The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-27
sponsibility for tho Late Appalling
Disaster.

No diligence of investigation, no verdict OF
coroner's jury, no vigor of denuncintion,
no indignant award of blame, no wisdom
behind time can indemnify the unhappy vic
Tins of the recent terrible calamity. The
dead cannot be restored to life; denunciation
can set no broken bones the excruciating
pains of the manned and mangled sufferers
cannot be allayed by popular anger and if
anything valuable is to result from exhibit
tons OF public feeling on this occasion it
must come, not in the form of indemnity for
the past, but of security for the future. We
share the deep indignation universally excited
on this subject, but we are not willing it
explosion to subside with the occasion, and
leading to no guarantee against the recurrence
OF such dreadful catastrophes. Unless eff
fectual preventive measures are adopted now,
while public sentiment is SO fully alive to the
evil, they will not be adopted at all, and the
community will remain exposed to similar
perils.
sibility for this disaster rests primarily upon
the Department of Buildings, and we do not
see that the official letters published by its
officers extenuate their culpability. All that
is proved by these documents is that there
was merely formal compliance with some of
the requirements of the law soon after the fire
by which the Duane street store was Quilted
A mere empty compliance with legal forms,
followed by no efficient steps for taking down
the dangerous wall, was criminal trifing
with the law and with the public safety
These defensive official letters are of them
selves sufficient ground of condemnation
against the Department of Buildings. They
prove that the department was made aware of
the dangerous condition of the standing walls
Immediately after the fire, and the long
period Of forty-four days which elapsed be-
tween the fire and the calamity is crushing
proof of official laxness and criminal negli-
gence which no atterthought can explain away
While responsibility for the past SO clearly
rests upon the Department Of Buildings
security for the future depends on the Mayor,
and We trust he will discharge his duty with
resolute promptitude. The charter requires
him ''to be vigilant and active in causing the
ordinances of the city and laws of the State to
be executed and enforced He cannot be
expected to give minute personal attention to
the daily routine and mere details of admins
tration in the municipal departments. 1t is
the duty of each head OF department to be
thoroughly acquainted with its affairs and to
see that all his subordinates are active and
ofEc ~. nj ba fail 70 o1,o< how,
and great public calamity demonstrates the
fact it is the clear duty of the Mayor to give
that department new head, who will make a
better selection of subaltern officers and
exercise greater vigilance in seeing
that they properly discharge their func-
tons. To exculpate the head OF a de-
partment and punish one or two of his
subordinates is the surest method of perpetu-
ating the criminal laxity of which we have
just had SO dreadful an example. When the
Commissioner Of Buildings is made to under
stand that he is responsible for his subordi-
mates, and that he can hold his place only
so long as his department is we'll managed,
he will give proper personal attention to its
details.
Of all the municipal departments that of
buildings is the one which requires the most
thoroughgoing promptness and vigor. When
the high walls of an insecure building
threaten to topple down, crushing people be-
meath the ruins, the case is too urgent for
delay, and the law on the subject allows of
none. 1t is inexcusable to postpone for SIX
or seven weeks what the law and the public
safety require to be done at once. Let us
examine the law. It's language is that, elm
mediately" upon such unsafe or dangerous
building or buildings part or parts of build
ing, wall walls or parts of walls, and so
forth-going on with long enumeration
shall be reported as unsafe, the same shall he
Immediately" entered on the docket of unsafe
buildings and the owner or owners served
with notice requiring him or them to Gimme
diately'' certify to the department his or their
consent or refusal to remove the same, and
that she or they shall be allowed until twelve
o'clock NJ of the next day following the
service of such notice in which to commence
the removal OF the same" If the owners re-
fuse the law requires legal proceedings to be
taken 'forthwith" for taking down and re-
moving the dangerous building or wall, and
the precept of the Court shall Immediately
thereupon" be executed by the public authori-
ties at the expense of the owners, giving
them, however, last opportunity to do it
themselves provided the same shall be done
immediately"
We wish to fix attention upon the reiterated
emphasis and urgency of the law in COM
handing that the removal of unsafe buildings
or walls be commenced immediately" and
allowing the owners only until noon of the
next day to. decide whether they will do it
voluntarily or subject themselves to the
prompt compulsion of legal proceedings. We
ask our readers to contrast this perpetual rep
etition Of the words forthwith and Sim
mediately running tbrOuoh the whole