, 1881-12-25


firesides. pleasant memories, a fat goose, alle
=. OH earth peace anu goodwill to 1nen ]" :<s=
I .t5fs. 'ts---~.-A-A-.s..A-&.---.a
i =::.ENFoRcE THE: FIRE oRnIHAN /.
/ The new edition If the Revised Ordinances,
/ BIZ Jameson, had hardly: been published be-
/ fore a vital defect Intentionally made i,
him in the bnld,ng. law was discovered
The penalty provided for violation If the fire
limits ordinai,ce was found to be - fine :ol
not less than $40 nor exccetlng 500 for eacl
aud every offense." That is to say, a persor
| lnav erect a barn or house Of ptne IN vfola
! ton Of tina fire ordinance. pay his fine. of Slt
If brought before 4 Justice 0f tile Peace
| Kaufulann; for example prt,ceed with his
unlawful aud dangerous act without further
,hlndrance.= It is evident that these otfenses
| can only be reached and controlled by sumo
t continuous penalty. To this end the Coun.
| Gil Committee oil Fire and Water reported
the following substitute tor the defective or
dfnance: : III :s:@: III: :.,..,:
Any person who shall Violate any Of the prnvts-
ions Of this article or coin.nat any onense there.
under, where no other penalty Is proy,ded, shall
be subject to hue Of not less tim $10 nor.;cx-
! ceediny <2lO for each and every such Gtenac Ur
violation, and tn further tine or penalty OF so
for cnch and every day thereafter such o6ense tr
| violation continues Any builder or contractor
J whp shall construct, and any nrrhifect having
| charge Of same who shall permit to oe con-
sruc1cd, any building In violation nf this article,
shai! be liable IL the penalties provided and i'm
posed by this section.s ~: " =. - : -: =:
! There is no doubt that, With vigilant In
spection ana strict enforcement Of the, PEN
atty of $50 day for persistent violation of
the fire ordinance, the various provisions of
the building and fire laws could be protected.
II these provisions are to be enforced ut all.
there Is certainly no objection to the continu-
Gus penalty after conviction and refusal to
submit to the law. :: II they are not to be en-
forced, then the entire ordinance may as well
be repealed and all e1fOrt abandoned to save
the city fronl.belng again consumed. Still, the
new ordinance received only eighteen votes
in the Council, or one less than the majority
necessary to its passage. Aid. Shorey was
one Of several abssntees, and would probably
have voted for the ordinance had he been
present, so that it Is possible another effort.
to pass it may be successful, anu certainly
should not go untried. So r.: i.
: But how can the Aldermen who voted
against this proposed ordinance Justify their
action? sThey were Burke Of the Fifth Ward,
Of the Seventh, Lawler and Purcell of the
closely-built Eighth, Nelson Of the closely
built Tenth, Stauber and 1lirsch Of the Four
teentll, Meyer of the dangerous Fifteenth,
Imhof and Meier of the Sixteenth, and Muir
pily and Barrett, of the closely-bullt Seven
teenth. In OTHER words, the representatives
Of the districts which are most iii need sof
Observation-Disclosures, the southwestern
districts, Milwaukee avenue, and that por-
ti0n OF the North Side largely built Ut: frame
before the passage Of the fire ordinance7are
the very ONES who blindiy or viciousl, vottd
against the only guarantee Of future, protec-
ton These Aldermen are apparently under
the impression that their. constituents are OPP
posed TO security against firs: aud in favor of
by }'Fnirg down Chicago. again. We venture /
the assertion t1iat this is not true of amy ons
OF The thousands OF small housp-Qwners. 1Iy-
ing i'll these districts, and it is the prop
erty interests which the members, Of q
City Council properly represent, since it Is
the property. which pays the taxes to main
taiu the City Government II it BE- adnlit.ed
that handful Of selfish reai-estaiu spectl-
la.ors, and few hundred Communists, who
41aE utI lASA WIZ HtE- N<ktE4 UA tIaAA Atf!lll-
selves. desire for selfish or tt,iscliiev0us pur-
poses Ia expose Chicago To the danger Ut all
other destruction BY lire, it i tie sworn duty
Of Aldermen from all sections nj, tile city to |
assist III the enforcement Of the laws, not to |
hamper aiul elnbarrass tle execu. .iye branch |
Of the City Government in that work: Every
Alderman who voted against, correcting The
fire ordinance which Jameson spoiled, |
continued violation Of the bu,ld- /
Ing ordinance could be punished by con- |
tinu0us penalty, knew that he was prac-
lically voting n license and encouragement /
Tor the violation Of the. ordinance, and was.
Of being dereIict III his duty, with
put regard to the particular: ward which he t
represents. II, the >incendiary elenlent in
he Council is not strong enough 10 repeal
he iie ordinance, it ought not to be per
nitted to nultify tie enforcement thereof.
"