Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-17
Bull QfRS' LICENSE
Some Misllode ding Of
Proposed Measure.
-
WHAT THE BILL COVERS
FOR BETTER CONSTRUCTION
WORK IN DISTRICT.
President Prescott of the Master Build
ers' Association Talks Of
Proposed Benefit.
WHAT THE BILL COVERS
BETTER CONSTRUCTION
WORK IN DISTRICT.

JudSlHS from the recent DISCUSSIONS
among citizens of the proposed bill provid-
ing for the examination and licensing of
master builders In the District of Columbia
there seems to be some misunderstanding
as to the exact provisions of the bill pend
ing before Congress. The impression seems
| to be that in the examination it is proposed
that applicants for licenses shall be able to
! answer a lot of theoretical and technical
| questions, which in reality are included in
| the equipment of an architect rather than
| a builder
| The proposed bill authorizes the Commits
| sloners to appoint master builders exam
lnlng board of five members, composed of
| two architects in active practice, two mas
| ter builders, either licensed or competent to
| be licensed, and the inspector of buildings
! or one Of his assistants. The duty of this
| board will be to examine all applicants FOR
| licenses as master builders and report to
| the Commissioners who, if satisfied from
| the report that the applicant is a fit person
| to engage in the business of building con-
| struetion, shall issue a license to the appii-
can't. 1t is specifically stated that the eX-
aminations shall be conducted in all cases
| under such rules and regulations as the
Commissioners shall from time 10 time pre-
| scribe
Each applicant will be required to pay to
the examining board an examination fee of
$40. and before the issuance of a license
4 the applicant snail be. required 10 ME Il
bond in an amount not to exceed 5000
conditioned upon the faithful performance
of all work in compliance with the build
ing regulations, and the proper performance
of all construction and reconstruction of
buildings. and that the District shall not
be liable for any damage consequent upon
the acts of the licensee. The annual Ii
cense fee Is placed at $25 year. This
merely continues the present law as to the
license fee.
The proposed bill makes it unlawful for
any person to engage in the construction or
reconstruction of any building or founda-
lions, or to engage in the making of re-
pairs (which will in any way change any
part of the construction or foundation OF
| any building, unless he IS licensed as pro-
vided in the act, or unless he is an en-
ploye of a licensed master builder under
the master builders personal supervision.
The bill also makes 1t an offense for any
person to do any construction or recon-
struction work. All work shall be done
upon permits issued by the Commissioners,
excepting the work done ON public buildings
in charge of officers of the United States.
Provisions for Violations.
For violatidns3of the provisions of the act
a penalty of not less than $40 nor more
than $50 is prescribed, and in default OF
payment the offender shall be confined in
the workhouse for not exceeding three
months For continual violation of the act
or the requirements of the District building
regula tons, the license of the builder may
be revoked by the Commissioners upon the
recommendation of majority of the men,
bers of the examining boaSda-
49,. Views. Of Mr.. Prescott.
In an interview with Mr.. Samuel ]. Pres
colt, president of the Master Builders AS
ISOLATION of the District of Columbia, in
corporated, inj regard to- the proposed bill
;n;v nintr Of Sfnr
builders examining board of the District
of Columbia he said:
This proposed bill has recently brought
forth considerable discussion, principally on
account of the misnterpretation of its pur-
poses
Among the principal objections which
have been raised are that if this bill
should become a law 1t would cause a mo-
nopoly in the building industry of Washing
ton, that 1t would drive the small builders
and jobbers out of business, and prevent
owners from constructing their own build
ings.
I'm answer to the first objection I would
refer to section 2. which expressly sets
forth that it shall be the duty of said board
to examine all applicants for license as
master builders. IAN applicant may have
been a master builder, master bricklayer
or any other master mechanic or he may
never have followed any Of the vocations
| pertaining to the building industry, but if
| he has the proper knowledge of building
Commissioners to issue a license to this
applicant, and as there many superin-
| tendents and -foremen of construction who
are entirely competent to pass the exam
| ination, or If stranger, coming, for in
stance, from some other part of the coun-
try, should apply for an examination and be
| found qualified he is much entitled to
! a license to practice the profession of a
| master builder as any one in this city
| and under such conditions how Is 1t posi-
| BILE to form a so-caled monopoly? But IL
| a monopoly should, by any means, be form
ed how long would 1t stand under such
| conditions?
IN answer to the second objection 1
would say that any person who desires to
| follow the vocation of building construct
| or should be ready and willing to acquaint
himself sufficiently with the common prin-
| ciples of building construction to enable
him to pass an examination for the voca-
ton which he is about to pursue. and if
he is not willing to do this, then certainly
| the construction of building should not
| be intrusted to the care of a person who
| has so little regard for his profession.
As to the Jobber.
/ sAs to the jobber, this bill does not ap-
ply, as it expressly refers to only con-
structing and reconstructing of buildings
and their foundations. and does not apply.
| in any way, to minor repairs, unless they
affect the general construction of the build
| ing, and any person desiring to repair or
| construct FENCES, SHcUS, pOfCneS or any
/ minor repairs In or about any buildings
| may do so, after securing the necessary
| permit; exactiyIi the same as has been
done inathe past; without any form of ex-
! animation sordBeAd. - ~
I'm answer tothe third objection would
i say that thereil Is nothing in this bill to
/ prevent any owner from employing SUI
/ perintendeit nWho has been examined and
/ received his 1fe1nse, to take charge of the
| work fof him, affd as 4 have already stated,
| there are manP such persons who are SUI
| perintending ,nw1efk today that are COM
petent to qualify. Thus it cannot work a
hardship to ANY owner but will simply
| require him TO Keep a competent man in
charge of tire Work. for his own benefit
| and protectioh on
! OBJECTIONS qiffEe also been made to the
j amount of beHd Switch may be required for
| the faithful performance of all work in
| compliance watAl the building regulations.
| 1t stipulatesT that the bond shall not ex-
/ coed 5000 Tfiiasi no exact amount has been
/ fixed. but ii 4k-left to the discretion of the
| Commissioned to place this bond at 500, If
/ they so choose; any other amount not
/ exceeding $1,000, as the case may require.
/ ON regard tosthe annual license of S25. I
| would say that this has been a law since
1 July l. 1902, and that section of the pro-
/ posed bill only refers to this previous law