The morning times., 1895-07-08
Commissioners Slow in Requir-
ing Fire Escapes to Be Put Up.
CRITICISM IN SOME QUARTERS
Ten Notices Have Been Served Upon
Property Owners and Only Three
Matter-30O Buildings Are In Need
of Escapes for Safety

There is considerable discussion con-
cerning the enforcement of the law passed
at the last session OF Congress requiring
fire escapes to be placed ON "a certain
class of buildings in the city.
The District had a fire escape law for
a number of years that it could not utilize.
There was no authority for the enforcement
| of penalty, and those who were noti-
fled 10 erect the appliances complied at
their leisure or not at all. Some laughed
at the Officers who insisted on the app,i-
cation OF the penalty, and that ended the
matter.
These were the reasons assigned by the
District Commissioners and the building
inspector when the absence OF fire escapes
was discussed, and with this state of
affairs as a basis an appeal was made
! to Congress for an amendment to the law
placing it within the power of the Dis
trIct authorities to compel property low ners
to provide the equipment, and Congress
! passed the amendment
SOME CRITICISM NOW
| II was approved on the second of March
and beCau.e operative thirty days later
| The criticism now is that there is no
more being done in the matter since the
late enactment than before Three months
have elapsed without results, il is said,
/ and property owners have seemingly the
! same immunity as formerly.
/ II has been stated To The Times that but
| ten persons have been notified TO put up
! fire escapes since the second OF A April
! Among these are said TO be the Portland
/ Flats, Wizards, the owen House, the Ban
! croft, the Lawrence, the odd Fellows
/ Hall on Seventh street, and Mrs. Maines, on
! the corner of Eighth street and Pennsyl
vania avenue southeast. Three OF those
named have taken steps for the erection of
! the escapes, but so far as known nobody
! else has paid any attention to the notices
Building Inspector Brady was asked
! about the matter and said, in substance,
! that his office was giving the subject
! every attention possible with the limited
! force at his command. He said further that
1 III his Judgment there would he 10 trouble
! III enforcing the regulation, and so far Is
he is concerned there Will be no delay.
! Property owners, he said, have sixty days
! in which To comply.
IL some cases the time has expired, and
! in all cases there has been shown DISPOSE
/ ton TO meet the requirements.
Is THERE A LOOPHOLE?
The question has arisen whether or not
| there is q loophole OF escape under the
amended law ,asthe re was underth the original
/ statute This was suggested as the reason
for the delay III having the provision put
| into effect
1t was believed by some who discussed
the subject that in three months notice could
| be served upon each OF the 800 buildings
in the District that are obliged under
the regulation to equip with the escapes,
even with the delivery of but five or
six per day, and it was thought that unless
there is some obstacle in the way of Ell
fOTCenput this would be done
| Attorney s T Thomas was asked il
! there was any ambiguity about the law
that rendered it under any condition in
operative, either In the wording OF the
| statute or in the matter of serving the
! notice. He replied that he had read the
law and knew of nothing that stood in
the way of its application.
UNLESS there is some specific pro-
/ vision as to FORM" lie said, any notice
is sufficient. l know of no such pro-
vision, and am satisfied that the law can
and viii be made operative"