Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-20
Labor Commissioner Says
Statute Requires but
One Fire Escapes
HIGH STREET HORROR TRAP
INSPECTED LAST SEPT.
Official Admits His Staff Is So
Inadequate as to Be
Absurd.


26 completed the taking of testimony
today, when members of the State de-
partment of labor and Newark city
building and fire department officials
told the jury how they figured that the
law had been complied with.
The jury will meet tomorrow morning
at 10 o'clock at the Court House and
60 over the evidence adduced during
the eight days hearing. 1t is expected
that their verdict will be ready by
Thursday.
Consensus of opinion is that no ono
will be held liable in any degree for
the disaster, but that drastic changes
In the State factory law regarding pro-.
lection from fire and for the equipping
of buildings with proper fire-escapes
will be recommended.
State Commissioner of Labor Lewis
T. Bryant was the first witness called
today.
Much of the early part of his testi-
mony was devoted to verbal fencing
with Prosecutor Wilbur A Mott over
the intent of the State factory law
which was passed IN 1904
Mr. Bryant said he was the first COM
missioner appointed and had held the
Office since September 4, 1904 He told
the jury that the State was divided into
nine inspection districts. with an in
spector in charge of each district.
He explained that his department
had supervision of all factories, OF
. which there are 1000 In the State. and
over 100 bakeshops. He said:
Also Looks After Minors.
I'VE also have limited supervision
IL ls.t-. H. 1A.
to see that minors under IA years of
age be not employed and that seats be
furnished for female employees when
not engaged in waiting on customers" :"
Mr. Bryant also testified that as far
as he knew his inspectors worked eight
hours for five days of each week and
four hours on Saturdays.
Bryant then told of the inspections
made of the burned building He said:
..The first inspection was made on
January 27, 1905, shortly after the or
ganization of the department. The last
inspection was made in September, 1910.
During the period named the building
was inspected at least twice, and In
some cases three times yearly. and by
five different inspectors"
Continuing, Mr.. Bryant told how in
January 27. 1905, Inspector McClin-
tock since deceased, ordered the
Anchor Lamp Company to erect fire.
escape on the front OF the building.
This was on February 8. 1905. but it
was not until about year later that
the fre-escape was erected. The de-
lay, explained Mr.. Bryant, was due to
the fact that J. N. Glass. the New
York owner of the building, claimed he
had not received any notice to build
the fire-escape.
"On January TO- 1905. Inspector Nc
CIintock made an inspection Of the
Wolf Company plant and ordered steps
built to the windows leading to the
: fre-escape"
Fire Escape Defined.
Prosecutor Mott asked: WAS this
30 the ladder in the rear?''
"Yes," was Bryant's reply.
Then why did you call 1t fire-es-
oape7- snapped Mott.
IT called It fire-escape because it
was approved as such by the superin-
tsndent OF buildings of Newark in 1902.
before the department of labor was in
sxistense."
Can you call that O fre-escape?'
auizzed Mr.. Mott
mot according to our law replied
Mr.. Bryant. but that law is one
mans idea"
"Oh, no, it ia not" quickly said the
Prosecutor. 'Tt is the Legislature's
idea"
"Do you consider such an abortion
Of construction as that" asked Mott,
pointing to the ladder that formed the
rear escape. "a f1re-escape?"
To this Mr.. Bryant replied: "Is there
anything in our law that requires us to
change existing f1re-escapes?"
Prosecutor Mott did not answer the
question, but asked "Do you consider
that that iron ladder was any use
where 1t was?'
'Why, certainly" was Bryant's reply.
Didn't some people go down them?"
Continuing. Mr.. Bryant asked: 'It
wouldn't be good judgment for an in
spector to order an existing escape off
a building would it?"
was One Escape Ample.
Again the prosecutor failed to answer
the question, but came back with this
one;
DO YOU consider one fire-escape suf-
ncient for a building OF the length of
the High street one?"
There was a long pause as Mr.. Bryant
thought over his answer Finally 1t
casne. as follows: II don't altogether
agree with YOU that there was only one
fire-escape on that building"
..Isn't 1t a fact" persisted Mr.. Mott,
"that there was only one f1re-escape on
the building that complied with the
lawT'
That's true" was the laconic answer
Of Bryant. Then he volunteered the
information that If the ladder had not
<op.tanusA o. Secoaa Psse.s