The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1905-01-10
BILL To LICENSE.
BUILDERS ST|RS
HORNETS NEST.
Many ComplaintsAgalnst
1t Reach the Com
mlSslonerS.
FOR AND AGAINST LAW
Inspector of Buildings Gives
Reasons For It's
Passage.
FOR AND AGAINST LAW

Opposition to the proposed master
builders examining board is still active.
When the District Commissioners an
swered the protests which were made
by various small builders and contrae-
tors at the time the plan was first made
public they imagined they had sileneed
all opposition, but complaints are still
being received at the District Building,
and The Times is also in receipt of nu-
merous communications charging the
proposed law with being in the inter-
ests Of monopoly.
Senate bill GAS was drawn by the mas
ter builders themselves, introduced by
Senator Gallinger on January 4, re-
ferred to the Committee on the District
Of Columbia. and approved by the Dis
trict Commissioners.
Terms of the Bill.
The bill authorizes the Commissioners
Of the District to appoint a master
builders examining board, to consist of
two architects, two master builders, and
the Inspector of Buildings of the Dis
trict or one of his assistants.
The power Of examining all applicants
for licenses as master builders is to be
given this board, the expenses of which
are to be paid by collecting fee of $40
from each applicant, the members of the
board serving without salary.
The bill requires every licensed builder
to file bond not to exceed $500 for the
faithful performance of all work and to
pay an annual fee of SIS.
Cannot Make Repairs.
Unlicensed persons are prohibited by
The bill from making repairs or doing
construction work in the District, and
owners, agents, or occupants of build
lngs may not knowingly employ un--
licensed persons for this work.
Violations Of the law are TO be pun
lshable by fines of from $40 TO $50 or
imprisonment of NOT more than three
months.
The District authorities are known
to be in favor Of the proposed bill.
Building Inspector Ashford has asked
for the establishment Of such a board
In his annual report to the Engineer
Commissioner.
When complaints were first received
regarding the bill the District Commits
sioners granted a hearing on the mat
ter to those supporting the plan. In
answer to the arguments that the
board would be controlled by the two
master builders and the two architects
and would result in monopoly and the
limitation of competition, it was urged
that the safety Of the public required
all builders to be competent, that such
board was necessary to secure this
essential, and that members of other
occupations and professions are IL
censed, such as plumbers and phySi-
clans.
Inspector Favors 1t.
Building Inspector Ashford is on rec
ord in favor of the bill, saying in sup
port OF the measure:
Last year I invited attention TO the
provisions of the personal-tax law,
which imposes q license fee on builders
and other contractors, and which has
led up to several cases in court to de-
termine what is meant by d builder or
Dther contractor and where the line
should be drawn.
There is no way of determining and
no one with authority to decide wheth-
Pr man is a builder or not and most
every man in business is a contractor.
An examination Of the permits issued
during the past year Will show that
nearly half the persons in charge of the
erection Of buildings are not builders
and should not be allowed TO obtain a
license for such work even If applied
for
Character of Defense
"a few cases have occurred where
persons building houses have advanced
the argument TO the Commissioners that
you should not enforce the regulation III
their case because the inspector was not
present at the time of the violation to
prevent them from violating and that it
was their ignorance and not their in
tention that caused them to transgress
and that. therefore, since the inspector
by his absence permitted them TO erect
some faulty work. it should be allowed
TO remain.
Consequently one oversight or mis-
take in the 500 buildings under the care
Of each inspector during the year liber-
ates the person who pleads ignoranc.
Of the regulations ard prevents correc-
ton of each mistake
Plan Impracticable
Mr. Ashford WAS asked why his Office
force could not be enlarged by charg-
Ing builders special fee for inspec-
ton of builders and thus obviate the
necessity of an examining board and al
the same time assure safe building
He replied that such plan had beer
considered, but not deemed practicable
My experience has been" he said
that Congress viii increase our force
OF inspectors as speedily if the reye-
nues Of the Office do not equal the cost:
as otherwise. AT present the revenue,
amount TO about one-third of the eX
penses of the office. We need additions
Inspectors. but $at is not the chiei
difficulty we encounter In the matter o.
safe building.
-sFhere is no way at present OF de
termining who is responsible for faulty
building The law does not define &
builder and when we hale a contractor
Into court on e charge of violating build
Ing regulations. the court dismisses tn.
case, holding the owner OF the building
responsible In many cases the owner
proves TO be woman or nonresident
and In most cases the owner is only too
anxious TO have the work done right.
Character of Complaints
Most of those who have called in m,
office 10 protest against the bill are tn,
very ones the measure is aimed at, an(
constitute In themselves the stronges
recommendations for the enactment O.
The bill into law One protestant is :