New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-27

command, and was recently hauled up
In consequence before the board of dele
gates His defense that competent lega
ADVICE was adverse to his violent inter
ference in the matt was successful, arc
saved hlm from threatened impeachment
Inc grounds Of the opposition to TIL
baocock is not stated; but there is nc
oouot that there is On element or quality
about it which provokes the wrath of a
majority OF the fire department. 1t can
hardly be that this arises from the worth
lessness or ineficiency of the extinguisher ,
Tor were such its character it would very
soon, In the modern vernacular, ''play
itself out, and be abandoned by the un-
derwriters, who clearly have an interest
IN the speedy subjugation of fires. They
however manifest degree of confidence
IN Its utility, or at all events are DESTROYS
OF giving it q fair trial. If the objection
arises from feeling of rivalry, founded
upon fear that the unpretending little
enemy OF combustion is likely to prove a
success, and thus supersede the fire boys
with their ponderous and costly engines, it
has not been urged, and ought not to be.
1t should not even be entertained by anv
good citizen be he fireman, property
owner or insurance agent. If the Babcock
is humbug, it will speedily be found
out and abandoned. If it is q dangerous
rival to the fire companies, it will be i'm
possible to suppress its use or keep it from
the public favor.
We have heard of cases where those
who have had charge of the Babcock
machine stationed it at fire in the way
OF the engines, and on one occasion To-
Gated it over fire well SO as to prevent
access with the suction hose. This con-
duct is not only improper, but illegal, and
the chief engineer would clearly have the
right to order the offenders away. But on
the other hand, if the underwriters bestow
their ettinguisher in such manner as not
to impede the fremen, we apprehend they
would have right to pursue their expert
ment. If they succeeded in putting out |
the fire before water could be thrown, it
might be notifying to the pride of the |
department, but not legal injury. On
the contrary, it would be substantial
benefit. 1t can not be shown that the de-
partment has any interest in the continu-
ance Of a conAagration, and could not
establish an injury in case they were not
called to put out fire in year. Any
delay, however, which might add to the
severity of their labors or prolong the
burning of building would be SUBJ
stantial injury, which the department has
right to stop. The alleged opinion of
Mr.. Jonas, that the contract between the
ire department and the city to put out
Tres gives the former an exclusive right.
monopoly of the business, is not in our
Judgment tenable, since no possible injury
an accrue to anybody by having the fires
sooner and by other agencies.
If the extinguisher is nuisance, and in
he way at fires, it will soon pass away
ike many thousands Of visionary contriv-
noes that have preceded it. If, on the
'ther hand, it be what its inventors and
'endors claim for it, real, substantial,
trustworthy agent, it can NO. be kept down
ong by prejudice. The railroad car made
hort work of the old stage coach when
he people came to understand its SUPER
minent advantages. The fremen can
ct force the Babcock out Of use. They
lay show its worthlessness, and kill it
f that way, if they care to risk such
ontest. 1t