New-York tribune., 1901-07-07
$40. 1917 245 "a Total ....

Total $1,000. $40 l97 245 "a Total ......s17s s35 75T 81
The trial OF Fire Commissioner John ]. Scan
nell and his friend William L. Marks. charged
with conspiracy in connection with furnishing
supplies to the city is expected by the insurance
men OF this city to throw considerable light on
the tremendous FIRE losses in Manhattan and The
a-on~ IA the last three years as compared with
those Of former years. The official figures,
compiled by the Committee on Fire Patrol Of the
New York Board OF Fire Underwriters. furnish
damaging Indictment OF the entire Fire Depart
Inent administration. The insurance people will
suspend judgment until Mr. Scanner and Mr..
Marks tell their story the stand. Meantime
there Is mentally charged against the Tammany-
lied Fire Department more than 81 600 600, that
figure representing the increase in losses on
buildings and contents in the last three years
under Scauneu and Fire Chief Croker when
comparison is made with the losses for 1895.
1896 and 1897 under Commissioners Sheffield
and Sturgis and Fire Chief Hugh Bonner.
The 1901 report OF the Committee on Fire Pa
troll is now in the hands Of the printer and the
exact figures for the losses In the year 1900
not known to any one save f.. s Terhune. secre.
tary of the board. who REFUSES information of
any kind concerning them. It was learned. how
ever. that the losses for 1900 are less than for
1899 It Is said they are less by 100000 or
100000
Were the Marks supplies rotten? Has the Fire
Department deteriorated under SCannell and
Croker? If not why do the losses for the last
three years exceed those of the previous three
years by more than 81 500, 600? These are the
questions asked by many of the underwriters
whose interests In this city have suffered excess
sively in the last three years. In fact. they have
suffered to such extent that all the fire COM
panies on their business In this city have lost
money. and lots of IT,
The insurance companies doing business In
this city have had occasional bad" year. but
they say they have never had before three bad
years together like 1898 1899 and 1900 The
average loss for twenty-six years prior to 1898
was in round numbers. three and third mill
ions n year on buildings and contents. For the
last three years II is nearly $4,000 600 year or
about double the old average, to which the un-
derwriters had become somewhat accustomed.
Fire Chief Croker was quoted not long ago as
saying that the Police Department in part
responsible for the great increase in losses. be
cause many of the patrolmen after II o'clock
at night absented themselves from post and did
not act promptly in turning in alarms. Many
of the underwriters believe that this has much
to do with the increase In the number of fires
Whether 1t is this or whether there is general
deterioration of the efficiency of the Fire De-
partinent unuer ocaIheH anu ms man Marks
and Fire Chief Croker. that results in appalling
increases in losses is something every insurance
official wants to know at once.
Secretary Terhune SAYS he cannot see where
the Fire Department Is to blame. He says that
the year 1880 made disastrous by the Wind
sor Hotel and the Campbell wallpaper factory
fires the losses at these fires alone aggregating
upward OF 81 ,3S4 900 When the losses ac-
count OF these two fires are deducted. although
there Is particular reason why they should
be- the losses still foot up nearly to $600O00O
for 1S99 more than $2,aO0OOO above the
average.