New-York tribune., 1872-02-12

the machine" While lie ana tno V'"'' "
also want to the machlne' "ei
Hessing was as good man as ever was anu 'H"
only n vear or two ago. But the time came WIZ"
Hessing and the other didn't agree any longer,
then Mr. HessnG was as bad a man as ever ""' ' c,
he heads riots and leads revolutions, ana selS up
munes and does no end of mischief and wlckeoho ."
the time This is the political aspect of the Fre i"
question. Mr. Hcssng made mistake III petA''"n7 "
popular demonstration against proposed oiulH"O' ~
degenerate into disturbance, and That o2port"n'
kill him Of try to kill him off, was improved "y % %
nevsr apers who did not know, or did not care u ~ ~
ing Hcssng they had to stab him through tie repu'o"
of Chicago. Now. whether Mr.. lessing ne ht l'a1'
or an unfit loader in local politics, or "he'u''
the other men would be safer or hoiI'SV''
leaders, is matter Of not the huBi'o7' '''
ment TO anybody outside OF Chicago, ana pcin'P'
Is not OF vital interest to anybody inside OF 'haF
But as II is of vital interest Just now to ChcaTo nor'i
that everybody should believe her to bc-ii sh' ieaiy
bc-a peaceful and law-abldng city, not given over to
and riots safe place wherein TO invest 'apI
tai, il is well to have 10 understood precisely no" "cu
local politics had do with the alleged riot OF last week
Mr.. Hcssng has. this week, filed up the sum OF n5
enornes by appearing. of the paperssays IN ko
gloves" before the Grand Jury witness and as the
Grand Jury-t0 which. as Mayor Medi announcer III
most patriotic and beautiful message, the ease was 10
go-cannot lind that there is any tease" the poilcai
aspect Of the question may be dismissed from uiher
consideration.
DIVISION OF OPINION ~ IO ilhE LlMiln.
The question OF the protection OF the city from fire
by Fire Limit ordinance also has its two sides. one
party contend that the Fire Limits should he coexten
svc with the City Limits and that no buildings should
be built therein except Of brick or stone. The o'h"r
party contend that certain portions OF the city should be
exempt from such regulation and that the erection OF
wooden buildings be permitted within such portions
They are the whom Mr. Hessng led to the Council
Chamber 10 show the City Fathers that large portion
OF their constituents opposed TO the ordinance
which it was proposed to pass that cyenng. Ih'y are
OF the poorer class but thrifty Germans ani lI,h
who OF their daily earnings have laid by, or hope to
| lay BY enough to buy a small lot of ground on
| which they may put small home OF ihcr
own. They maintain that it is better they should have
these little homes Of their than that they shosid be
crowded together great tenement houses such as the
poor compelled to live In in NewNork and other
Eastern cities. They afford to build homes OF wood
in this great lumbernarkct where wood Is cheap ana
they not afford to build them of brick because bllck
is dear They further maintain that these small Isolated
wooden houses the outskirts OF the city proper do
not leopard safety because being only one story III
hight fire in one OF them is speedily e&thsuiSheu'
and its spread easily stopped and they cIehch thiS
| statement with the fact that the hles OF ChlcaSo
| have only been disastrous when they have been
in large wooden buildings or large brick ones OF both On
the other hand the other party contend that all wooden
buildings are dangerous, and all built of brick or stone
SAFE and that therefore, to protect ourselves from
disaster the erection OF the latter only should be
permitted manifestlv this is what logicians call
petitiO prncpii-a begging of the question IL Is not
proven that all wooden buildings dangerous and all
hu of brick or stone are safe. Large wooden buildings
are dangerous the small wooden cottages experience
shows. not. Large brick buildings. such az the
Chicago people have been in the habit OF putting mp are
Just dangerous large wooden buildings, ami alt
more dangerous than small ones. have lived here 30
years" said large propertyowner to me- thg otnei
day and have owned all sorts of buildings. The IN
companies have paid me 81 OO IN all that ue
those built OF brick" Nevertheless. it might have been
that, while his losses on structures OF one sort Wei.
SCOj they need not have been dollar on the Othef hu
they been properly built
ARE ALL WOODEN BUILDINGS DAYGEROUs2
may permitted to say with all due Difference,
has been vast deal of nonsense talked this
matter The advocates the small wooden houses are
clearly in the II are to have freproof city.
But nobody proposes that should have hre-prOOf
city and the mistake of the other party is in assuming
brick The Great Fire showed that there
but two buildings in all the burned district of the South
Slde that were III any sense fOslOMCc ana
the First National Bank-and both these were gutteG,
cedcnted. and its like may again But when
we talk OF atreproofcity we must consider possibilities
not probabilities, test the strength OF chain by
its weakest link. our brick buildings were only brick
shells and that OF the thnnesi ana weakest M The
wood the staircases, the cOrnces skyliehts and
| roofs. the window-frames and castings the mner
| blinds. the doors and frames, were all wood;
| tine ceilings Of all the rooms and the inner
the outer walls open spaces through which the Ere
into other open spaces between ceilings and floors
when fire had once caught, it always did catch, at
wooden wndOwrame, wooden skyIight, or cOrnlce.
mansard roof the building was, to fire. essentially
wooden one and worse than wooden one, lnasinnch
its thin walls soon deprived OF support were danger
the other conditions OF Oct snO water and gale of
wnd-and fire in city so built is necessarily conla-
grafton. No matter whether II is all wood wood We
neered with brick and stone. must all burn up There
nothing more striking about the burnt district than
pile chips marked where the sO-caled stone and
brick buildings stood because there little Of either
| material In them and the wood of which they were
only. Chicago rebuilt after this fashion viii be
add to its safety prohibit small wooden tenements
which fire can be put out almost as readily in
buildings freprOof, II the law provides. as 1t
properly does, that the walls shall be of sufficient thick
ness shall have wooden cOniees and have their
protected But it makes provision against the wooden
house contained within these brick outsdes the hollow
window frames the skyights and cupolas down which
frebrands rain to carry live Goals upon dry tlnder II
only mistake matter Of fact and of reasoning,
but 1t Is dangerous mistake, for the supposition iu-
oGeS onsp ha9 e o whns % bara aa want 0
II the outer walls are made from twelve 10 eighteen
safe but they not reproof till other quite as esse
tia reforms In the method of building insisted upon
miles of lumber yards along the banks OF rger
and scattered among them great structures OF the most
IN sas and m a ess &s
the many miles OF wooden sidewalks, which did 50
much in spreading the fire OF Oct and9. The falling
brands ignted them in hundreds OF places and the
conveyed TO wooden fences and thence to buidng-
hear of no proposition to prohibit either such sidewalks
the umbery ards. though the erection OF any more
mills or factories, OF elevators VIII be forbidden But
long those remain which are now standing, 1t is folly
talk Of hreproof city-sl greater folly to
brek and stone buildings Oily With no other sse%ad
against fire than increased thickness OF outer wall
Unquestionaby this increased thickness should be in
sisted upon all such buildings, it s up TO certain
point, protection but it is only beginning of what
should bo DONE
TENEMENT HOUSES WORSE THAN SMALL sHANrIEs.
Tho nostion the OppOueuts o. the nronosad Ciro