The Washington times., 1902-03-18
Objectionable Feature of Bill.


ing bill because 1t provided, no appeal
from the judgment of the proposed board
or commission on the question whether
any given building is or is not unsani-.
tary, and whether such unsanitary condi-
tion, If it has existed, has or has not been
corrected by repairs. The determination
of either of these questions involves tech
nical knowledge to so great an extent that
il might well be left to a board, the mem
bers Of which will presumably possess
such knowledge.
THE objections to doing so are, how
ever, SO strong that have deemed il best
to draft the proposed substitute bill in
such form as to throw beth Of these ques-
tions into court In any proceeding brought
under this measure. SO that they can be
determined according to the ordinary
rules of evidence. and subject to the
usual privileges as to appeal.
Il have omitted from the draft for
waTded herewith the provision in the
pending bill for demolition, without the
alternative privilege Of Improvement by
repairs, of unsanitary wooden buildings
having an assessed value for taxation of
not more than four hundred dollars From
sanitary standpoint there is no sufi-
cient ground for discriminating against
buildings solely because they are con-
structed of wood. Possible objections TO
such buildings because of their iDfiam-
inability should be met. il necessary. by
law directed toward their removal as
SUCH provisions for the accomplishment
of such purpose should not be allowed to
cumber the measure now under consider
alton.
No Provision for Inspector.
THE proposed substitute bill makes no
provision for the appointment Of an in
spector. The examination of buildings
to determine their sanitary condition is
likely TO require qualifications of various
sorts not ordinarily possessed in the high
est degree by any one person. II seems
better therefore, that the board charged
with the enforcement of this law should
be able to secure from the various depart
ments Of the District government,
through the Commissioners, assistance
adapted to the necessities in each partic-
ular occasion rather than be guided by
the general Investigations of a single in
spector.
| am unable to coincide with the opin-
ion expressed by the Assistant to the En-
gineer Commissioners relative to the sub
stitution Of the Inspector OF Plumbing for
the Inspector of Buildings on the pro-
posed commission. Defects in plumbing
which require the services of an expert
10 detect are not Of nearly SO much i'm
portance as are detects in lighting and |
ventilating. and questions relating to the |
feasibility of making substantial i'm |
all of which come properly |
within the Jurisdiction of the Inspector
,f Buildings. In any case, however, the |
services of the Inspector Of Plumbing will |
,e available for the guidance of the pro-
POSED board, under the law as now sub
nitted.
Il respectfully recommend that the
lending bill and the proposed substitute
herefor be submitted to the City Solici-
or for consideration and that IL the pro-
,osed substitute measure be reported by
lin as in proper form, or susceptible OF
icing reduced to proper form by modif
ations to be suggested by him, it be for
sarded to the Senate Committee on the
district of Columbia with a request that
t be substituted for the pending measure
nd enacted n