New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-22
TIE PIX THEA TIE F[RE.

The Park Theatre fire has been maze tne
subject of the usual Investigations. The Fire
Marshal has lot succeeded i'll reaching deli
mite conclusion respecting the origin OF the iire.
The Coroner's Jury has rendered one OF those
sweeping vcrdicts which read so well in PRINT but
are of so little real service TO the public. The
Inspector of the Buildings Bureau and the Fire
Commissioners" they say, are hereby censured
:" for neglect Of duty in not cOndemnlng the
@proscenium walls Of the theatre, which were a
Z" mere wooden partition, and shout d have been
A" of bricR or of some re-prOOf material land We
t. further recommend an immediate inspection
Z" of all other places of public amusement IN
this respect" Tie fundamental principles oI
@CrowneI's quest law" are detnlteneSs ana
responsibility. Let the two questions " " hat
was the main cause?" aud "WhO was respon-
sible for it ?" be explicitly answered, and the
iurv retire from the case with the c0nSOllng re-
Election that if the public be inadcquately pio-
tected in the future, it will not be for lack OF
warning. In the present case, dehnlteness mas
heen secured ut the expense of thorOughness.
The construction of the Park Theatre was
f,urltv in many respects but stress isl laid upon
single defect. the responsibility for that de-
feet. and, consequently, for the loss OF lie
c,used by the Iapidity Of the cOnfagratlon, is
saddled upon the Fire Commissioners and the
Inspector Of the Bureau Of Buildings. The
Fire Commissioners will not be seriously
affected by this sweeping censure. The lnspec-
for haupens to be an exceedingly efficient and
conscientious official, who deserves credit rather
than censure for the management OF the bureau
under the present defective laws.
The logical processes of the Coroners jury
may he easily followed in this case. The pro-
scenum walls, Icing of inilammable material,
had offered light resistance to the progress
OF the flames. If they had been fre-praOf and
had rested on substantial cross-wall, or IT
they had been constructed OF brick rather than
wood and plaster, the flames would not have
spread almost instantaneOusly from stage to au-
ditorium and the theatre would not have been
the scene of an unmanaSeable bonfire. The
Bureau of Buildings had inspected tie theatre
two years ago and had not condemned it as I'M
safe on account OF these filmsy prOscenium
walls. Consequently, in the opinion of the jury,
the head OF the Bureau mad neglected his duty,
and the Fire Commissioners, exercising a nom
inal supervision of the business of that bureau,
had neglected theirs in retaining him in Office.
Finally, as means OF preventing similar ca
tastrophe, the jury urgently recommended an
immediate inspection Of all other places of pub
lie amusement in this respect-that is to say,
with reference TO the construction of pro-
scenum walls.
Now what reply can those who are censured
by the Coroner's jury make to these sweeping
censures9 The Fire Commissioners can con-
font themselves with disclaimlng responsibility
for a l.nreau which does not really belong in
their department, although they have a nominal
contro over it, The Inspector will plead INSULT
Gent force and inadequate legislation. He Will
ask how he can be expected to inspect properly
all the buildings in city of l.25O,00 inhabi-
tants. when he has to depend upon the services
of only eighteen su6-inspectors and nine clerks.
Manifestly, it is o force that Is utterly made
ouatc for the work that is expected of it. In
London every parish has its own building in
SPEC or and he is empowered to employ a large
body of assistants, who are appointed by the
Parish Board of Governors after competitive
examination. The Inspector and his assistants
are responsible for the construction OF new and
tho safety Of old buildings in limited area.
They are not overwOrked they are fairly paid;
and they have a practical acquaintance with
the principles of architecture and tho pro Visions
of the law. They afford the public ample Sc
curty against dangerous structures Sys-
tematic supervision of old and new buildings in
NewYoIk Is impossible 40 long us an made
quate force of sub inspectors is employed. The
Inspector does what be with the force Or
ganized as 1t is, but he cannot do the work as
thoroughly IA it is done in London, Paris or
Berlin.
The Inspector may make another plea. In
foreign capitals the statutes in relation to the
erection OF buildings have been devised by arch-
tects OF the highest standing. The laws arc
thorough and can be easily enforced. Tho
courts are seldom called uDon to intarnrA.