The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-24
THE WINDSOR HOTEL FIRE.
n Mystery as to Its Cause-May Have
Been Incendiary.
Letter in Philadelphia Press.

Ss'lu' SANe sOHle piauSlDil1ty 10 the theory
that the fire was nothing less than the most
horrible attempt at arson the city has
Known excepting, perhaps. in some of the
tenement houses upon the East Side.
Arson in tenement districts, however. has
been committed for no other purpose than
to get insurance. If it were the cause of
the destruction of the Windsor Hotel the
purpose was beyond any doubt robbery The
guests at the hotel were to a considerable
extent permanent ones. They were wealthy
people, and it has always been believed that
in no other hotel in New York was there
more jewelry or other precious things Kept
in the guests rooms than was the case at
the Windsor. 1t has been a favorite place
for the hotel thief, although very seldom
have robberies of that kind resulted in much
loss to the guests there.
The inconsistent things that can be testi-
fled to by direct evidence before the cor
oner's jury or any legislative investigating
COMMITTEES are, first of all. the conflicting
stories as to the discovery of the fire.
A waiter of good repute, speaking from
personal knowledge. says that guest. care
lessly throwing lighted match aside, there
by set fire to the lace curtain, and the waiter
was unable TO check the flames, which
spread with swiftness to all the drapery
so that in two or three moments the room
was on nre. ThereupOn he went TO the Of
flee, one floor below, to give the alarm.
But before this had happened Miss Helen
Gould's butler had observed smoke coming
from the roof of the building near the flag
staff, and 1t is reported by the department
that others saw smoke issuing from another
part or the roof some distance away from
the spot where the butler first discovered il.
There seems TO be no mistake about the
testimony OF the waiter and that of Miss
Gouds butler. and, unless there be error
the two statements can only be reconciled
on the assumption that by the Strangest and
most awful of condolences two fires broke
out in the hotel in places separated by
considerable distance ana were occaSiOned
by very different causes.
That one of which the waiter speaks was
careless accident; the other may have
been accidental, but there grows fear that
1t was intentional.
Guests in the hotel through their expert
ence confirm. so far may be, this appar-
emily conflicting testimony.
Those who were upon the upper floors dis
covered fire before anyone on the ONCE
floor had heard of 1t; and, in fact, the first
alarm brought to the office of fire upon the
upper floor was regarded as a false one. .
On the second floor guests in a moment
almost after the first alarm of fire found
the corridors full of smoke. III. B. Earring
ton, for instance, an old-time merchant OF
New York, who, with his family occupied
the lobby of the hotel looking at the St.
Patricks Society procession. He heard
someone say that the building was afire, and
went to his room to tell his daughter that it
might be well to pack the trunks so as TO
be ready to move out in case the alarm were
correct. Mr.. Harrington then stepped out
into the corridor. and in moment saw
that il was full of smoke and heard the
cracking of flame. He had no more than
time enough to urge his daughter TO come
with him at once and they escaped with
their lives and the clothing that they wore.
That Is also the experience of Mr.. Gunter.
the novelist These and other guests who
lower floors r.
suaded that the smoke and flame came from
fire that was near by. But on the floors
above them, until the two uppermoSt stories
were reached, there seemed to be for the
time being no fire. although the smell of
smoke was getting strong, so that, accord
ing to the best testimony now obtalnable,
the middle stories of the hotel were be-
tween two fires. one coming up from the
floor below another coming down from the
floors above. If strict inquiry proves that
this testimony is correct, then Ii Will be
established that two fires began in the hotel,
one near the roof and another on the tlrst
floor. within 4 few moments of one another.
Many witnesses can be called who Will
testify that they saw one of the strangest
spectacles ever witnessed at fire In this
city.
The fire was rising from the roof with an
intensity that almost suggested saturation
of the wood with oil or other infiammable
material. The expert firemen knew when
they saw those flames that the building was
doomed. But in addition to this from the
southeast corner window on the hrSt moor
flames were shooting. whereas above that
window until the sixth floor was reached
there was no sign of fire.
The only explanation that was possible in
the excitement that this spectacle caused
was that there might have been an air shaft
or elevator shaft at that corner 9I of OF the
came. This, however, did not explain why
fire did not appear at the windows of the
intermediate floors
III seems. too. as though fire broke out at
different places near the roof. This might
be explained upon the theory that what
was at first the greater fire had been started
between the ceiling and the roof had been
smoldering some time and at last had
broken out with great violence at different
places.
The testimony of some of the guests indi-
Gates that strange men were upon the upper
floors who seemed to be not at all alarmed
who must have been in the hotel at the
time the fire broke out tends to confirm the
men who had robbery in mind.
They chose an suspicious moment. The
ST Patrick's day procession was passing the
hotel just as robbers knew it would pass
AT about 3 o'clock All the servants i'm the
hotel were interested in that street display
Many of them were on the roof and at the
windows were many more. That was a mo-
ment when a felon would find 1t easy to
carry out his felony undetected.
If this surmise is correct it would explain
the swiftness with which the roof fire de-
veloped. but it does not explain the amaZ-
ing coincidence of a fire In the cafe upon
the first floor unless the guest who threw
himself one of the conspirators. 1t has not
yet been learned who that guest was per-
haps it may never be known.
1t Is necessary to learn the origin of this
fire before legislation or municipal ordi-
nances can be adopted, because. if the theory
of arson or of double outbreak OF fire
be correct, that does much to mitigate the
criticism of the Windsor Hotel as a fire
trap.
Some criticism has been made of Eldridge
II. Gerry because he, as owner of the hotel
did not put on more fire escapes. But the
department says that the law had been per-
fectly complied with. and 1t is doubtful
whether any larger number of fire escapes
would have caused the loss of life to be less
Besides. if the fire was set in several
places near the roof and stimulated by
oil or other inflammable material that would
explain the swiftness with which it spread
Then, too. the parade on the avenue in
front Of the hotel not only made a swift
alarming impossible, but made Ii difficult for
the firemen to get to the hotel until long
after the flames were beyond control. This
made combination of circumstances which
explains what appears TO be the swift de-
struction of this building.
The firemen say that II there mad been
only the fire III the cafe TO contend with
il would have been mastered, or at least
would have been hindered long enough for
every person in the hotel to get out safely.
The fire has caused much covert criti-
cism of several unmentioned hotels in this
city. They are bu ldings constructed. at
the time the Windsor was built or before.
and are therefore, so far as construction Is
concerned. similar to that building But
the fire department knows that In some OF
them fires have been discovered and have
been swiftly put out.
The one hotel which is. perhaps, more
in the minds OF the community when fires
are discussed than any other has been dis