New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-13
-- .-----~--|-- ------- -
4 TduNt\E LEGACY,

Those who are interested in making IT appear
that Tammany government of this city was the
host possiblc government have constantly said
th,, the commissioners Of Accounts were merely
making assertions about NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IN
vcors past. without proving anything. Their
contention in behalf OF the old order has been
that nmsy. oncslded testimony was accepted
rs conclusive and thus a lively verbal assault
w,s made f. look like n valid condemnation
pcrbaps they will have the nerve to sheer In
like manner at Superintendent Constables de-
scription Of the Building Department rs he found
H. hut something more than chrontery VIII DIG
required t. laugh him out of court.
TN. substance of Mr.. Constablcs statement
before commissioner Terry on Wednesday was
that the offices If his department when ne loon
control Of II were abominably filthy and Ill
arranged: that building plans were pied up
without order or system. apparently Tor lhe puI
nose Of producing confusion: that nearly All III"
records were more or less useless. ana that III
the branch of light and ventilation no records
were kept: that theatres had been licensed WIFI
ont examination. thar in the ease oil schoo's'
tenement, ana public buildings hrc-e>cape regu-
l,ilons had been ignored: that thousands OF
lnildug> put up under the law Of nv dlh not
.,,,uly with the law. five hundred such build
iogs having been found among six hundred re-
comfy examined: that In thousands Of cases
wood n,,r. were introduced under ranges ana
nr.rl,rcs and that in general. the law as re-
cards appliances for preventing fires was dr'"
letter: that employees Of the department spent
much Of their time in saloons. away from their
districts and duties; that some OF them were III
huslncss for themselves. using department sta
tloncrv in their private affairs. ana that the
chief Clerk refused 10 do any work whatever
Tho nrcscn, chief Clerk and Chief Inspector
rully corroboritcl the superintendent test-
mony
\oyy II Mr. Constable IL 10 be thrust aside as
4 witness II no account. II must be done on one
If two grounds either because he does not know
what he is talking about or because he Is an
unconsconablc liar How about the FIRST al
Tentative? Well. Mr.. Constable before his APP
Monument had had long and successful ex-
pcriencc in building operations. He was, IN
fact. an expert and was appointed FOR That rea-
son. Nobody has ever alleged that he was an
icnoramus folstcd into a place for which he
was presumptivcy untitled. Whether he pos
scssrs the highest administrative capacity or
NOT he certainly comprehends what he sees In
his own particular line Of business. As to the
matters referred to in his testimony he is
thoroughly intelligent witness So much must
he admitted Is he liar? We should not think
hichly Of the discretion Of any man who should
make that accusation against Mr.. Constable
lie has "A reputation worth defending. and is
quite competent to defend 1t.
Really we see no way Of escaping from the
conclusion that the Superintendent Of the Build
ing Department has told the truth about its
condition when he took office. And the worst
Of II is that his testimony relates not only to
durable defects OF administration. but also ana
chiefly 10 gross infractions OF law by which
health and life are continually endangered. The
knaycs who infested the department both In n
public and private capacity deliberately con-
triycd 10 permit all sorts Of defects to be built
into thousands Of structures. without regard to
law or common humanity. 1t Is an outrageous.
= hideols offence of which they are guilty and
they ought one and all to be In jail. instead OF
thriving on the proceeds Of cruelty and corrup-