its borders as it deems best,

subject to the general qualification that the town may not violate either

State law or the State constitution. For example, the Town of Hancock

has no clause in its code giving an express ordinance-making power on the

subject of fireworks, yet it closely restricts the sale and use of such

materials, because "the Burgess and Commissioners shall from time to time

make such by-laws and ordinances as they shall deem necessary and expedient

for the comfort, health, and convenience" of the town and because "the

sale and public use of fireworks ... has become a menace to the health and

safety of the citizens."1 Other examples could be cited of the same set

of circumstances.

This topic of municipal ordinances was approached in another way by

sending a form letter to approximately seventy-five incorporated towns in

Maryland, inquiring what type of regulation each had, if any. Of the 4-2

answers received, 30 had some type of municipal ordinance and 12 had none.

Towns with an ordinance include Annapolis, Brunswick, Centreville, Chesa­

peake Beach, Chesapeake City, Crisfield, Cumberland, Denton, Easton,

Elkton, Federalsburg, Frederick, Friendsville, Glen Echo, Greenbelt, Hagers­

town, Hancock, Hyattsville, Leonardtown, Lonaconing, Oakland, Ocean City,

Princess Anne, Rising Sun, Rock .Hall, S t . Michaels, Salisbury, Snow Hill,

Takoma Park, and Westminster. Those which reported having no fireworks

ordinance were Aberdeen, Betterton, Bladensburg, Chestertown, East New

Market, Emmitsburg, Hurlock, La Plata, Middletown, Sudlersville, Upper

Marlboro, and Williamsport.

No mention has been made of the City of Baltimore, in which lives

approximately half the State's population. Included among the city's

1 Preamble, Ordinance No. 313, Town of Hancock, Maryland.

 14

general powers is authority "to regulate the evil and pernicious practice

of firing or discharging crackers within the limits of said city, either

by prohibiting sale of the crackers or otherwise."3- The city's anti—fire­

works ordinances date back more than sixty years. At the present time

the casting or firing of any combustible fireworks or explosive preparations

without a license is forbidden; likewise, it is unlawful to manufacture

any combustible fireworks within the city and to sell or offer for sale such

materials (the latter provision being subject to exceptions).2 Recent

attempts to make these regulations less stringent have not been successful.

Baltimore also has a Fire Prevention Ordinance,3 which authorizes offi­

cials of the Fire Department to force the correction of conditions likely

to cause fires. Although the ordinance is phrased in general terms it is

frequently used to cause the removal of fireworks from premises within the

city limits.

B. Local laws applicable to counties. 'The counties of Maryland have

figured only, incidentally in legislation aimed at the control of fireworks.

There is no specific authorization in the Code of Public General Laws tinder

which the several boards of county commissioners might treat the matter;

all that can be covered under this heading are the local laws by which the

General Assembly has regulated ohe problem for particular areas within

counties.

In Baltimore County it is unlawful to discharge any firearm or other

explosive on the roadbed of any public highway, without the written permis­

sion of the commissioners.4 In Calvert County it is unlawful to set off

fireworks of any kind within two hundred yards of any store or the post

3- Charter and Public Local Laws of Baltimore. 1933, sec. 6.

2 Baltimore Code of 1927. Art. 13? secs. 65-67.
3 Ibid.. secs. 75-77.
4 Acts 1916, Ch. 502.
 15

office, or on or near the public roads, in the (unincorporated) village

of Barstow.1 Similarly, in Frederick County it is forbidden to sell or

to explode any combustible fireworks within one-half mile of the (former)

Methodist Protestant Church in the village of Liberty;2 and pn Talbot

County no one may discharge any fireworks on any public road or highway

on Tilghman Island.3

The regulation of fireworks within portions of Montgomery County

has been the subject of a number of local laws passed within recent years.

One or two of these have been superseded, but for purposes of convenience

they are included in the present category. In 1924. the sale or the manu­

facture of any combustible fireworks within the Silver Spring Precinct of

the Thirteenth District was forbidden:^ and this act was amended five years

later so as to prohibit the manufacture and sale of fireworks within the

Second and Fifth precincts of the Thirteenth Election District and to pro­

hibit the use of combustible fireworks within that area except on the

Fourth of July.5 in 1931, for the Seventh Election district of Montgomery

County, the manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of fireworks was forbidden

(the act to take effect on January 1, 1932), and the use of fireworks at

any time other than July 1 to 4, inclusive, was declared unlawful.& Two

years later the act of 1931 was repealed, and in its stead, for the Fifth

Precinct of the Seventh Election District, the manufacture and the sale of

fireworks were prohibited, except that sales were permitted from permanent

buildings during the period from July 1 to 4, inclusive; the act further

restricted the firing of firecrackers to the period from July 2 to 4> inclusive.

1 Acts 1908, Ch. 149 (p.669).

2 Acts 1890, Ch. 512.
3 Acts 1908, Ch. 604 (p.1025).
4- Acts 1924, Ch. 516.
5 Acts 1929, Ch. 304.
6 Acts 1931, Ch. 292.
7 Acts 1933, Ch. 204.
 16

Also in 1933 there were forbidden the use and sale of some types of

fireworks within the First Precinct of the Seventh Flection districtjl

and another act prohibited the sale, manufacture, or use of fireworks

within the Second Precinct of the Seventh Election District, except

that their use was permitted on the Fourth of J u l y .2 in 1937 the

throwing of lighted firecrackers from or at a moving vehicle in Mont­

gomery County was forbidden.3 Finally, in 1939, it was provided that

some types of fireworks could be neither sold, delivered, nor discharged

within the First and Fourth precincts of the Seventh Election District

of Montgomery County.A Several of these acts authorized the county com­

missioners to give permits for public exhibitions.

C.. Administrative regulation. The one bill enacted by the General

Assembly in which there is an attempt to treat the control of fireworks

as a state-wide problem dates from 1935 and gives a regulatory power to

one of the state officials. The House passed the bill by 117 to 1, and

the Senate, by 28 to none.3

The act of 1935 empowered the State Insurance Commissioner "to make

and promulgate uniform regulations for the keeping, storing, use, manu­

facture, sale, handling, transportation, or other disposition of highly

inflammable materials...., including fireworxs and firecrackers.... "

He may deputize persons to enforce whatever regulations he issues, and

there is a right of judicial appeal from the force of those regulations.

None is to be effective in any county or incorporated town or other

political subdivision which may have laws or ordinances of its own cover­

ing the same subject.^

1 Acts 1933, Ch. 206.

2 Acts 1935, Ch. 547.
3 Acts 1937, Ch. 407.
4 Acts 1939, Ch. 484-
3. 1935 House Journal, p.l867j 1935 Senate Journal, pp.802,1143-
6 Acts 1935.. Ch. 470.______ ___________________ _
 17

Until December 1939 no regulations had been promulgated by the

State Insurance Commissioner. At that time a tentative set of rules

was drafted and submitted to the Attorney General for an opinion as

to their legal validity.

The rules drawn up by the Insurance Commissioner's office^ apply

to all explosive materials. They divide such materials into four classes:

(1) forbidden explosives, (2) the more dangerous authorized explosives,

(3) the less dangerous authorized explosives, and (A) the relatively safe

authorized explosives. Included in the first group, and hence forbidden,

are those types of fireworks which are thought to be particularly dan­

gerous, either because of their size, their content, or their composition.

All other fireworks are placed in Class 3, as "less dangerous authorized

explosives."

A detailed set of general regulations then follows. i‘he manufacture,

storage, transportation, and disposal of Class I Explosives "in any quantity"

is forbidden "within the limits of any town or city." However, fireworks

of Class III (i.e., "less dangerous authorized explosives") may be manu­

factured in such localities, subject to the rule applicable to all Class

II and Class III explosives, that the’keeping and sale of them require a

permit. Also, it is prohibited to sell or give away any Class II or Class

III explosives to a person under eighteen years of age.

Two other regulations are more closely applicable to fireworks alone.

First, "it is prohibited for any person to use or discharge any fireworks

within the State of Maryland, except at such points as may be authorized

by the State Insurance Commissioner and then only under the jurisdiction

A copy of them was furnished to the Legislative Council in December,

1939, in advance of publication; at that time they had been sent to the
Attorney General for an opinion as to their validity. The regulations
still had not been officially promulgated when this report was completed
(March 1, 194-0) .
 18

of the Chief of the Fire Department or other deputized agent of the

State Fire Marshal." Secondly, "it is prohibited for any person to sell

or expose for sale any explosive, including fireworks as herein defined,

upon any highway, street, sidewalk, public way or public place, or within

100 feet of same, within the State of Maryland." These two rules, it may

be noted, apply as well to fireworks included among the "less dangerous

authorized explosives" of Class III as to fireworks included among the "for­

bidden explosives" of Class I.

