The weekly Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1911-1922, 1911-10-12

better. L am opposed 10 the Use Oh
wood in any form in f. proof build
ings and the law ought not to per-
NIT its use. Wooden foors, wooden
window-frames, doors and castings
burn and help other things to burn !;
wooden trim and bases burn-every-
thing that is made of wood burns
md helps the fire to spread. Elm
mate wocd-remove the cause and
YOU have precluded the possibility of
fires.
We have no department of our
government devoted to the matter OF
fire prevention. Our laws on the SUBJ
;ect are not specialized to complete
IL cover any particular building or
business. although they could be
made broad enough in their general
application to 90 great way toward
1artly solving the problem.
1t is my firm conviction that the
United States Government should
establish department. founded
somewhat On the lines of the pure
food law. for the purpose of estab-
fishing laboratories whose business 1t
5hculd be to test and classify varl-
Drs materials used throughout the
construction Of freproof buildings in
order that the public may be pro-
-ided with a satisfactory and sane
schedule of standards of known safe
~ and which shall be accepted as
such by all departments and author
tiles in this country. and the law or
laws necessary to make these condi-
tions possible should he enacted with
the idea constantly in mind that the
present so-called freproof building
is such only so far as its exterior is
concerned and that legislation Is
needed and demanded by the public
to insure adequate and proper pro-
lection to the lives of ali persons
who may be called upon to congre-
gate in all buildings of a public or
sem;-public nature.
Under the majority of the present
building codes so-called firepraOf
buildings are substantially freproof
in the sense that a confederation
rarely does serious injury. to the
building itself. The flames NAV rage
from room TO room and floor to floor;
floors. doors, partitions and all in
terror fittings may char and be con-
Sumed. the contents may be de-
stroyed throughout and some or
many of the occupants lose their
lives, but the four walls and frame
work. that is. the organic structure
of the building, usually comes
the conhaeration intact. 1t
is the combustion of contents. not
damage to the buildings themselves
that makes fire losses In the United
States so heavy. in proportion to the
spent for new construction.
The need. therefore. is not for or
dinance requirements which will
make the buildings more effectually
"fireproof.' but enacaments which
will protect the INMATES and
CONTENTS of buildings by making
it impossible for a fire once started
to course virtually unchecked from
room to. room and floor to floor of
a building whose walls are fireproof.
In .other words DEATH PROOF and
CONFLAGRATION-PROOF con-
structisn are necessary requiremtns
for new compulsory legislation for
" fireproof construction. -
Another element cf kindred signi-
ficance that should be taken into
account is the fact that under pres
ent day conditions of industrial en-
ployment and also very often under
metropolitan conditions of residence
in buildings housing large numbers
of people, fire-escapes and means of
exit cannot. as practical matter.
be provided which, in the face of
flames which preclude the use of the
elevators and perhaps also the stair
ways. will certainly afford to all the
occupants OF a modern building the
means of immediate and safe descent
on the street. Still less impossible
is any saving or safeguarding of val
liable contents of buildings through
means of removing them to the
street or adjacent buildings Future
construction must be so required that
the starting of flames In one room
Of building need not make impera-
tive the instantaneous exit therefrom
IF all persons employed in the build
ing. or even on the floor where the
fire starts Means of safety, for both
~ersons and property. must be secur-
ed, in the building and even on the
floor where the fire starts. by making
impossible the instantaneous con-
verting of elevator shafts and stair
ways into flues for the flames, and
by making impossible the rapid
spread of flames from room to room
and floor to floor. Nothing could be
more dangerous, more expensive, or
more unnecessary. than the idea that
the safety of workers in factory and
loft buildings can best be secured at