The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-27
Five to Two" Again.

We trust that many Of our citizens read
carefully the full report in yesterdays PRESS
of the hearing by the Board Of Aldermen on
the petition of two firms in this city which
sell oil to be allowed TO employ private inspec-
tors. They urged their cause by counsel; but
the questioning 10 which they we're subject
ed, together with the evidence given by the
official inspector appointed by the city, de-
veloped condition Of things which is of in
terest and serious importance, not only to the
other gentlemen who are engaged in that
business more or less extensively, but to ev-
cry householder using oil and every proper
ty holder whose possessions are liable to be
swept away in fire caused by the ignition
of unsafe oil.
The dangers arising from the use of coal
oil of inferior quality are public dangers.
1t is impracticable for individuals using oil
to apply the tests which deternine Its safety
for themselves; but 6he State recognizing
the right of the roople to be protected, and
not imperillee, in the using of an article Of
prime necessity has required that in all
places OF more than two thousand inhabi-
tants 1ne or more persons to be inspectors
OF petroleum, coal oil and burning fluid
shall be appointed. 1t is provided that they
shall be sworn to faithful performance of
duty, and the manner of testing the oil is
carefully prescribed, a standard of safety ia
fixed and the inspectors are required to
mark every barrel in way to show that it
has been properly inspected. Every manu-
facturer of oil is requird to have bis product
inspected and branded by the sworn -inspec-
tors, and whoever manufactures or sells oil
not so inspected and marked is liable to
heavy fine.
1t appeared that one of the firms which
petitioned to have private inspector, a firm
selling $1,000 barrels year, acknowledged
that from April until November last year it
did not employ the public inspector appoint
ed by the city, that the private inspector
employed by the firm was not sworn, that
he did not brand their barrels of oil as re-
quired by law, and that he did not subject
their oil to the tests required by the statute.
The oil sold by this firm whenever anv
of it was tested by the official inspector
was found to vary several degrees from the
quality given by the private inspector.
There is another fact that is noteworthy
In this connection. Three times last wear
the attempt was made to get the Aldermen
to sanction the appointment of private in
spectors for this and one or two other firms,
the Mayor, on at least one of these occa-
sions, making nominations of inspectors for
the special service of these firms. But eyery
attempt was defeated. Nevertheless it was
not until November that the official inspec-
tor was allowed to test their oil, and then
reluctantly land upon special contract as to
fees,giving this firm an advantage over other
sellers of oil in this particular. The inspec-
tor testified that he had great difficulty In
getting the firm to bring. its oil up to the
standards.
Last year there were some of the Demo.
cratic Aldermen who could not be persuaded
to consent 10 this scheme of private inspec-
ton. They felt that their constituents es-
peclally needed protection in this matter and
Insisted that there should be no other than
the wel[qualifed and trustworthy Inspector
already employed, placing all dealers on
an equality. But this year different state
of things was developed. Even after the
surprising admissions concerning the way
of doing business last year made by one of
the firms which was again before the board
seeking to avoid the necessity of employing
the efficient and experienced inspector whose
work is satisfactory to other dealers in oil,
and in spite of the reaso nable protests of the
twenty or thirty other dealerr, the vote when
1t was taken divided on party lines. The
five Republicans voted yes on the motion
that the petitioners have leave to withdraw,
and the two Democratic Aldermen voted no.
1t was five to two again, and it is surpris-
ing that the Argus and Advertiser are not in
sisting that the result is partisan outrage,
the two Democrats acting intelligently and
conscientously according to the weight of
evidence, while the other five we're inspired
only by mean and unworthy motives, having
already determined to embarrass and Cypress
an enterprislng firm honestly and efficiently
serving the public welfare.