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

served in his entire service. l share in the feeling of great distress that this unhappy occurrence has brought upon the entire community. This is a consid- eraton. however, which cannot exert any influence in determining our duty in this case. If he should be removed from office. l doubt if we could obtain for a long time another building inspector Of equal experience, capacity and character and the disaster of last week will doubt less exert sautary influence on the ministration of the office in the future.
 ,"I, therefore, do not believe that the best interest of the city requires his re- moval from office"
 Weatherly and Lanes Report
 Commissioners Weatherly ana Lare's majority report is as follows;
 While we agree with what has been said by Commissioner Ward, as to the character. efficiency and good record of Mir. Matthews We feel compelled, though reluctantly. to differ from fis conclusions.
 We believe the building inspector to be honest. We believe that he WAS conscientious in this case in permit. ting this wall to stand. We believe that he told the truth when he said. in substance, that he thought the wall would be safe for reasonable length of time but not indefinitely and that he let the wall stand on the assurances that he received from time to time that he building was to be re-erected and would be re- erected within reason- able time, but that he was on the pont of ordering. or had about made up his mind to- order the wall taken down when the accident happened We do not think that he was improperly in fiuenced in his action in the matter. but we do believe that he was lulle l ! into sense of security by this belief l that the wall could De safely used in the new building and by the assur- ances he received from time to time | that the new building would be put up without further delay
 "The building inspector is charged 1 by the law with the duty and authority I to pass on the safety of buildings. He 1 has the power to pronounce them safe l or unsafe and to condemn any building ! found by him to be unsafe. He IS ln- vested with this important power and 1 charged with this duty by reason of his l supposed technical knowledge ana practical skill and experience in that particular line of industry. He IS nov 1 even required. to report his findings
 to the commission.
 i Tn this instance, the building inspector
 thought the structure safe. after an ex- 1 amina tion, and permitted it to stand. But 1 it fell and we are not convinced or satis- l fled that it was caused to fall by any ex- l traordinary or unusual extrinslc force,
 by the force strong enough to have de- i stroyed or prostrated a wall had 1t been ! safe and sound We think the inspector i look chance based or the improbability
 of anything happening to cause the wall to fall before the expected recreation of the building. In this he erred, and he must accept the responsibility with its , consequences.
 Tn view of the large measure of pub lie confidence which Mr.- Matthews has heretofore enjoyed, and in view of his record for efficiency we feel the greatest
 reluctance in coming to the conclusion that his services should be dispensed with but we feel that a mistake has been made with the results which we all know. We feel that on account of this mistake, with the deplorable conse- quences which followed his usefulness
 and prestige in the important and exact ing public office which he holds have
 been seriously impaired and that he would
 be crippled in the efficient execution oi his duties should be be continued in of flee. Furthermore, it would be unwse tc overlook such a mistake and thereby set 8 precedent for other employees.
 We feel bound, therefore, to recom-
 mend that his services be dispensed with