The Washington herald., 1907-11-29
PUSHED OWN INVENTION
Gibbs Company Alleges That
There Was UnfairneSs.
Rival Enterprise Declares That the
Building Inspector showed Unjust
Discrimination in Pushing For
ward His Own Private Project, and
That He Used Official knowledge
for His Own ACKNOWLEDGMENT.


Columbia have directed the inspector Of
buildings to give up the patent business"
This action was taken as the result OF
complaint brought against Inspector Ash
ford to the effect that his personal inter
est in a certain fire escape was operating
10 the exclusion Of another hre-escape.
and with resulting injustice to the latter.
Commissioner Macfarland. after months
of delay-and. 1t is understood. after the
matter had reached the White House
reported that the Commissioners had
made an investigation. and are satisfied
no injustice has been done. but. neverthe-
less, have directed the Inspector OF build
ings TO give Up the patent business"
The Gibbs Fire Escape Company.
through its manager. z. F. Gibbs. yester-
day gave TO the press the following signed
statement:
We desire 20 solicit the support of the landlords
and citizens Of Washington in an appcaI TO the IN
coming Congress 20 authorize and permit landlords
who are required by law 70 install nre escapes 20
erect chain fire escapes which meet with proper re-
qurements under certain conditions.
The manifest necessity for such legislation Is ob-
yoas gron careful perusal Of the fouowins letter
from the Dis;rc4 q Columbia building inspector.
Mr. $ Ashford the executor Of the IRE escape law
10 Messrs Rittenhouse Bros rrorristors Of Balti-
NOR machine shop. IN connection with certain fea-
tuTes Of the present FIRE escape regulations and other
noteworthy incidents:
Mr.. Ashford's Letter.
Inspector OF Buildings.
August -, 1907
Rittenhouse BIOS.
Gentlemen: Your favor OF the 18th
instant, inquiriug about the use Of my
disappearing step fire escape received.
Another firm of your city is putting
up some OF the escapes. and have en-
.ered into an agreement with a New
York arm. A set OF the drawings cost
$40, and yoa pay me az the rate OF SO
Tor each balcony when the escape Is
erected Five escapes have been put up
here recently. and I ind that those who
wish 70 prevent defacing their buildings
VIII pay twice as much as for an ordi-
nary escape. and as the escape has no
competition there is good profit I have
not made any exclusive arrangements
with any firm as yet I expect there
viii be great many pat up here when
the new law is applied 70 apartment
houses. II you VIII let ne know. after
receiving the drawings. what you can
build them for. and a fair average time
10 construct them, 1 viii put YOU i'm
communication with a forme~ employe
OF this Office who can manage the local
business or supply information. There
is sharp competition here in the ordinary
type OF escape, but very little IN mine
Any arrangement must De temporary. a.
/ am considering the sale of my rights
Very respectfully,
IS. ASHFORD
It IS seen that Nlr. Ashford claims rroprietorship
Of what he dcsigrztes as my dsaruearinc step ire
cscaps Ia May q 1895 soon after the rasge of the
present FIRE escape law. Mr.. Ashford hled an appl
cation for patent cl an "Ala-m for tire escapes 20
which Is shown as cnly small electric beH al
tached % an esape which Is substantially exact
reproduction Ct the type shown by drawings on file
IN the urice Of the inspector Of buildines
Demanded an Explanation.
When this application was still concealed In the
Serct aIclNeS .. lle tatcnf OilCe the present IRE
escape regulations cane forth. which provided that
the IRE escapes ~ De installed lexcept IN isolated
casesl shall be q the typc shown By drawings on
hle in the offer u the inspector Of buildings and
the Commissioners gave a public hearing on the
question December s. 1876, az which time many and
vehement Efforts were made % silence the attorney
for the Lewis chain escape, who persisted IN asking
why the chain escapes. previously recognized or
cially had been eliminated without test hearing
complaint. OF explanation
II is now seen that Mr. Ashford admits that
those who wish prevent defacing their buildings
are required 20 pay. and do pay. twice much Tor
bis escape as for the ordinary escape there is no
c1mTetition
The chain escape IS the natural competitor Of the
Ashford, both perform the same function without
disiguring the building while the chain escape
costs only about One-third or One-fOUTth much
as the ordinary stairway escape
But. according 20 the present regulation. the chain
escape is not recognized at all, if the physical cOn
Continued on Page 2, Column 4.