For the rest, the tentative regulations of the State Insurance Commis­

sioner treat in detail the manner of securing permits, the conditions under

which explosives may be manufactured and transported, and the inspection of

premises where fireworks are manufactured.

Nothing is said in the regulations as to the manner of enforcing the

ban against the sale and use of fireworks, but it is understood that the

Insurance Commissioner plans to use the otate Police, the county police

(where they exist), and such additional special deputies as may be necessary.

The whole tenor of these regulations about fireworks indicates that

the Insurance Commissioner has planned a close restriction upon their sale

and use; his regulations, in fact, are comparable in this respect to House

Bill No. 239, which the General Assembly defeated in the spring of 1939.^-

It is fair to inquire, then, whether the regulations will in fact accomplish

their manifest aim, so far as such an inquiry can be made before they become

effective.

Without in any sense attempting an exhaustive analysis of the Insurance

Commissioner's rules, several elementary queries may be noted. First, the

rules must run the gauntlet of judicial interpretation and construction.

The statutory grant of power appears at first glance to be clear and unques-

The provisions of House Bill No. 239 are discussed in the subsequent
section.
 19

tionable, yet there is always the possibility, for example, of a judicial

decision similar to the opinion of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.

In that State it was ruled that the Fire Commissioners have no power to

restrain or prohibit the use of fireworks or firecrackers except where

such restraint or prohibition is ’’reasonably" necessary for the prevention

of fires.l So far as the statute is concerned, the Fire Commissioner (and

the Department of Public Gafety) of Massachusetts also had a "clear" grant

of power.^ a question arises, too, as to the permanence of administrative

regulations; they could be abrogated at any time by the executive fiat of

an opposing Administration.

The regulations of the Insurance Commissioner are in one respect less

far-reaching than House Bill No. 239 would have been. The latter would

have forbidden the sale of fireworks to anyone not having a proper permit

to use them, but the Commissioner's regulations have no such provision.

While the regulations would require every vendor to have a permit in order

to sell,and would require every user to have a permit in order to use, they

would not require the buyer to get a permit. According to the regulations,

if the seller has a permit, and if his place of business is at least one

hundred feet from any highway, street, or other public place, he may sell

to anyone over eighteen years of age. Any person may thus obtain fireworks

with comparative ease, although he is not supposed to fire them without a

permit. The task of enforcement therefore involves keeping thousands of

individuals from using (without a permit) the fireworks which they can obtain

with no difficulty.

Another pertinent query that can be raised concerning the possible

effectiveness of the Commissioner's regulations has to do with one clause

1 5 Op. A. G. (Mass.) 71.

^ Massachusetts Code of 1932, ch. 148, sec. 9*
 20

i n the empowering act.^- His rules might be effectively flawed by the

provision which makes them inoperative in any county or municipality

which may have its own laws, ordinances, or regulations "covering the

same subject matter." Here there are unlimited possibilities for de­

stroying state-wide uniformity in the control of -fireworks, Conceivably,

indeed, a municipal ordinance "covering the same subject matter" might

authorize the open sale and use of fireworks.

1
Acts 1935, Ch. 470.
 21

IV. PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIREWORKS LEGISLATION IN MARYLAND

For nearly two decades there have been recurring efforts to enact

state-wide regulatory or prohibitory legislation against the disposal or

use of fireworks, in addition to what has been discussed above as already

on the statute books. No one of the numerous proposals has passed the

General Assembly.

In 1922 Senate Bill No. 270 would have made it unlawful to use or set

off firecrackers larger than a stipulated size, or containing certain de­

fined ingredients; the bill died in committee. Another proposal of the

same year, House Bill No. 565, would have been far-reaching in its effects;

it declared unlawful the selling, buying, bartering, giving away, using,

keeping, etc., of any fireworks or other ignitable or explosive material.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 104. to 0, but it subsequently died

in the Senate's Committee o n ‘Judicial Proceedings

This latter bill was introduced in about its same form during the

session of 1924, as House Bill No. 258. It was then referred to the Com­

mittee on Judiciary, from which it received an unfavorable report, which

in turn was adopted by the entire House.^

No other general legislation was introduced until 1935, when two

bills were proposed. One, House Bill No. 691, would have prohibited the

sale of fireworks to minors under fifteen years of age and to adults who

intended to violate any local law. It was referred to the House's Com­

mittee on Judiciary and was not reported out.3 The other, House Bill No.

36 4 , was the cause of a more extended legislative fight.

House Bill No. 364 was introduced on March 4, 1935, and two days

1922 House Journal, p.1271; 1922 Senate Journal, p.1001.

2 1924 House Journal, pp.274, 1049-
3 1935 House Journal„ p.1072.
 22

later a similar measure reached the upper chamber as Senate Bill No 293.

The act would have prohibited the sale, offer for sale, barter, giving

away, purchase, use, or discharge or any kind or form of fireworks, after

January 1, 1936. Exceptions were made for the sale of fireworks to be

sold outside the State, to be used by the Federal government, or to be

used in public displays for which a proper permit had been issued. This

bill was favorably reported by the House Committee on Judiciary, but when

it reached the floor of the House it was basically amended so as to pro­

hibit the selling:, bartering, or giving away of fireworks to any person

under eighteen years of age, or to anyone who intended to use them in

violation of any general or local statute or ordinance. In this altered

form it passed the House by 118 to Q.1 In the Senate, however, the bill

was referred to the Committee on Judicial Proceedings and was never

reported out.^

The session of 1939 saw a particularly sharp legislative fight over

fireworks bills. Two different bills were introduced. The second, in

point of time, was House Bill No. 531, which would have prohibited the

sale and use of certain firecrackers and fireworks, according to their type

or content. All firecrackers were to be banned, as were all torpedoes

except paper caps containing not more than twenty-five hundredths of one

grain of explosive composition. Other forbidden materials include toy

canes to be used otherwise than with paper caps, Roman candles with more

than twelve balls, sparklers containing any chlorate of potassium or per­

chlorate of potassium, fountains throwing a display more than twelve feet

high, and fireworks which under prescribed conditions might ignite spon-

-*■ 1935 House Journal. pp.571, 1349, 1448, 1658.

1935 Sena te J ournal , p.1008. The bill was here referssa to as
House Bill Ho. 365.
 23

taneously or undergo decomposition. The bill further would have made it

unlawful to sell fireworks to children under fourteen years of age, and

it contained extensive provisions for its enforcement by the Insurance

Commissioner. It was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, where

it died.^-

The main contention arose over House Bill No. 239, introduced on

February 13, 1939 and designed to take effect on January 1, 1940. Following

a comprehensive definition of the term "fireworks," this bill declared ion-

lawful the selling or discharging of fireworks, though it made detailed

provision for public displays, for which the Insurance Commissioner was

empowered to issue a permit. Other exceptions were provided to cover com­

mercial pyrotechnics, as well as fireworks kept or used by the Federal,

State, or municipal governments. The bill's application to the sale of

fireworks in interstate commerce was intended only to the extent "that

the same is constitutional," and it would not have touched the manufacture

of fireworks.^

House Bill N o . 239 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary

after its introduction on February 13. Then began extensive parliamentary

maneuvers. It was reported favorably on March 1 and immediately recommitted

by a vote of 72 to 37. Again on March 13 it was reported favorably, which

report was adopted, 77 to 36. Next, an attempt fundamentally to alter the

bill was defeated, 52 to 62; this proposal would have made House Bill No 33Q

similar to House Bill No. 531, described above. Opponents of House Bill

No. 239 then achieved a reconsideration of the vote by which the committee's

favorable report had been adopted. Another attempt was made to change the

bill by amendment, but it too failed, by 54 to 60. Finally, House Bill No.239

1 1939 House Journal, p.699«

^ The bill was substantially like the so-called "Model State Fireworks
Lav/" which is advocated by the National Fire Protection Association.
 24

