The Norfolk weekly news-journal. (Norfolk, Neb.) 1900-19??, 1909-06-25

ten fire starts which, II the fire de-
partment were in a position to make
more prompt response, could be
checked by the use of chemicals
where, under the present system 1t Ia
usually the case that when the fire.
men arrive, the fire has gotten beyond
the control Of chemicals and must be
drowned out with water, thereby great
ly increasing the loss.
The protection of such cities of Nor
folks class as are protected by this
system are usually termed first class
risks by the insurance underwriters,
and lower premiums on insurance
risks given. do not know what class
Norfolk is listed in, but am sure It
is not first class, and doubt very much
IL 1t Is second, or even third class.
great. II the three fire stations in the
city were remodeled and suitable
sleeping quarters for the firemen ar
ranged, do not believe 1t would cost
over $1,000, or, at the outside, $1,000.
Now, in fire departments where this
plan Is in operation the firemen are
usually paid nominal sum, generally
from $50 to 500 per year. If four
men were installed in each fire sta
ton, making twelve in all, the expense
for wages would be, at $50 per man.
5000 per year. Take the expense of
the fire team at No. 1 station, $500,
a total of $1,000 for fire protection of
an up-to-date kind per year.
Even then, believe, the city could
afford $4,000 a year for the fire de-
partment and install another team of
horses on the hook and ladder truck at
the down town station. Three thous-
and dollars borne by the tax payers is
not too great a sum for fire protection,
but $4,000 loss by fire is sometimes
a serious loss to the individual loser,
and especially so If that loss is direct
ly by the inefficiency incurred of the
public fire department. Norfolk has
very efficient fire service for voluD-
teer system, but that Is no reason why
it should not be improved when the
opportunity comes.
Another reason why think 1t would
be great improvement to change the
present volunteer system to a part
paid one, is, to eliminate the screech-
ing fire whistle at night. This is a
great annoyance and, indeed, in some
cases serious public nuisance. Take,
for instance, person seriously i'll,
the startling scream of the fire whis-
tie breaking out at any hour of the
night very often has a serious effect
upon a nervous person. l know this
from experience, as I have a sickly
member in my own family, who often
finds the shrek of the fire whistle a
serious annoyance. Still, the whistle
must be maintained as long as the
present system of summoning is in
use. If the bunker" system were in
stalled it would be unnecessary to
blow the whistle when an alarm is re-
ceived, except in case Of a general
alarm, as telephones, with gongs at
tached, could be installed in each fire
house.
This would give Norfolk practically
the same protection as in the large
cities during the night hours, the time
of greatest risk. I am not Sidewalk
chief" trying to tell the city officials
how to run things, but am simply sub
hitting a proposition which is prac-
tical and good thing. If Norfolk
people are interested in this plan
and they ought to bel would like to
hear some of them express their APP
prevail or disapproval through the col
umns of The News.
A Booster.