The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-11-06
nAxennous nuu.nINGs.

If people will not take care of them selves, or look out for their own safety is 1t not the duty of those in authority to take the responsibility of watching over them? If men and women should get into a habit of crowdins on the tracks where trains are continually passing the authorities of the town would quickly remedy the evil and pro vide means for keeping the tracks clear pest house in which patients are confined with a contagious or tn- fectious disease is carefully guarded for the general good. and so of many other instances.
 why should not this care and super vision extend to buildings, especially those which are public or semi-pubiic in their characterf For example, day or two ago building in Memphis. occupied by the Continental Savings bank, besides q number of other tenants. collapsed without warning, to the imminent peril of all in it. Strange as 1t may seem, of the score or more of people In the building. most of whom were buried in the ruins. but one was killed. as we learn. If it had occurred in the night, when all the sleeping rooms were occupied. the loss of life would have been great, but the crash was about 10 o'clock in the forenoon. when there were but few persons in the building.
 Of course it will be said--and ad- mitted-that building may fall with out blame to any one. and such acci- dents do occur, but this was different ease. The Memphis Commercial-Ap- peal declares that casual observers had pronounced the building unsafe. It was no secret. It was cracked and 1t was undermined. It was a deathtrap. It should have been condemned and the people compelled to leave it."
 Assuming that this is correct, and we have no cause to doubt 1t, were not the city authorities grossly negligent? and are they not at least indirectly responsible for the damage and loss of life caused by the accident? It seems beyond doubt that they were. Certainly in that large city there were men per- fectly competent to inspect and decide on the condition of that building. If the city has no Inspector of Public Buildings 1t should have one. If 1t has and he allowed a building to stand in the condition this one was reported to be. without giving notice to the au- thoritites. he was criminally negligent. If he had reported its condition and the authorities took no action they were grossly negligent. to say the least of it.
 Any way we look at 1t there is no getting around the conclusion that some body failed to do their duty. There is no evading the conclusion that when a public building in a city be- comes "a death-trap," as The Conner cial-Appeal declares this one was, 1t is the duty of the authorities to con- demn it and prevent its use. Some times 1t is necessary for the constituted authorities to supercede private rights in the general interest and for the gen. eral good. If people will not take proper precautions for their own safety, or will not avoid unsafe buildings the city itself should take over the job of supervision and care-taking. This &C., cident in Memphis may provoke inves- tigation and insure better inspection for the future. but we doubt 1t some what. It is likely that things will go on in something of the same way till another and greater catastrophe brings such a demand as cannot be ignored after the damage Is done. Then it will be too late for some.