passed the House by a vote of 93 to 17.1

The Senate finally received the bill on March 20 and sent it to

the Committee on Judicial Proceedings. Just before it was reported out

on March 30 a Senate resolution to refer the fireworks issue to the

Legislative Council was rejected, 13 to 16. The bill was then reported

favorably. A motion to recommit it was turned down, 11 to 16; and the

favorable report was adopted, 16 to 11. A number of minor amendments

were then offered and accepted; changes were made in the date on which

House Bill No. 239 was to become effective, in the amount of fines, in

the duties of the Insurance Commissioner, etc. Another proposed amend­

ment would have sent the bill to a referendum of all residents of Mary­

land under the age of sixteen years; it was withdrawn after a motion to

lay it on the table failed by 11 to 15- Finally, on April 3, 1939, House

Bill No. 239 came to its final action in the Senate. A move to postpone

action on it was defeated, 14 to 15; and immediately thereafter the bill

itself was defeated, 14 to 15-^

1 1939 House Journal. pp.30S, 513, 785, 384, 943-

2 1939 Senate Journal, pp. 798, 1403, 1703.
 25

V. NATIONAL REGULATION OF FIREWORKS

National, or Federal, regulation of the handling of fireworks is not

directly pertinent to a study of the possibilities and wisdom of state

action. However, since the two levels of government often must of

necessity assume a complementary relationship, and since some of those

persons interested in the fireworks question recommend for the State

of Maryland a form of regulation closely akin to that exercised by the

Dominion of Canada, a brief survey of national policies is given.

A. The United States. National regulation of fireworks in the

United States is rather inconsequential. Aside from prohibiting their

discharge on the grounds of the Capitol,! all that the Congress has done

is to require that fireworks being transported in interstate commerce by

a common carrier must not be carried in the same part of the vehicle as

paying passengers.2

These enactments are supplemented by the regulations of the Inter­

state Commerce Commission. In cooperation with the Bureau of Explosives

of the Association of American Railroads, the Commission "has defined

fireworks for transportation purposes and has established regulations under

which their method of manufacture, packing, marking, labeling, and hand­

ling for promoting safety in transportation may be closely supervised."3

The Director of the Commission's Bureau of Service writes^- that "as a

result of this direct control over (interstate) shipments the number of

accidents has been greatly reduced, amounting to an almost entire exclusion

of injury to the handlers of this commodity."

1 USCA, Title 4.0, sec. 198.

2 US C A . Title 18, sec. 382.
J See Regulations for the Transportation by Rail of Explosives and
other Dangerous Articles... (Pamphlet No. 9 and its supplements), issued
by the Bureau of Explosives of the Association of American Railroads.
^ In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated December 12, 1939*
 26

B. The Dominion of Canada. The Dominion of Canada has an extensive

set of restrictions covering the manufacture, importation, storage, and

transportation of fireworks; the ordinary use of fireworks is regulated

only in this indirect fashion. The whole system is based upon The Ex­

plosives Act of 1914, together with its amendments^ and the Orders in

Council which support it.

The Division of Explosives of Canada's Bureau of Mines has established

standards of manufacture, to which the Canadian firms and a considerable

number of foreign firms have adhered.2 Thus, the fireworks used in Canada

are limited in size, composition, and content; dangerous powders, short­

burning fuses, and loosely-rolled paper wrappings are forbidden, for

example. Shipments from the Orient are examined at the port of entry both

for composition and for functioning, and about two percent of all ship­

ments from this source are rejected for one reason or another.3 The imports

of manufactured fireworks are considerable, amounting to 583,959 pounds in

19374 . an£ 565,000 pounds in 1938.5

Canada's system of regulation seems to function very efficiently (although

it is not known how extensive is the use of fireworks), for the number of

injuries reported is slight. In 1937, for the entire Dominion, the Explosives

Division of the Bureau of Mines lists but seven injuries, one of which was

fatal.^ For 1938 there were fourteen casualties, one of v/hich was fatal.7

The Chief Inspector of Explosives writes^ that "we feel that the operation of

^ 4-5 George V, Chap. 31; Rev. Stat., 1927, Chap. 62.

^ Included are the Triumph Fusee and Fireworks Company and the Victory
Fireworks and Specialty Company, both of Elkton, Maryland. Annual Report
of the Explosives Division of the Bureau of Mines ... 19 3 8 , pp.14-15*
3 This figure is given in a letter from the Chief Inspector of Explo­
sives to the Legislative Council, dated December 4, 1939*
^ Report ... 193Z, p •9 *
5 Report ... 1938. p.7.
6 Report ... 1937. p.13-
7 Report ... 1935. p.10.
ci
In a lfit.ter to the Legislative council, dated December 4, 1939*
 27

the Explosives Act has been eminently successful and that we have got

the quality of the goods that are available for celebrations on a fairly

safe and sane basis. We1 still have some accidents, but the small boy will

always manage to find some way to get into trouble."

 28

V I . FIREWORKS LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES

The several states in the United States have responded to the

problem of the control of fireworks in a variety of ways, although the

large aspects of their legislation are sufficiently similar to allow

a convenient classification. Six states have enacted no legislation

whatever upon this subject; and on the other hand nine have imposed

a prohibition against the general use of fireworks. Most states, how­

ever, fall into an intermediate grouping, with laws that are regulatory

only.1

A. No legislation. A reasonably comprehensive examination of the

codes and subsequent session laws of all the states shows that in six

instances no fireworks act has been enacted by the legislature. These

states are Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and North Carolina

(with the exception of Lee County).

B. Regulatory legislation. Thirty-three states have attempted in one

way or another to regulate the manufacture or disposal or use of fireworks,

without making their restrictions so comprehensive as to warrant their

being termed prohibitory. Very often one state has a number of different

forms of regulation.

(1) Six states, including Maryland, make it either a power or a

duty of some state administrative official to make and enforce regula­

tions about fireworks. This regulatory power extends in different instances

to the fire warden, the insurance commissioner, and the department of

public safety; and the statutes usually are designed to apply to all com­

bustibles and explosives. In Maryland, as has been said, the Insurance

Commissioner is empowered "to make and promulgate uniform regulations

1 While reading this summary of legislation it should be kept in mind

that the use of fireworks is much less general in the South than in the
North and West.
 29

for the keeping, storing, use, manufacture, sale handling, transporta­

tion or other disposition of highly inflammable materials..., including

fireworks and firecrackers...."-*-

(2) The most frequently used method of regulating fireworks is the

granting of permission to units of local government to treat the problem

as they see fit; such a law, indeed, might be termed "enabling" rather

than "regulatory." Usually the authorization is given to municipalities,

though in California it is the counties which can regulate or prohibit

and prevent the sale and use of fireworks. Twenty-two of the thirty-three

states which restrict the use of fireworks have this type of legislation.

Maryland has made limited use of such regulation, as has been seen;

nearly one-half of her incorporated municipalities have the authorization

specifically mentioned in their charters. Also, the subject of fireworks

is covered by local laws for small portions of Baltimore, Calvert, Frederick,

Montgomery, and Talbot counties.

(3) The next most frequently used type of restriction applies to the

type or the contents or the size of the fireworks used. There may be,

for example, an absolute prohibition against the use of any firecracker

loaded with shot or any other hard substance, or against the use of fire­

crackers containing picric acid or picrates, or against the use of any

firecracker more than three inches in length. Nineteen of the thirty-

three states which restrict the use of fireworks have this type of regula­

tion. Two of these states, Mississippi and Texas, have achieved this

result by levying prohibitory license taxes upon the sale of certain types

of firecrackers; in the former a person selling a firecracker exceeding

two inches in length and nine-sixteenths of an inch in outside diameter

must pay an annual privilege tax of one hundred dollars; in the latter the

1 Acts 1935, Ch. 470.

 30

sale of cannon crackers and toy pistols is subject to an annual state

tax of five hundred dollars and possibly to a county or municipal tax

of one-half that amount. Elsewhere license taxes are in nominal amounts

only.

(4.) A similar type of restriction is that which limits the time or

the place, or both, at which firecrackers may be sold or exploded. Nine

of the thirty-three states which regulate the use of fireworks have a

provision of this sort in their codes. Connecticut, for example, states

precisely the hours during which they may not be "noisemaking" in cele­

bration of the fourth of July; in Ohio no fireworks may be discharged

within six hundred feet of a hospital or similar building.

