New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-03-28
WILLIAMS ISSUES DENIAL
Saws labor Department Not Re-
sponsibIe for Factory Fire.
QUOTES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court Decision Places Control OF
Fire Protection Under City
Bureau of Buildings.

that the State Labor department was Ie- !
sponsible for the factory fire disaster
which cost nearly one hundred and hfty
lives in New York city on Saturday after
noon. as charged by District ATTORNEY
Whitman He held that the supervision |
Of fire escapes in New York city was un-
der the city Bureau ~ Buildings. ana
that the state department had no legal
Jurisdiction over them Section 50 Of the /
labor law. referred TO 10y the District At
torney. he said, might appear TO place
this supervision in the hands OF the state
department. but he declared that Ia"
vas anlulled by a decision OF the Appei- |
late Division Of the First Department IN |
1903. in which II Vas held that Nrisdic-
ton over the erection Of fire escapes IN !
the Borough OF Manhattan vas under the
proper Officer Of that city The state
department. howeyer had Jurisdiction over
fire escapes i'm the remainder Of the state
Mr. Williams said II is 70 he noted. how
ever. that since the decision of 1903 the
law giving the Commissioner Of LABOR
power has been re-enacted by the codih-
cation Of 1903. and is therefore much
more recent act than the charter and
some argue has superseded the decision.
Attorney General Curneen rendered an
opinion 10 the Commissioner Of LABOR on !
January rs. 1901, that the Bureau OF
Buildings Of New York city had exclu-
sive Jurisdiction over fire escapes In that
city. This was in answer 10 letter IN
curing whether the Commissioner OF La
Dor was not justified in continuing TO Is
sue orders requiring the erection OF hre
escapes on factor buildings, notwith-
standing the Appellate Division : decision
liz 1903
In that communication Attorney Cen
era Cunneen said
Sections s. ana s3 Of the labor law. which
rlOyide Tor such fire escapes as may ne
deemed necessary by the factory Inspector
b on the outside of every factory IN thls
state consisting OF three or mere stories III
height have been by the supreme court
in the case above Clted held 10 have no
application 10 factory buildings IN the CITY
Of New York
In determining whether o. not you nave
a right 10 enforce loca ordinances relating
to IA ctories or their inspection IN the city
Of New York two sections Of the anor law
must ne considered. Section - Of the labor
la ~ reads IN part a. follows. The factory
INSPECTOR or other competent person desig-
mated nv him. upon request, snail examine
any factory outside ~ the cities OF Ne"
York and Brooklyn. to determine WhetneI
IL t. in a safe condition. II II appears 10
him 70 ne unsafe he shall mmediately no
tify the owner, agent or lessee tnereoI,
specifying the defects. and require sucn
repairs and improvements 70 be made as
ne NAV deem necessary.
Section 50 of the Ia Dor law contains this
TrO .iSon: Any lawful municipal ordinance.
bylaw or regula ton relating 70 factories or
their inspections, In addition 20 the pro
visions Of this chapter and not IN connict
herewith. shall be observed and enforced
/ by the factory Inspector In constituting
! the statute the several parts thereof must
/ be read IN connection with each other and
the statute must be viewed as whole
Applying this principle OF construction. !
am Of the opinion that the power given 70
the factory inspector bv Section So OF the
/ labor law TO enforce lawful municipal ordi-
/ nances relating 10 factories or their inspec-
ton. while apparently Of general spDice-
ton to the entire state ie yet so limited by
Section 81 as 70 apply only 10 localities out
side of the former cities OF New York and
/ Brooklyn.
The decision of the Appellate Division
| above cited that the jurisdiction over FIRE
escapes in the city of New York is vested
exclusively in the Buildings Department ~
/ that city is 7 think. controlling upon the
question YOU submit.
Exclusive jurisdiction over fire escapes
upon factory buildings I'm the CITY of New
/ York" must ne hold 20 include not ONLY
| exclusive jurisdiction 70 prescribe rues and
regulations for the construction n such fire
/ escapes. hut also exclusive iur.diction 10
cause such rules and regulations 10 he en-
! forced.
Nj Williams admitted that the factory o.
the Triangle Waist Company. occupying
the eighth. ninth and tenth floors of the
Asch Building had been inspected In Feb
ruary by q l. Harmon % Hoosick Falls
one OF his department. building inspectors
He reported that there We're 4m employees
that there was no overcrowdine. and that
/ the one FIRE escape was accessible and IN
obstructed He said that the doors opened
inward. but We're left open az that time
during working hours. The report said
that the windows were not obstructed by
any grating and that. on the whole, the
! conditions were good.
The only order issued. said the Com
missioner. as a result Of this inspection
which might in any way affect the safety
Of the premises was 70 direct the owner
Of the premises 20 provide lights in the
halls during working hours
The Commissioner took the position that
his department felt IL a moral duty 70
recommend action on the part OF the New
York CITY Bureau Of Buildings where there
we're no fire escapes. bur that the same o.
LEGATION was not felt in cases where there
were fire escapes, even though they might
not he adequate lie SAID that his depart
! ment took the position that where there
were fire escapes, II the Bureau Of Build
/ ings had done its duty. they would be
properly inspected and made all right.
/ our inspectors" he said, are required
IN -erort whether the attention Of the Blu
rsau OF Buildings has been called 10 II
when there are no fire escapes. II no fire
escapes have been erected We can recon-
E-a %
are not required TO do this by law, but
feel morally that H. Is our duty. The ques-
ton OF adequate fire escapes in New York
civ. however. is entirely UP 20 the Bureau
Of Buildings No doubt there are hundreds
Of fire escapes in New York city which, II
used by employees in time Of fire, would
, lead into fire traps from which II would
he difficult 10 escape With the law as n
terpreted b. the Appellate Division the
CITY authorities have ample power 10 com
pel the erection Of proper fire escapes
Late this afternoon Senator Wainwright,
who was head Of the commission which
drafted the employers liability law had
long talk with Commissioner Williams. in
which proper fire protection for employees
was discussed.
The decision of the Appellate Division. s..
ADD Div 355. First Department on which
1 Commissioner Williams based his conten-
tion hat the Bureau - Buildings In New
York city was responsible FOR the fire es-
capes i'm the city. was handed down al the
July term In 1903. TIE court unanimously
fecided tina, the Superintendent OF Build
ings in New York city had jurisdiction TO
require the erection of fire escapes in
parying the decision the court quoted az
& la cir "a -