Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-02
F|REPROOF WINDOWS
Wooden Sash and Frames in
Apartment Houses.
Mr.. HACKETT'S LETTER
COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONED AS
TO BUILDING REGULATIONS.
Former Assistant Secretary of the
Navy Calls Attention to Law
on the Subject.
Mr.. HACKETT'S LETTER

oA tAC SuUJSSI.
In letter to the District Commissioners
Mr.. Frank w. Hackett, former assistant
secretary of the navy. raises the question
as to whether or not the use of wooden
window panes In the construction of an
apartment house Is a violation of the act
of Congress providing that all buildings ex-
ceeding seventy-five feet in height must be
fire-proof or non-combustible, and con-
structed of such materials throughout as
the Commissioners may prescribe. The let
ter of Mr.. Hackett refers particularly to
the building of an apartment house near his
home. but the general question raised Is one
that the local legal authorities study
ing with considerable interest. The Com
missioners. in reply to Mr.. Hackett's letter.
advised him that the building regulations
permit the use Of wooden windows and
that in the particular case to which refer
ence is made, 1t would be impossible to
make changes after the permit was issued.
Mr.. Hackett Is informed, however, that
the question at issue will be given the most
careful consideration in the proposed re-
vision OF the building regulations.
The strong arguments Mr.. Hackett pre-
scented In his letter to the commissioners
are said to have occasioned their reference
to the consideration that will be given this
question in the revision of the building
regulations. Mr.. Hackett gives II as his
opinion that the act of Congress relating
to fireproof buildings gives the Commits
sioners authority to prohibit the use OF
wooden window frames
The first section of the act of Congress
of March 1, 1899, prohibits any apartment
house from being erected to a height of
more than five stories or exceeding sixty
feet above the sidewalk. II IT be a com
bustible or non-ireproof building, he
states. Here We have strictly drawn dis
tinction between fireproof buildings and
non-fireproof buildings. building or the
the latter class This excess is based upon
the condition that the building be made
fireproof
Material Not Specified.
you will observe that the statute does
not say that 1t shall be built of fireproof
material, but that it shall be freproof
building. This means, beyond question,
that the building must come as near being
absolutely ffreproof human skill can
make it. 1t further means that if, after
the date of the act, new methods are dis
covered by which a higher degree of safety
is obtained, those methods must be
adopted.
''There is no such thing as an absolutely
fireproof building. A fire like those in Chi
cago, Boston and Baltimore made short
work of buildings which at that time had
been considered fireproof. But there Is
standard of safety which Is universally
recognized as the best attainable, and this
standard Is what was meant by Congress
in enacting this law.
'tFor illustrations: 1t has been found
from long experience that wooden flooring
laid over concrete is substantially safe, as
not likely to communicate fire. Conse-
quently, such flooring is permissible in
buildings that are intended to rate as fire.
proof. In the same way, hardwood rail
the balusters of a stairway is permis-
sibe
But wooden window frames and
wooden sasheS deprive a building of its
freproof character unless. possibly, iron
shutters are provided. But these shut
tiers, by reason of carelessness may not
be closed, so 1 think it may be laid down
as a proposition that cannot be contro-
verified that wooden frames and sashes can
not be allowed.
Fire Communicated to Window Frames
IF you will consult the opinion Of the
court in Hickey agt Morrell, 1902 N Y,
454, you will be satisfied I think of the
correctness of this construction. The pro-
prietor of warehouse sent out circulars
representing that his building was fire.
proof on the exterior. 1t had wooden
window frames and sashes. There was
also a wooden cornice covered with tin
A building across the street got on fire.
and the fire was communicated to the
wooden window frames. By this means
the plaintiffs goods stored in the ware
house were burned. At the trial an archi-
tect testified that a building with wooden
window frames, and without outside shut
ters, was not considered fireproof. The
court sustained judgment for the plain
tiff, based upon the fact that the repre-
sentation of the circular was deceitful.
THE Office from which I write has metal
window frames. Recently some windows
were cut through the eastern wall Gamer
lean National Bank BuiIding), and these
windows have metal frames and sashes and
wire glass. Why the necessity of this pre-
caution? Simply to maintain the fireproof
character of the building.
Section 165 of the building regulations
speaks of 'freproof shutters or fireproof
glass (wire glass; and freproof sash and
frame OF kind recommended by the
board of fire underwriters
Necessary Precautions.
''Why this precaution? Why has the new
Times building been furnished throughout
with window frames OF this character? Is
not the plain answer that precaution is
thus taken to guard against fire from the
outside? Why make a difference between
high buildings in the business portion of
the city and apartment houses In residence
portions? Is not human life of more value
than property? 1t seems to me that the
requirement that Is enforced in these bust
ness buildings simply points out what was
meant by the term fireproof building
I'm an eight-story apartment house, par
tcularly on the side exposed to the western
sun. wooden window frames after a while
become infiammable. Suppose a fire occurs
in one of these apartments. Is there not
danger of the window frame getting on fire
and sending sparks over the neighborhood?
How can an apartment house, designed for
the shelter Of families, of women and chill
dren, be termed fireproof, when the means
of communicating fire through a wooden
window frame exists in various parts Of
the building, and on every story?
''An answer may be made that hitherto
1t has been the usage to permit such wooden
window frames, and that Congress in say
ing fireproof building must be considered
to have had in view a building where such
wooden frames were allowed. Such an an
swer has no foundation. Even if it had
been the usage to put wooden window
frames into buildings that heretofore were
called fireproof, It does not follow that Con-
gress meant such practice should continue
If matter of fact the retention c,f