(5) finally, nine of the thirty-three states which regulate the

sale or disposal or use of fireworks have enacted detailed statutory

provisions covering the sale or the storage or the transportation of

such materials. In some instances ohese laws are designed to prevent

industrial fires and explosions, in which case they are not directly

relevant to this study; in other instances they buttress the enforcement

of other types of restrictions by aiming at the sources of supply. In

either event, it has not seemed necessary to include them on the chart

which shows all these data in graphic form.

C.. Prohibitory legislation. Nine states — Delaware, Indiana,

Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and West

Virginia — permit the use of fireworks within such narrow limits that,

so far as the ordinary user is concerned, their legislation may be

called prohibitory. The several statutes are rather similar; each gives

a comprehensive definition of "fireworks" and "firecrackers," and the

sale, disposal, use, or explosion of such materials is then forbidden.

 31

Table VII . Summary of State Legislation Concerning Fireworks, December 1939.

State No State Local Type, Size, Time, Prohibition

Legislation Administra- G o v !t Contents Place
tive Regula-
tion

Ala. X
Ariz. X
Ark. X X
Cal i f . X X
Colo. X X
Conn. X X X
Del. X
Fla. X
Ga. X
Idaho X X
111. X X X
Ind. X
Iowa X
Kansas X
Ky. X
Lei • X
Maine X X
Md. X
Mass. X X X X
Mich. X
Minn. X X
Miss. X
Mo. X
Mont. X
Neb. X X
Nev. X
N. H. X X
N. J- X
N. Mex. X
N. Y. X
N. C. X
N. Dak. X X
Ohio X X
Okla. X
Ore. X X
Penn. X
R. I. X
S. C. X. X X
S . Dak. X
Tenn. X
Texas X X
Utah X
vt. X
Va. X
Wash. X X
W. Va. X
Wis. X X
Wyo. X
ex
 32

Provision is made in every state for properly supervised public displays,

for which usually are required a permit and a bond to cover possible

injury to persons and damage to property. It is usual, too, for these

statutes to contain exceptions in favor of commercial pyrotechnics and

in favor of fireworks which are sold to enter the stream of interstate

commerce.! The prohibitory act in Delaware, passed in 1939, after declar­

ing it unlawful to sell, store, or expose for sale fireworks and firecrack

ers intended for sale or use in Delaware, notes an exception in favor of

firms now established and manufacturing fireworks in the state. This

provision, of course, does not affect the interdiction against the use

of fireworks.

The laws pertaining to fireworks in each of the forty-eight states

are summarized in Table VII.

^Most of these statute are similar to the so-called "Model State Fire
works Law" which is advocated by the National Fire Protection Association.
House Bill No. 239, which the Maryland State Senate defeated in 1939, like
wise was essentially the same.
 33

VI. EFFECTIVENESS OF FIREWORKS LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES

An evaluation of the effectiveness of fireworks legislation—

type by type — can be only partially satisfactory. A comparison of the

casualties for two states may be Interesting and provocative, but it

cannot definitely "prove" anything. It is only if figures are available

for a number of successive years, and one knows that the same techniques

of compilation were used in each instance, and the state changed its

type of fireworks legislation during that period, that a good study can

be made of the trend in a particular state.

For recent years the best available statistics are those compiled

by The Journal of the American Medical Association. The annual summaries

of fireworks accidents which the Journal had presented from 1903 to 1916

were discontinued after the latter date, and they were not resumed until

1937. A comparative tabulation of the Journal1s figures for 1937, 1938,

and 1939 is shown in Table VIII.1

These figures may now be examined individually, in an effort to

correlate casualties and legislation.^

A. No. legislation. Of the six states having neither regulatory nor

prohibitory legislation against fireworks, Arizona, Georgia, and Montana

show nothing particularly noteworthy in their figures for accidents.

Missouri, with more than fourteen hundred injuries listed during the

three years, had a heavy casualty list. Note, however, that for the years

1937 and 1938 about three-fifths of all Missouri's casualties occurred in

the single city of St. Louis. In that city in 1937 there were 322 injuries

^ Adapted from The J ournal of the American Medical As so c ia ti on (January

21, 1939), 112: 236-238, 242; ibid. (January 6, 1940), 114: 39-41- The
figures for 1939 had not been published when this report was being written.
They were furnished to the Legislative Council through the courtesy of Dr.
Morris Fishbein, Editor.
2 Figures for the Southern states must be judged in relation to the
relatively slight use of fireworks in that area.
 34-

Table VIII. Comparative Summaries of Deaths and Injuries Caused by the

Celebration of the Fourth of July with Fireworks and Other Explosives,
as Compiled by The American Medical Association.

Deaths Injuries

State 1937 1938 1939 1937 1938 1939

Alabama 7 15 17
Arizona 32 16 30
Arkansas 7 2 3
California 1 2 485 509 650
Colorado 119 21 10
Connecticut 1 104 125 201
Delaware 25 39 22
Dist. Columbia 78 31 57
Florida 1 1 23 29 62
Georgia 9 7 5
Idaho 6 52 5 7
Illinois 1 1 485 513 458
Indiana 3 1 278 346 198
Iowa 76 6 6
Kansas 93 74 61
Kentucky 61 11 6
Louisiana 12 2 12
Maine 67 75 59
Maryland 1 2 1 123 110 169
Massachusetts 2 2 376 467 333
Michigan 190 107 126
Minnesota 89 143 152
Mississippi 1 - 1 -

Missouri 510 553 357

Montana 50 30 38
Nebraska 49 14 17
Nevada - 1 -

New Hampshire 40 32 25
New Jersey 1 1 72 88 112
New Mexico 1 5 5
New York 3 2 3 1371 1630 1491
North Carolina 4 2 8
North Dakota 14 8 2
Ohio 1 1 353 585 337
Oklahoma 101 43 32
Oregon 49 29 27
Pennsylvania 6 991 1702 85
Rhode Island 1 381 210 181
South Carolina - 3 2
South Dakota 9 8 14
Tennessee 1 9 6
Texas 1 1 33 60 31
Utah 2 31 18 5
Vermont 20 2 1
Virginia 18 13 6
Washington 153 70 66
West Virginia 1 28 41 0
Wisconsin 92 117 66
Wyoming 10 6 2
Unkno™1'' 37 - -
 35

in 1938, 295; and in 1939, 76. During the twelve months prior to July

4, 1939, according the The Journal of the American Medical Association.1

St. Louis enacted an ordinance against fireworks.

North Carolina reported but fourteen accidents during the three

years, and Nevada but one; but figures are so low as possibly to raise

a question as to their accuracy.

The figures as presented for these six states show such a wide

diversity that no conclusion can be drawn from them as a group. So

far as individual, states are concerned, the trend in the city of St.

Louis was the most notable.

Delaware was among the states having no legislation until her legis­

lature in 1939 enacted a prohibitory law. Figures for the casualties in

that state are given in the appropriate section below, though they are

of no value because the act was not approved by the governor until September

5, 1939.

B. Regulatory legislation. Comparative figures may now be examined

for the thirty-three states which in one form or another have regulated

the manufacture or disposal or use of fireworks.

(1) The six states which give a rule-making power to some state

administrative official have imposed different types of regulations.

Alabama has had since 1919 a statute giving the Fire Marshal power

to regulate the storing, keeping, and use of inflammable materials and

explosives, including fireworks.2 This state's regulations presumably^

are directed against the lire and commercial-explosion hazard of fireworks,

for the State Fire Marshal indicates^ that neither loss of life nor severe

-*■ (January 6, 194.0). 114.; 43.

2 Alabama Code of 1928, sec. 966.
3 Two letters to the Superintendent of Insurance — who is ex-officio
State Fire Marshall— failed to elicit precisely what regulations have been
imposed in Alabama.
^ In a letter^to the Legislative Council, dated December 1, 1939*
 36

injury has occurred since they were imposed, although some fire damage has

resulted from the premature explosion of fireworks on display. The state

has reported thirty-nine injuries in the last three years.

In Arkansas the Insurance Commissioner was authorized in 1927 to

regulate the manufacture, storage, handling, and use of explosives and

inflammable materials, including fireworks.-*- The Commissioner has ruled

only that the discharge or explosion of fireworks or other pyrotechnics

is prohibited within the business district of any city or town.2 Twelve

casualties are listed for the three years of 1937, 1938, and 1939*

Massachusetts has four different "types" of fireworks legislation

and for one of them gives her Department of Public Safety power to regulate

the manufacture, storage, and handling of inflammable materials and explo­

sives, including fireworks and firecrackers.3 This department has in turn

issued a complicated set of rules about fireworks,most of which concern

their manufacture and commercial handling rather than their use. There

are some restrictions upon the size and content of fireworks sold, and

many types of fireworks cannot be bought by children under the age of

thirteen y e a r s .^ That state lists nearly twelve hundred casualties for

the three years.

