The Washington herald., 1907-01-23
cites Hccent Case.

tied about the Job by inspectors from the
several departments.
Cites Recent Case.
II have in mind a recent case, said
the informant. that illustrates what I
mean. A contractor in iron work.
short time ago. received a contract 10 put
a fire escape on the Buckingham Hotel,
at $50 Fifteenth street. a. l. Bliss is the
owner Of the building. tt is four stories
high, and the contractor. knowing the
regulations of the building department.
built the fire escape. receiving the usual
permit from the office OF the inspector
Of buildings. When finished it was in
spected by a representative Of the build
ing department and passed. the con-
tractor receiving the usual certificate
from Mr.. Ashford
"The contractor, with his certificate.
went to the owner with his bill and was
told that Chief Belt, of the fire depart
ment had happened along, had inspected
the fire escape, and declared that it was
not constructed in accordance with the
regulations, and could not be accepted. The
contractor argued the case with the own
er, but received only q polite refusal 10
settle until the requirements set forth
by Chief Belt or the fire marshal had
been compiled with This required the
erection OF an additional ladder about
fifteen feet in length 10 the top Of the
building, at a cost of SIS which the con-
tractor had 10 lose. THc fire escape was
then accepted, and the owner informed
the contractor he was ready 20 settle the
bill
I'm the meantime the contractor an
pealed the ease 20 the Commissioners. ill
ing copy Of the certificate from the
building department and asking a ruling
as between the inspector Of buildings and
the ire marshal This appeal went the
regular course of the District Building,
and the fire department won out.
should Agree on Rules.
Now, it is not q question" said the
informant, 'of what is right or wrong
under the regulations. According to the
law the contractor must look to the build
ing department for its permits, and as
suredly should look 10 the same depart
ment to have its work passed upon i'm
the end. But it appears that the fire
department has the last word I'm the
matter, and that no contractor for fire
escapes is secure until the fire marshal
IS satisfied. It seems to me that such
condition ought not 10 prevail under our
government. In some manner there ought
to be a clearing house OF opinion upon
disputed points Of this kind. so that the
public. represented by contractors and
others, would know where they stand
when taking q contract and erecting Il
building
i viii cite another instance" said the
Informant. ~ friend of mine from B31-
tmore came to Washington last summer
and put up a building in which TO install
a paper box factory. He obtained "a per
NIT from the inspector Of buildings. and
the structure Was completed according 10
the terms Of the permit and passed A
little later. when mis- machinery arrived
he applied for permit from the cleo
trical department to establish some mo-
tors to drive The machinery. This appli-
cation was held up for something like
two months, and his inquiries at the Dis
trict Building failed TO get any satisfac-
ton as TO what was wrong Finally. il
developed that the new building which he
mad erected was five feet over the build
ing line. and ne was informed that if DE
would tear down the end of the structure
and cut off the building thar amount he
could have his permit This ne refused
TO do. and in consulting an attorney was
told that he might buy the house across
the narrowed alley from his building and
In that way get rid of the technically of
the regulations which required the sfgna-
lures OF majority OF the property
holders within so far of the proposed
motor. lie bought the house at an ey.
pense of SLIGO. His attorney fees fere
$50 and then he obtained his permit
after nearly three months waiting.
Tried to Observe Law.
Now, I do not question the correct
ness Of the position taken by the electric
engineer. but the owner Of this building
had tried as far as he knew 10 find out
and abide by the law. The building de
may have made some mistake
in the survey or from other cause, bat I I
fail to see why. if that was so. the owner
should d Obliged to remodel his building
or be subjected to additional expense in
another Way 10 get his permit
1T seems To me there is something
wrong IN the system which ought 20 be
corrected and that speedily in The i,tar