The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-04-16
GILMAN MEASURE
UTTERLY ROUTED
Committee, by Vote Of 7 to /,
Recommends That Council
Reject It
NO INJUSTICE WAS SHOWN
Members Hold That Builders
and Agents Failed to Make
Out a Case.
NO INJUSTICE WAS SHOWN


10 make out their case ia behalf OF the
Gilman ordinance, proposing a method
o! appeal from tho Building lnspec-
tor 5 decisions. and that no single in
staiice OF any injustice had been shown,
the Council Committee on Ordinance
charter and Reform yesterday. By a
vote Of TO /, reported the ordinance
10 the Council with the recommends
Ton that II do not pass.
Inc hearing was the second held By
ihc committee, both having been dis
cursive and scattering. II was brought
out that under ,he prcsent law Ll the
case OF plans and specifications sub
ih'ttcd' any architect. builder or own
CT nay appeal to board of safety.
composed Of the Mayor, the Chief OF
ihc Fire Department and City En-
Einfer In the case of buildings be-
iiered to be unsafe, reports may be
made by any citizen, police officer or
the Building Inspector to the Police
Justice. who must require survey and
written report from tho Building In
spector. and whose decision is nnal.
Ample Appeal n, Inv.
city Attorney Pollard brought out
the fact. as shown n che Fcrrandint
building, that an ample further appeal
may be secured BY applying to the
thanEery Cour, for Injunction, though
In this case tho applicant IL required
to give bond to pay for ans damage
that mty' cnsuc.
j. Amber Johnston, an architect and
engineer, spoke in opposition 10 the
ordinance. holding that 1t was unfair
I" refer the decisions OF a competent
man to incompetent aud partisan
board. lie brought out the fact that
there is nothing 10 keep any one from
calling himself architect in this
state II b" pays a license. and suggest
"h that unworthy men might Sit in
arbitration cases He also held that
questions OF safety should not b..
made n matter OF compromise,
Manning, Jr,. director OF the
Buildc,s' Exchange. said tina, while a
inhmbcr OF the exchange, he was op-
posed TO tho Gilman ordinance, az got
ten UP by small clique of real es-
tate agents who had pushed their way
Into The Builders Exchange, and that
II resulted in a divided responsibilities.
lilo Expressed the hope that the Office
would not be made like that OF the
Plumbing Inspector. wherc every de-
ciSicn Is subject 10 rcTinw and re-
Tersa by an appeal board, and that
responsibility should be fixed In the
Inspector and isft there.
Beck EnplninH Objections.
Building Inspector Beck said there
WAS nothing IN the Gilman ordinance
save an effort TO put moro work on
tha office. If lie We're given several
additional inspectors he could afford to
spend most of his time defending his
decisions In court. He considered the
whole effort ono to destroy his useful
ness ana tied his hands, especially
Win regard TO unsafe buildings. lie
quoted oithHnd from the building codes
of a dozen or more cities citing sec
ton and chnptcr in each case. showing
tina, in baltimore, Washington, Chi
caEo. New York and many other citr>s
The Building Inspector may enter and
demolish any unsafe building without
court procedure. not even giving the
rchcarnE In Polire Court allowed here.
II quoted the Cleveland and ST Paul
codes at length. tho latter providing
the posting of q plucard on any build
in. held 10 hc unsafe. pending It's
abandonment and removal Mr. Beck
said hc would rather SEQ his office
abolished than have II 80 haup.red
That II could accomplish nothing, and
,hs, tho only hencit of an arbitration
would he 10 allow some builders and
owners 10 set ont OF complying with
tho plain mandates OF the law. The
ordinance had been Strung on his office,
and lie had navcr been consulted or had
q copy furnished him.
Opposed by city Attorney.
city Attorney Pollard, who had been
invited 10y Chairman Umlauf 10 attend
tho hearings and advise the committee
spoke vigorously against impairlnS or
abridginS the building code. Spprua CHI
ing the matter from nonpartisan
standpoint, he asserted TINT the build
iuE code had been prepared TO remedy
certain conditions AT a time when the
city was crowded with diapidatcd and
WORKOUT structures. which ware only
breeding places OF disease and vcrmin.
In any changes the safety of the pub
lie must be the prime consideration.
Having sat through two long windcd
hearings. Mr.. Pollard said he had never
heard as much misapprehcnsion and
misunderstanding or as many people
talking about a thing they knew noth-
ing about. Attorney Gregory. he said.
had built up his argument on the sup
position that the Board OF Safety could
not hear evidence. while the law cX-
prcssly Sivcs 1t the right to summon
and examine witnesses. He explained
that section 81 of the building code
provides an appeal to this board, in
the case OF plans held not to be in
accord with the building code He
thought the Mayor. the City Engineer
and the Chief of the Fire Department
tho proper men to sit OH this board,
saying that the sugG astion had first
come from former Mayor Mccarthy.
AIr. Pollard also quoted United States
Supreme Court decisions giving final
powers to the Postmaster General to
show that in certain classes of ca ses
the appeal was limited. Thirty cities
in this country have no appeal from
the Building Inspector. he said, while
tn Richmond appeal lies to the Police
Justice, and IL the applicant is willing
tn furnish bond, he may apply to the
Cnancery Court for Injunction.
Showed Court WINS Wrong,
He alluded to tho case of the First
National Bank. whcre Mr.. Beck was
reversed by the Police Justice. after
which the east wall of the bank fell
in, saying that since that and the Fer
randini cases Justics Crutchfeld had
been chary of reversing the Building
Inspector. Many pictures were eXhib-
ited to the committee OF unsafe build
inss condemned Turning his attention
TO C. Ridgway Moore, Mr.. Pollard as