Maryland, as has been said, has had no experience under the tentative

fireworks regulations drafted by the Insurance Commissioner. According to

The Journal, of the American Medical Association, the state had 4.02 casual­

ties during 1937, 1938, and 1939. '

rhe Maryland Society for the Preven­

tion of Blindness recorded 906 accidents during those three years.

-*- Arkansas Code of 1937, sec. 7630.

2 L a w s . Rules and Regulations Governing Fire Prevention in Arkansas
(1939).
3 Massachusetts Code of 1932, Ch. 14.8, sec. 9*
^ Rules and Regulations Governing ... Fireworks (Massachusetts, 1939)•
 37

Tennessee gives to her Fire Prevention Commissioner a regulatory-

power over the manufacture, storage,handling, and use ox explosives and

inflammable materials, including all kinds of fireworks.-*- The regula­

tions w m c h nave been issued deal only with the manufacture and commercial'

handling of fireworks.2 Tennessee reported sixteen accidents during the

past three years.

Finally, Vermont's State Fire Marshal may regulate the manufacture,

storage, sale, and disposition of fireworks and firecrackers.3 Under

this authority, there are narrow restrictions as to the period during

which retail sales may be made and as to the size and content of what

is sold.^ The state's Deputy Fire Marshal writes^ that Vermont's

experience under these regulations has been "very satisfactory," except

for current criticism that the five-day period for retail sales is too

long. Twenty-three casualties are reported during 1937, 1938, and 1939,

with a notable downward trend, for twenty of them occurred in the first

ye a r .

No one of the six states having a rule-making power over fireworks

inaugurated that power during the period for which figures on Fourth

of July casualties are available. It is therefore not possible to gauge

the precise effects of regulation by comparing the casualties for a year

having no rules with those for a year during which rules and regulations

existed. Indeed, such a comparison might be of but limited value, for

the several sets of regulations pay little attention to the ordinary

small users of fireworks, who compose most of the casualty lists. The

Tennessee Code of 1938, sec. 5690.

2 Regulation No._ 3. of Tennessee's Division of Fire Prevention (1938).
3 Vermont Code of 1933, sec. 8722.
4- Regulations of Qtate Fire Marshal Governing . .. Fireworks ....
(Vermont, n .d . ) .
5 In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated December 2, 1939-
 38

six states in this category show a rather wide variation in their

reports of accidents, and no conclusion can be drawn for the group.

While considering this group one should mention the State of

Indiana, which in 1939 adopted prohibitory legislation; prior to that

time it had given its state fire marshal power to regulate the keeping,

use, and handling of inflammable materials, including fireworks and

firecrackers. Indiana is discussed in a subsequent section, with the

other states having prohibitory legislation, but since its act was not

to take effect until August 1, 1939, its figures for accidents are use­

less for the present inquiry.

(2) Twenty-two of the thirty-three states which restrict (or allow th

restriction of) the use of fireworks and firecrackers have done so by

giving to units of local government — usually the municipalities — power

to regulate some phase of the handling or use of such materials. Usually

the authorization is phrased in general terms, giving to the towns and

cities the right to prohibit and restrain the firing of firecrackers and

fireworks. Again, however, it is difficult to draw comparisons, for in

only one instance since 1937 has a state given this type of power to its

municipalities. That state is Minesota, which in 1939 added to its codi­

fication of the duties of town boards that "they may prohibit or license

and regulate ... the sale of fireworks. In the fireworks casualties

as listed by The Journal of the American Medical Association. Minnesota

had 89 in 1937, 143 in 1938, and 152 in 1939-

The underlying difficulty of discussing the states which permit their

municipalities to prohibit or restrain the use of fireworks is the uncertainty

as to how many cities have availed themselves of the privilege; so far as

statistics are concerned, the statutes have no meaning unless supplemented

1 Minnesota Acts of 1939, Ch. 255.

 39

by municipal ordinances. The Literary Digest declared in 1937 that 384.

cities and towns have local ordinances banning the sale of fireworks,

and that 172 other "communities" restrict the trade.-*- These figures

agree roughly with those given recently in The American City, which said

that more than 500 cities exercise by law some control over fireworks.2

In neither periodical, though, was there an indication CL s to the distribu­

tion of these municipalities among the several states. The comparison

for the State of Minnesota, therefore, cannot be presented as being at all

conclusive.

Note, however, that of the nine states discussed below as having pro­

hibitory legislation, there are six which formerly allowed their munici­

palities to legislate for themselves on the subject of fireworks and

which passed their present acts during or after 1937. One state, Indiana,

cannot be used as an "example," for its prohibitory act did not become

effective until August 1, 1939* However, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West

Virginia passed their prohibitory laws to be effective before the Fourth

of July in 1939; and New Jersey and Iowa passed their acts in 1937, the

latter to be effective on January 1, 1938* In these five latter states,

therefore, there are five valid comparisons of permissible municipal re­

gulation and state-wide prohibition. The presentation of these figures is

reserved for the section currently appropriate for these several states.

(3) Nineteen of the thirty-three states which regulate the use of

fireworks do so by placing restrictions upon the type, size, or contents

of the materials which may be sold or used. This legislation takes

different forms, restricting, for example, the length of firecrackers, the

number of balls in Roman candles, the type of explosive used, the presence

of hard objects in torpedoes. Again it is difficult to make comparisons,

1 Death's Holiday," The Literary Digest (June 26, 1937), 123: 4--5.
2
Fireworks Control by Law," The American City (July 1938), 57:87.
 4.0

for no one of the nineteen states passed its legislation during or after

1937, and hence its casualties before and after this form of regulation

are not available. However, three of the states which recently enacted

prohibitory legislation, Iowa, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, formerly

regulated the type, size, and/or contents of firecrackers and fireworks,

so that some comparisons can be made in the number of their injuries.

These figures appear where the prohibiting states are discussed below.

(4-) Finally, among the several types of regulation, is that which

restricts the time and/or place at which fireworks may be sold or used.

Nine of the thirty-three regulating states have some such provisions in

their codes. No state passed its act since casualty figures became avail­

able. New Jersey and Utah are the only states which formerly hac time/

place restrictions and recently enacted prohibitory laws. Their casualties

are given below.

C.. Prohibitory legislation. Nine ox the forty-eight states have laws

which so restrict the sale or use of fireworks that for ordinary purposes

their statutes may be termed prohibitory. Several of the acts have been

passed in recent years for which comparative figures of Fourth of July

accidents are available ; likewise several of the states in this category

had other and milder forms of regulation before adopting their present

legislation. In a number of instances, therefore, valid comparisons may

be drawn between the effectiveness of ordinary regulation and the effective­

ness of prohibition, in so far as fireworks casualties in particular states

are concerned.

The prohibitory statute of Michigan dates from 1929 > since there are

available no figures for fireworks casualties between 1916 and 1937, there

is no statistical index as to the effectiveness of the law in that state.

 41

The Chief of the Fire Marshal Division writes-5- that for several years

residents of Michigan have suffered nothing more serious on the Fourth of

July than a few minor burns or injuries. He added that Michigan has had

"considerable trouble" along its state lines, where people obtain fire­

works and take them back into the state. However, this opinion of acci­

dents may seem somewhat optimistic when one examines the injuries as

reported by The Journal of the American Medical Association. for the state

has had 422 casualties during the years of 1937, 1933, and 1939* This

appears to be an unfavorable record, though it must remain inconclusive

since there are no figures for Michigan under any other type of regulation.

Although the legal situation in ^-hode Island is not entirely clear,2

that state appears to have the oldest statute which forbids the sale or use

of fireworks. It was passed in 1909, so that some indication of its

effectiveness may be sought from the Fourth of July casualties as reported

in the earlier survey of The J ournal of the American Medical Association.

