New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-05
RESPONSIBILITY OF BUILDERS.

The alarming number Of new buildings in this
city which have fallen in the last few years
indicates that the provision OF safeguards
against accident has not kept pace with the
extension OF building risks The great steel
structures md the vast plants Of the present day
contain possibilities Of danger not dreamed Oh
twenty. or even ten. years ago. rams 1or THESE
rev buildings must provide for safety, not only
under normal conditions. but alsO0n case or an
accident. which in old times would have caused
little harm but which in tho new surroundings
may bring widespread devastation.
II is impossible yet with accuracy TO deter
mne what caused the collapse of the new
Brown soap factory. The architect declares
tl.a, his plans were perfect. The contractors
saw their ironwork was good and their mortar
excellent The constructors Of the tanks con-
slider themselves in no wise TO blame because
the tanks broke down the building which was
designed 10 hold them. OF course these claims
may be only the natural attempts of the guilty
to escape responsibility. One or all or the
workers may have been criminally indifferent
To human life and anxious only to get pay for
cheap work. But II Is not needful TO assume
this attitude of mind toward them yet. IL
the Investigation should succeed in finding any
obvious neglect Of duty officials should be
prompt TO punish il. and 1t should not be for
gotten that there have been far too many build
Ing accidents for which nobody has been held
RESPONSIBLE But for the present leaving all
questions of individual blame aside for future
determination there remains ample evidence
that that special sense for possibilities OF dan
ger imperatively necessary when trifing ac-
cidepts may have frghtful consequences was
not exercised The weight Of opinion seems
To favor the theory that bullying tanks exerted
n lateral pressure on the wall which was not
meant 10 resist any such force. Assuming that
the wall was well built and that the floor cal
culatcd 10 bear the weight Of the immense tanks
did not give way under them, 1t may be ar
oued that architect and builder did their full
duty On the other side. assuming that the
tanks were properly constructed to hold the
water nut in them, il may be said that their
builder did his full duty. But Just at this point
WAS ,he failure to realize special danger that
made an awful n,ockery Of whatever care was
exercised. II Is likely enough that tank such
MS those in the factory might safely have been
placed on the ground. 1t may have been reason
cbly strong. and If It had bulged on the ground
or even burst it could have done little harm.
But when put at the top Of a fvc-story building
that harmless ecceDtricity OF changing shape
became q force of destruction.
1t is said that the tanks were three inches
nearer the wall than fhe plans allowed. II that
Is true We have good proof Of the fatal lack of
insight TO the dull mind three inches or six
inches made no difference. The tanks would
hold water or II any proved to be weak they
could be replaced. and the building was war
ranted TO carry the weight But true con-
etructivc Imagination, alive 10 the situation,
would have taken into account Rll the posi-
bIlities on every side and fOresecn what every
break or bulge might mean, and foreseen II not
as an isolated fact, but as dependent element
In q vast chain Of possibilities. For mason
to drop brick from the top OF garden wall
IL one thing for him TO drop II from Broad
way skyscraper is something entirely different