New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-26

INSPECTOR ESTERBROOKS DEFENCE.
Inspector Esterbrook's frank talk with one OF
our reporters, reproduced in fridays lRiB-
uNE, will leave a painful impression on inc
nublic mind Here is one of the most lmp0r-
tant departments of the city government SO
meagrely manned and so systemat cally over
worked that it cannot afford the community
adequate protection against unsafe buildings
= If the examiners" says the Inspector, "had
"less as long as telegraph poles and we're as
"treless as steam engines they might be ex-
@pected to keep up with the work which comes
"regularly to the Bureau of Buildings, and
make outside examinations also" obviously
force of eighteen sub-iDspectors and zine
clerks cannot supervise the erection OF between
1000 and 5000 buildings, make 1,OOo special
inspections and examine coo buildings where
alterations are planned, and at the same time
have leisure during the year for rlgld scru-
tiny of the old buildings. Inspector Esterbrook
REQUIRES larger force. He cannot do the work
with the staff now under his control.
But even if the force were largely in
creased, and its efficiency were promoted by
competitive examinations for appointments
and 10y adequate pay, the law would stand IN
the Inspectors way. The CorOners jury III the
PARK Theatre investigation have censured him
for neglecting to condemn the timsy prosce-
mum wall. His defence is that under the pres
ent law he had no power to make the owner oil
the theatre tear down a wooden partition and
put fire. proof wall in Its place. II the struc-
ture had been rebuilt from the foundations, or
if extensive alterations had been planned, he
might have imposed these conditions, but he
did not have legal warrant for ordering
the reconstruction of the prOscenium wall after
an official Inspection. This Is not only valid
defence against the verdict Of censure recently
passed upon him by the Coroner's jury, but an
unanswerable argument in favor of the new
BUILDING law which be is anxious to have the
Legislature sanction. What is needed is law
which will strengthen the hands OF the Inspec-
tor and enable him not only to prevent the
erection of unsafe buildings, but to order pc
remptorily the reconstruction of such as are
already dangerous. 1t must be, moreover, as
he himself says, law which will make the
duties of builders and examiners so plain that
they cannot be msconstrued, and which will
reduce the discretionary power of the Bureau to
the lowest point. Discretionary power il
always dangerous temptation to pnblic
official With a thoroughly digested body of
presidents it could be dispensed with alto
gether.
Inspector Esterbrook cannot, therefore, be
held respOn sible for the safety of theatres
and other buildings until better Jaw is
enacted and he can employ larger and more
competent body of men to enforce 1t. Mean
while, the public must either go on III the old
haphaZard way, or learn to discriminate be-
tween buildings that are reasonably safe and
those that are positively dangerous. lnspec-
tor Esterbrook has ordered general inspec-
ton of the proscenium walls of theatres and
other places of amusement with a view to
directing the attention of the Legislature to the
defects of the present Building law. The re-
ports OF the examiners will serve another pur-
pose. They will show that in at least one
theatre in NewYork the auditorium and the
stage are distinct buildings that in few other
instances the proscenium wall is of brick from
the foundation cross wall to the roof; but that
in majority of cases the stage and the
auditorium are separated either by infammable
wooden partitions or by tlimsy screens of iron
or brick, with open spaces above and below.
A fire proof wall that does not run below the
| floor of the stage and above the level of the
prosct mum arch is a sham The scene-fOits,
carpenters and painters rooms, and similar
finder boxes are generally either above or
below an audience, and the intermediate sec
ton of fire proof material is of lutte use, if the
| flames which invariably originate on the stage
have free communication with the most in-
tlammable quarters of the house Now these
facts can be put before the public, even il it he
impossible to compel the owners OF theatres to
reconstruct them and if the examiners reports
contain additional information respecting
other conditions of safety, such as the number
of exits, the size of the lObDies and the fre-ex-
tnguishing apparatus, theatre-gOers can, II
they will, discriminate between safe and unsafe
places Of amusement. For permanent meas
ures of security the community must look to
the Legislature ard to the municipal govern
ment.