Rhode Island's fireworks injuries for the years from 1903 to 1916 were

1 In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated December 21, 1939-

2 The exact situation in Rhode Island is difficult to understand.
The state's code of 1933 (Chap. 406, secs. 4» 13) seems to make the sale,
offer for sale, or use of any fireworks of a combustible nature subject
to a fine, unless a special license has been obtained, and also makes the
sale, possession for sale, or use of a firecracker containing any explo­
sive other than gunpowder subject to a fine. An Assistant Attorney Gene­
ral of the state writes (in a letter to the Council dated March 6, 1940)
that the two sections are not actually In conflict, since the former
"refers particularly to the necessity for a license for persons manufac­
turing fireworks of the usual type containing gunpowder." In reaching
this conclusion he cites section 5 of the same chapter, in which there
is provision for obtaining the licenses mentioned above. Also, he adds,
"under our laws the several towns and cities in the state may make their
own ordinances covering local conditions...." Adding to these difficul­
ties of interpretation, Mr. C. H. Fleming has stated that commercial
fireworks have been sold to individuals in Rhode Island at least since
1933-
 42

listed as followsr1

Year Deaths Non-fatal :

1903 4 60
1904 - 30
1905 1 10
1906 1 20
1907 - 39
1908 1 38
1909 3 39
1910 - 19
1911 1 10
1912 - 2
1913 2 19
1914 1 tJ.
4,

1915 -
5
1916 - 12

These annual, summaries fluctuate rather widely, yet so far as they show

a discernible trend, it is a downward one, and the major break in the

curve of casualties after 1909 is clearly evident. Note that for the

seven years ending in 1909 there were 10 fatalities and 236 non-fatal

injuries, while for the following seven years there were but 4 deaths

and 91 non-fatal injuries. So far as these figures are a reliable cri­

terion, prohibitory legislation in Rhode Island seems substantially to

have decreased the number of accidents due to fireworks. On the other

hand, the Journal's recent survey lists 381 injuries in 1937, 210 in 1938,

and 181 in 1939, so that recent figures are distinctly unfavorable as

compared to earlier ones. The composite record in Rhode Island is con-

O
fusing.

Delaware passed a prohibitory act in 1939, after having had no

1 Adapted From The Journal of the American Medical Association,

1903 to 1916, inclusive. 4-1:556, 43:670, 45:715, 47:507, 49:686
51:843, 53:951, 55:866, 67:738, 59:801, 61:681, 63:779, 65:797, 67:678.
2 The Rhode Island State Librarian writes (in a letter to the Council
dated March 4, 1940) that the Governor's Special Investigating Committee
on Fire and Building Laws has recently called the present legislation un­
satisfactory, and has recommended a new prohibitory law which is similar
to the so-called Model Fireworks Act; and she adds that this or a similar
bill likely will receive consideration at the current session of the legis
lature.
 43

regulation whatever. The act was to be effective on July 1, but it was

not approved by the governor until September 5, 1939- The state's figures

for recent casualties (25 in 1937, 39 in 1938, 22 in 1939) therefore

have no significance in the attempt to correlate legislation and fire­

works injuries.

Indiana passed its prohibitory act in 1939, but although the act

was approved on March 9 it was by its terms not to become effective until

August l.1 The statutory provisions which were then supplanted had

given to the fire marshal a regulatory power over the keeping, handling,

and use of fireworks and firecrackers; likewise, municipal corporations

had had the authority to prevent and regulate the use of fireworks.2

Because of the late date at which the prohibitory act became effective,

its casualty reports for recent years (278 in 1937, 34-6 in 1938, 198 in

1939) are useless in the correlation of legislation and injuries; in this

respect the state is comparable to Delaware.

Iowa enacted prohibitory legislation in 1937, to take effect on

January 1, 1938.^ The state formerly had given a regulatory power to

municipalities and had imposed type/size restrictions.4 Its reported

injuries dropped from 52 in 1937 to 5 in 1938 and to 7 in 1939* Here the

indication is that the change in legislation wrought the decrease in fire­

works injuries.

New Jersey passed its prohibitory act in 1937,^ after having given a

regulatory power to municipalities and having had type/size and time/place

restriction.^ its casualties increased from 72 in 1937 to 88 in 1938 and

Indiana Acts of 1939, Ch. 154•

^ Indiana Code of 1934, sec. 11432-11.
3 Iowa Acts of 1937, Ch. 381.
4 Iowa Code of 1935, Ch. 292, sec. 5762; Ch. 564 , sec. 12959-
5 New Jersey Acts of 1937, Ch. 51.
6 New Jersey Acts of 1930, Ch. 42.
 44

to 112 in 1939. Here the indication is that prohibitory legislation was

not so effective as the combination of the three kinds of regulation.

Pennsylvania changed to prohibitory legislation in 1939,1 after

having given a regulatory power to municipalities and having had type/

size r e g u l a t i o n s H e r e the casualties decreased from 991 in 1937 and

1702 in 1938 to 85 in 1939-3 Pennsylvania's figures suggest that her

new act was highly effective.

Utah passed a prohibitory law in 1939,4 having previously given a

regulatory power to municipalities and having had time/place restrictions.

Her casualties decreased from 31 in 1937 and 18 in 1938 to 5 in 1939.

Prohibition was here followed by a substantial decrease in injuries.

Finally, West Virginia enacted her prohibitory law in 1939,5 and

the provision which was then supplanted had given a regulatory power to

her municipalities.6 Fireworks injuries in West V'irginia dropped from

28 in 1937 and 41 in 1938 to none in 1939- This state likewise would

indicate that prohibition of the use of fireworks effectively reduced its

casualties.

Among the nine states having prohibitory legislation, then, these

results appear. In Michigan the figures are inconclusive-, in Rhode Island,

confusing; and in Delaware and Indiana, without significance. In the five

remaining states, the enactment of prohibitory legislation has been followed

by a sharp decrease in fireworks casualties In Iowa, Pennsylvania, Utah,

4 Pennsylvania Acts of 1939,Ch. 65-

^ Pennsylvania Code of 1936.
3 The Pennsylvania State Council for the Blind accepted the figure of
1702 for 1938, but it reported only 41 injuries in 1939- It then sent in­
quiries to 150 state-aided and state-owned hospitals, receiving reports
back from 76 of them. Nine of the accidents on its list occurred at public
displays.
4 Utah Acts of 1939? Ch. 125.
5 West Virginia Acts of 1939, Ch. 143.
6 West Virginia Code of 1937, sec. 494-
 45

and West Virginia; and by a more moderate increase in the injuries

reported for New Jersey. The clear implication of these figures is

etched even more sharply in the added comment that these prohibitory

laws superseded every type of regulation. There is an evident superiority

of prohibitory legislation in the reduction of Fourth of July casualty

lists.

All these generalizations, of course, may suffer from the post h o c .

ergo propter hoc fallacy; one can never be quite certain that what occurs

after a piece of legislation is enacted is caused entirely by that legis­

lation .

Subject to this general qualification all the data presented up to

this point may for present purposes be reduced to two concise statements.

First, the casualty lists of Maryland's Fourth of >July celebrations are

so large as to constitute a "problem." Secondly, the most effective means

for the alleviation of this problem would be an act prohibiting the ordinary

sale and use of fireworks. The next phase of the study thus becomes an inquiry

as to the possible effect upon the industry of a prohibitory act; and note

that the question has been posed in the sharpest and most extreme form

possible.
 46

V I I I . THE FIREWORKS INDUSTRY IN MARYLAND

The possibility of enacting prohibitory fireworks legislation in

Maryland raises this pertinent question: Is it likely that the fireworks

industry would be harmed by such legislation? and if so, to what extent?

More specifically, what is the volume in dollars and cents of the fire­

works which are manufactured in Maryland and which reach retail sale in

the state? and how many employees would be displaced if this volume were

lost?

Gauging the effects of prohibitory legislation upon the industry

requires the presentation of considerable data about the number of employees

and their wages and hours, as well as about Triumph Explosives, Inc., the

largest by far of all Maryland manufacturers of fireworks. On the basis

of these data the primary question may then be considered.

A. Fireworks manufactories in Maryland. The Maryland Commissioner

of Labor and Statistics writes-*- that, as of February 6, 1940, there were

three fireworks companies in the state classed as "manufacturing" units.

These were the Monumental fireworks Company, Havre de Grace, with 9

employees; the Norristown Fireworks Company, Elkton, with 11 employees;

and Triumph Explosives, Inc., Elkton, with 431 employees.^ On this recent

date, therefore, there were 451 persons in the state employed in the

manufacture of fireworks and commercial pyrotechnics.

