The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-05-05

snoulu nave happened and in it's haste
 to fppease that great animal which
 gives 1t life the majority of the com
 mission behind the curtain of far. cical investigation lays on the block 1 the official head of a subordinate IT Matthews Is responsible and
 should be dismissed from his office
 Tor his responsibility for the diss ster,
 what is the responsibility of Con,mis- | sioners Weatherly and Lane?
 Does the sacrifice of Matthew's or
 heial head atone for their responsibil- 1 ity? They say Matthews made a mistake | Tn judgment For that mistake in tudsment they propose to dismiss him
 from the office of city building in- l spector. That mistake in judgment disqualifies him for the position, they i say. And that mistake in Judgment
 took eight human lives and Injured
 many others.
 l Now, by whose authority was Mat thews--the man who made this mis- take in judgment--in office? M 1 If that mistake in judgment units him for the office now should he ever have been in there? It surely would
 have been better to prevent the dis aster if it had been possible. Those are some questions grow ing out of the line of argument pro duced by Weatherly and Lane in sup porting their dismissal of Matthews.
 They have fixed the responsibility on Matthews
 Now, how do they propose to dodge it themselyes?
 Are they going to resign or how arc they going to atone for the responsi- bility they have in the matter through the responsibility they have fixed on their subordinate?
 As a matter of fact, Building In speotor Matthews Is not responsible for the disaster and not one bit of le- gitimate and fair testimony was brought out at the investigation to show that be was. He thought the wall was safe The wall wasn't safe. That everybody knew a half second after it fell and that's all anybody knows now.
 Was he the only man. who thought the wall safe? He was supported in hts judgment by many experts who had examined the wall and passed on it. And if they didn't know 1t was oan- gerous there is no reason to believe anybody else could have known il was dangerous.
 Of course there now appear many people who knew the walls were noi safe. Not one of them, however evor actually examined them. And not one of them ever reported to proper author . ities that they considered it danger GUS, because they did not feel it was their business to do so.' Yet that very
 man who now says he thought it was dangerous but did not consider his duty to the community serious enough to take some pains to bring his orinion to the attention of proper authorities is the very man who is crying for
 the official head Of the building in- spector who thought the wall was safe
 supported in that judgment and hon estly acted on it.
 Was there one iota of evidence to show that Matthews in his own heart
 feai ed tho safety of the wall and yet
 let 1t stand through graft or improper influences?
 Was there any evidence that. know ing the wall was dangerous, he neg lectod to properly brace it or have it
 torn down?
 Was there any evidence that he risked the lives of the people In the adjoining stores for the sake of pleas ing the owners of the building or any one else?
 Was there any evidence that showed
 he did not do what his own judgment,
 supported by other experts, told him
 he should do to make the wall safe
 And finally, was there any evidence
 to show that this judgment of Bud Matthews was thing of little value, a
 fly-b by might will-o'-the-wisp sort of
 thing that was not dependable, a iudg-
 ment that had failed before?
 Not a bit of such evidence was to
 be found All that is known now is what was known when the wall fell that for the first time Matthews had
 simply made a mistake about the safe
 ty of a wall
 His judgment for the first time was wrong. He committed a simple error.
 In this case the result was terrible. But the distress and horror of the re- suit has nothing to do with the orig
 ina1 error. It does not diminish the distress over the accident or heal the aching hearts of those whose dear ones were victims of the accident to now dismiss the building inspector
 But the seismograph commissioners have decided to do so to appease the public indignation.
 That they have decided to do so for the best interests of the city aud the public is impossible 1t will be years and it is doubtful if ever a man fills the office of building in- spector of Birmingham with the abil- ity and capacity of W. O. Matthews.