New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-23

YOU permit an inferior construction, such as you
have characterized the Hayes system to be. when 1t
was question of life and death perhaps-why did
you not require it to be ripped out where IT had
been put in and finished with your tile system
A.-Perhaps we ought TO have.
Q.-Why did you not then? A.-Because there
HowIand and D. 'eo" Nils. that It was O charity
that was made to our Board and they vent on to
cheap it could be. AS it was a charity.
pie, paying Is cents night for room? A.-That
Is not fire trap.
ST 81, !. a i no! fire t aSo A sir SIR
d c Of sSs
ABa as s0oG as the law reqHred s
Q-Then If it was not as good as the , law re-
S6nd Dna MT Mills
full men-by their pathetic appeals 70 you; move
ri The eChairman-You say they did? A-They did.
Notwithstanding that this construction is not
up to the requirements of the law? A-That Is
Mir Moss-And you mean to say that you were
led to do that which was contrary to your duty
as a public officer simply because of the pathetic
appeals of rich men, who did not want to lose o
lief in cases like that.
Q-Does it? Ayes. sir.
along? A.-Because YOU relieve men where the
good Judgment OF the Board feels that they are
Q-Then It is a question of judgment again? A
o.-And any consideration like friendship or
pathetic appeal any moving consideration. Is a
hnE to- %"n se nasmced by endshp the
Q.EWere You Influenced by friendship in that
case? Am what case?
MAS , that m b Y Bnar tnen the
resentation that they made. Here was this work;
IT would be a matter of perhaps don't Know.
I hone that the new Binding Code Commission will
make provision for all these systems, hope ,d IT
that very system and for every other system
WANTS ALL SYSTEMS LET IN.
Q-Why did you object to this. If you hope this
now? A-Because now. the standard set up by
law the law in nreproodng in 1892 covered all that
was then known. These systems have come up
since
Q-You say you passed them In some cases and
not in others. and now you say you are willing to
have them all come In. What has changed your
mind Fer 6 example q, have never failed rs to
man could build non-fireproofng Anything Is
Q-Do you want to let the Rapp system in? A
Q.-You have already condemned 1t in the case
Of the Mills Hotel and the Jones Building? A
Dwell in the case OF the Jones building? Alt
was I'm there and there was a lis pendens on the
building and the progress OF the work was ab-
With an injunction on the building il that is not
putting the building in disgrace don't know
Q.-Now. were those lis pendens that were put
on what put the building in disgrace or was II
the system contrary to law.
Q.-1t was the system! A-lne iact that tney
had put in the system contrary TO law and with
out permission. and when the Building Department
tried TO stop them they went on and tried to get
Odd you know that the Building Department
put ON thirty forty lis pendens on different pieces
Of property where the Rapp system was put in?
Al DID not ySu k e%sT h ea ha,Y Al don't think
oNWhat was 1t that induced the Building De.
eSery one Of those lis pendsns7 Al don't know
Ono proceedings In court? Al cannot an
swer that ,, .. a., ,
have no more means OF knowing about that than
you have sir. =, A., ,. $1,000, -,
Mr. Mills and Mr. Rowland. and by your sympa-
thies TO relieve them from financial burden. why
didn't you go so far TO allow them TO carry out
save the owners FIVE or six thousand dollars? A.
Because had they asked relief OF the Hayes n
Tostevn construction OF No: Mills Hotel, they
eot II in and they were told to go and sin no more
| practically We will let you of from this and
don't put II In again.
NO NEED TO FEAR FIRE.
Q.-What about the poor people who may have
TO carry the penalty OF that sin In some catastrophe
that may grow out OF that? A.-No fear OF that
sir. There will be none there
OF you are that the Rapp system and the
Hayes Tostevin system are right and safe, why
| did you go against them? A.-Because. In my
Judgment they are not as good as the letter OF The
/ existing law requires. Where man has put In
something. even though he has no right to-even
tected him In that he said in those proceedings he
| would never take the view that the Jones build
ing--that the owner-would be forced to take out
| those floors that would answer the purpose;
| Mr. Fallows-You permitted II there In the Jones
o.-But you permitted 1t theref Ayes. sir