The Commissioner also mentions two non-manufacturing units in the

state. First, "the Commercial Novelty Company, formerly located at Havre

de Grace, Harford County, Maryland, is now out of business. Plant machinery

has been moved to New York." Secondly, "the Victor Fireworks and Specialty

I In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated February 9, 1940.

O
xn March 1939 the Triumph Company was reported in the press as
having approximately 350 employees. The Sun (Baltimore), March 8, 1939-
 47

Company, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland, while maintaining their plant

at this location, are not operating. Their employees consist of two

watchmen."

The seasonal nature of employment in this business is well demon­

strated by figures given in the Census of Manufactures for 1935. In that

year the industry in Maryland employed an average of 398 wage earners,

with month to month totals as follows: January, 314; February, 394; March,

518; April, 585; May, 600; June, 553; July, 150; August, 206; September,

266; October, 372; November, 436; December 382.4

4’he figure for employment in the industry in Maryland in 1939 was given

to the Legislative Council^ by Mr. Charles Henry Fleming.3 He writes that

the "number of persons employed” was 625- It was not indicated whether

this figure was an average for the year, the peak; employment of the busy

season, or simply the number of different persons on the payroll at some

time during the year.

These data for the Maryland industry may be projected against the

background of the national fireworks industry. The United States Bureau

of Labor Statistics computed that in October 1937 — a month which v/as

thought to be "representative" as between the peak and dull seasons —

the 52 factories which each had an annual production valued at more than

five thousand dollars had a total of 1588 wage employees.4 The fire-

4 Biennial Census of Manufactures. 1935 (Washington, 1938), pp.

672, 673* In that year the Census listed 3 establishments and 29
salaried officers in the state. The Census of Manufactures for 1937
reported only two fireworks establishments in Maryland, and because of
this limited number detailed figures were not given for that year as in
1935-
2 in a letter to Mr. Raphael Walter, of the baltimore Bar, dated
J anuary 11, 1940•
3 Secretary of Pyrotechnic Industries, Inc., the trade association
of the fireworks industry, until its dissolution on July il, 1939; now
counsel for several of the former member companies.
4 "Earnings and Hours in the Fireworks Industry, October, 1937,"
Monthly Labor Review (April 1938), 4 6 : 942-955.
 48

fireworks manufactured by them were valued at $3,166,103*1 It is

generally agreed that four or five of the companies control from 85%

to 90% of the domestic industry.2 Possibly 50% of this country's

consumption is imported from abroad, mainly from the Orient.3

B. Wages and hours in the fireworks industry. Data for the hours

worked and the wages paid in the industry in Maryland are so limited

that they can best be judged against the more complete picture of the

industry nationally. The "average" wage employee, in October 1937,

worked in a plant east of the Mississippi River and north of the Potomac

and Ohio rivers. He worked 4-0.4- hours each week, receiving 4-1*3 cents

hourly and $16.68 weekly. Males and females were in the proportion of

about 11 to 10, and there was a noticeable differential between their

earnings ; the former received 4-9*1 cents hourly and $20.82 weekly, while

the latter received 31*8 cents hourly and $12.18 weekly. There was a

second differential based upon the materials made; those employees engaged

solely in the manufacture of fireworks earned weekly from two to four

dollars less than those engaged solely in the manufacture of commercial

pyrotechnics.

Two additional factors may be noted about this figure of 4-1*3 cents

for the average hourly wage. First, it is the fourth from lowest of all

industries in the country, and, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics points

out, those industries which pay lower wages either are located in the

South or hire a large proportion of females, or both; secondly, Maryland's

average hourly wage in October 1937 was 33*3 cents — eight cents lower

Census of Manufactures, 1937 (Washington, 1939) > p* 694*

2 "Fireworks," For tune (July 1937), 16: 19: E. V. Babbitt, "Toward
a Safe but Noisy Fourth," Nation's Business (July 1937), 2 5 : 22-24*
3 This approximate percentage was given by Mr. Fleming in December
1935 } in an address before the Fireworks Session of the National Society
for the Prevention of Blindness.
 K9

than the national average.^

Mr. Fl e m i n g ’s data for the state industry in 1939 lists the 625

persons employed as receiving an approximate payroll volume of $600,000,

for an average of $960. each. This figure seems unduly high in relation

to the average hourly earnings given above; possibly it includes salaried

employees as well as wage employees. Thus in 1935 the 29 salaried

officers in the Maryland industry received a total of $66,772, for an

average of $2302. each, while the 398 wage earners received a total of

$213,786, for an average of about $537. each.2

C.. Triumph Explosives. I n c . This company as has been seen, is the

only large-scale employer in the state fireworks industry; indeed, it is

one of the four or five companies in the entire country which generally

are credited with supplying the bulk of the national market. Additional

information about the company may be obtained from a prospectus it published

on November 10, 1939, and from the accompanying registration statement

which is on file at the offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, all in connection with the issue and sale of additional secu­

rities .

The Triumph Company was incorporated in Maryland by a group of Penn­

sylvanians, on August 15, 1933, and when the prospectus was issued a block

of 34--9% of the stock of the company was owned by G. H. Kann, W. L. Kami,

and members of their families, all of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.3

During the first year of business the company concentrated on the

manufacture and sale of Fourth of July fireworks; since that time it has

widely expanded into the commercial pyrotechnics and fusee business, and

1 "Earnings and Hours in the ^ireworks Industry, October, 1937," l o c . eft.

2 Census of Manufactures. 1935. pp. 672, 673*
3 Prospectus. p . 3•
 50

both the prospectus and the registration statements give one the definite

impression that these latter activities are now receiving a major emphasis.

The company itself states that "the equipment and processes are flexible,"

so that operations may be changed from time to time as the necessity arises.1

"Recent" orders from foreign governments have aggregated approximately

$250 ,000.2
Figures for the Triumph Company's' net sales of manufactured and job­

bing products and for the annual profit or loss are shown in Table IX.

There was no indication as to the distribution between the manufacture of

fireworks and of commercial pyrotechnics, though it has been said by the

company that "practically all" of the net sales of $250,000 for the first

year of business were of fireworks.3 In answer to an inquiry on this

point, Mr. Raphael Walter wrote4- that "taking the average for the years of

1937, 1938, and 1939, (Triumph's) business, on a dollar basis, was repre­

sented by 75% commercial fireworks and 25% commercial pyrotechnics. These

figures are based on actual sales and shipments, and can be substantiated

by an audit of the books of the company."

The Triumph Company evidently Imports and sells considerable quantities

of fireworks manufactured in the Orient; its balance sheet as of July 31,

1939 lists as a liability the sum of $11,554- •08 under the description of

"Import Duty — Chinese Merchandise in Bonded Warehouse."5 There are two

basic tariff rates upon importations of fireworks, so that It Is not possible

to compute the quantity which is represented by this liability for import

duties. Firecrackers with an outside diametei' of more than five-sixteenths

T Ib i d ., p. 6.
2 I b i d ., p. 4-
3 Ib i d ., p. 3•
^ In a letter to the Legislative Council, dated x‘ebruary 1, 194-0.
^ Ib i d ., p. 19- See also pp. 9 and 20 for other references to Chinese
firecrackers.
 51

of an inch or a length of more than one and three-quarters inches are

chargeable at the rate of twenty-five cents for each pound; and all

other firecrackers are assessed at the rate of eight cents for each

pound.

Table IX. Net Sales of Manufactured and Jobbing Products and Annual Profit
or Loss of Triumph Explosives, Inc., as Given by the Company's
Prospectus of November 10, 1939-

Year Ending Net Sales Net Profits

July 31, 1934 $ 250.,000.00 (app •)

July 31, 1935 459,121.21 $37,686.01*
July 31, 1936 £03,510.08 41,709.12
July 31, 1937 995,324.04 43,062.56
July 31, 1938 1,090,490.47 6 5 ,050 .64
July 31, 1939 644,161.27 54,055.08*

* Indicates loss

D . Possible effects of prohibitory legislation. To gauge the effects

upon the industry of prohibitory legislation in Maryland, as has been said,

two queries are of prime interest. First, what is the volume in dollars

and cents of the fireworks which are manufactured in Maryland and which

reach retail sale In the State? and secondly, how many employees would

be displaced If this volume were lost?

Precise data on these questions were not available from outside

sources, so an Inquiry was directed to Mr. Raphael Walter, counsel for

one of the Maryland manufacturers. 2he figures which he gave in return

are as follows: total annual sales of fireworks in Maryland, $>100,000;2

"Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States," a publication

of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Department of Commerce,
Washington.
^ Assuming a population in the state of 1,700,000 persons, this makes
a per capita consumption of fireworks valued at about 6 cents. This is
probably greater than the national average. In 1937 the total domestic-
production was valued at $3,166,103. If it Is doubled (since about 50% of
our consumption is imported) and then divided by a population of 130,000,000
people, the national average is about 4..9 cents.
 52

value of those manufactured in Maryland, $65,000; value of those imported

from abroad, $15,000; ratio of labor costs to total value of Maryland

manufactures, 30/6.

Using the annual value of fireworks which are both manufactured and

used in Maryland, $65,000, and the ratio of labor costs, 30%, it may be

computed that there is paid out in wages annually the sum of $19,500. for

the fireworks manufactured and consumed in this State. This latter figure,

divided by $960. (which Mr. Fleming's data indicated was the average

annual remuneration of each employee in the state) gives a quotient of 20.3

employees.

Presumably, therefore, if Maryland were to enact a prohibitory fire­

works law and thus completely take away the market for Fourth of July

fireworks in this State, about 20 of the 4-50 employees would lose their

positions. This conclusion takes no account of the possibility that

increased sales of display fireworks might take up part of the loss.

 53

I X . CONCLUSIONS

This report has been primarily a vehicle for the presentation of

factual data and is concerned with drawing conclusions therefrom only

as necessary to give point to the entire study. In the opinion of the

writer three such conclusions are sufficiently "obvious" to warrant

their statement for whatever assistance they may give the General Assem­

bly in its determination of policy.

First, the number of casualties resulting from the promiscuous use

of fireworks is sufficiently great as to be a "problem" facing the

General Assembly.

Secondly,prohibitory legislation is more effective than any other

type in reducing the number of Fourth of July injuries due to fireworks.

The enforcement of such legislation in Maryland should be facilitated by

the fact that three of the state's immediate neighbors (Pennsylvania,

Delaware, West Virginia) have this type of law, and the District of Colum­

bia 's type/size restrictions are especially stringent^ Virginia has much

weaker type/size regulations.

Thirdly, the enactment of prohibitory legislation in Maryland would

displace possibly twenty employees engaged in manufacturing fireworks,

unless display fireworks should create an equally Important market.

If these conclusions are sound, they present a clear choice of

policies. Whether the incidence of fireworks injuries is sufficient to

justify the probable reduction of employment resulting from prohibitory

legislation must, or course, be decided by the General Assembly.

 54

APPENDIX

Fireworks Casualties in Maryland. 1903-1 9 3 6 .

Statistics showing the number of accidents resulting from the use

of fireworks in this State before 1937 are but fragmentary at best;

not until this latter year was there anything like a comprehensive

survey of the number of persons who suffered injury.

As early as 1903 the American Medical Association began to keep

an annual tabulation of the number of injuries and deaths caused by the

use of fireworks, and the practice was continued until 1916. The Asso­

ciation was primarily interested in decreasing the fatalities due to

tetanus, which comprised a considerable portion of the total deaths.

The figures for 1903 were compiled solely from newspaper accounts

of accidents, carefully checked, according to the Association, to

eliminate duplications and "indirect" accidents. Later it expanded its

campaign by seeking reports from hospitals, health officers, and physi­

cians .

The fireworks casualties for Maryland as reported by The Journal of

the American Medical Association are shown in Table X. and the contrib­

utory causes are given in Table XI. The manner in which these figures

were compiled would suggest that if they are inaccurate in any respect,

it is on the side of understatement.

The Association discontinued its annual summaries after 1916, having

seen the national total of deaths from tetanus caused by fireworks acci­

dents drop from 4-06 in 1903 to none in 1916, and the total number of all

deaths attributable to fireworks drop from 4-66 in 1903 to 30 in 1916.

Beginning in 1925, the Police Department of Baltimore City began to

record fireworks casualties occurring within its jurisdiction around the

 55

Table X. Fireworks Casualties in Maryland, 1903-1916, as Compiled by

The American Medical Association

Year Deaths Non-fatal injuries Total casualties

1903 1 20 21
1904 1 21 22
1905 1 12 13
1906 2 8 10
1907 1 22 23
1908 1 20 21
1909 1 9 10
1910 1 7 8
1911 1 3 4
1912 - 11 11
1913 2 13 15
1914 - 10 10
1915 - 23 23
1916 - 15 15

Table XI. Contributory Causes of Fireworks Casualties in Maryland, 1903-

1916, as Compiled by the American Medical Association.2

Year Blank cartridae Firecrackers Firearms Cannon Fireworks Total

1903 3 12 _ .. 2 3 203
1904 2 8 4 — 8 22
1905 1 6 - — 6 13
1906 4 5 1 - - 10
1907 2 10 1 1 9 23
1908 3 4 3 3 8 21
1909 3 2 1 2 2 10
1910 2 1 1 1 3 8
1911 - 2 - 1 1 4
1912 2 3 2 1 3 11
1913 1 4 1 1 8 15
1914 - 2 4 3 1 10
1915 2 4 3 2 12 23
1916 1 3 4 — 7 15

Fourth of July. Figures now in the possession of the Department show a

resume of accidents over a period of twelve years, as presented in Table XII.

1 These figures have been taken from The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 4.1:556, 43:670, 45:715, 4-7:507, 49:686, 51:843,
53:951, 55:866, 57:738, 59:801, 61:681, 63:779, 65:797, 67:678.
^ Ibid.
3 The contributing cause of the one death from tetanus during this
year was not shown.
 56

Table XII. Baltimore Police Department's Record of Fireworks Casualties,

1925-1936.

Cause 1221 1926 1927 1928 1929 1.93_Q 1931. 1232 1933 1934 1935 1936

Toy c a r t . 5 5
iy-y- — _ — — — _ _
4 5
Revolver 8 - - 3* - - - _ _ - — _
Firewks. .9 25 5* 34 23 20 10 11 9 — —
Blank Cart. - 5 1 8** 6 2 2 — — — _
Torpedo - 3 - 4 4 4 2 - - 1 — —
Stray Blit. - 2 1 2 3 1 - _ _ - -

Explosion 3 — — 4 — _ — — “ — - -
Phosphate
poison 1* -
Sparklers - 2 - 1 3 6 - _ - - —
Rifle - 1 - - — 1 - — - - — —
Fires - 2 8 - 5 2 2 - - - —
Unknown 3 - - - - - - - - 24* 36
___

Totals 29 45 22 60 49 36 16 11 10 24 36

* Each asterisk denotes one fatality.

Since 1936 the Department has cooperated with the Maryland Society for the

Prevention of Blindness., in the compilation of injuries.

All the figures in Table XII, of course, are for the City of Baltimore

only, and they show a rather wide variation, ranging from no accidents re­

ported in 1932 to 60 accidents in 1928. The compilation is based upon rou­

tine reports of individual members of the force, who gave the details of

whatever injuries they happened to observe or to investigate, and who received

reports from the hospitals as to tne persons treated there for fireworks

injuries. No effort was made by the Police Department to report injuries

which were treated by private physicians, and it may reasonably be assumed

from this factor alone that the totals given above are substantially in­

complete. On the other hand, the table may have been inflated by including

casualties from revolvers and stray bullets, and from fires caused by fire­

works; these often are not included as "Fourth of July" accidents.

 57

A summary of fireworks accidents was made from another source in

1935 — this time covering the entire State- The American Museum of

Safety in New York ^ity, with the assistance of the Works Progress Ad­

ministration, compiled detailed statistics covering each of the forty-

eight states. A tabular report of the project, distributed by the

National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, lists 52 fireworks

accidents for Maryland in that year, out of a total of nearly seven thou­

sand for the entire country.

The detailed itemization of these 62 accidents shows that more than

two-thirds of them occurred to males, and that nearly one-half of the total

involved children from the ages of six to fifteen years, inclusive. More

than one-third of all injuries were burns, and the hands suffered more

frequently than any other part of the body; 18 of the 62 accidents were

to the hands, with 19 being unspecified. Precise figures were given, too,

as to the type of fireworks causing the injury; cannon or firecrackers,

34-i bomb, U, torpedo, 5; sky rocket, 3; Roman candle, 1; pinwheel, 1; other

fireworks, 1; unspecified, 13-