The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1921-05-06
PLUMBERS BLOCK
| TAMMANY CHIEFS
| MONOPOLY PLANS
Untermyer Finds Labor AL
lance So Powerful 1t De-
fled 14th st. Leaders.
NEW DEVICEUNDER BAN
1t Made 30 to 80 Per Cent.
in Saving i'm Cost of Con-
structlng Buildings.
GOT EXCLUSIVE RATING
After Politicians Shut Out
Other Models Plumbers Put
Veto on Patent Trap.
NEW DEvICEUNDER BAN
GOT EXCLUSIVE RATING

That an all-powerful alliance between
journeymen and master plumbers has
been able for two years to block the
best efforts of politicians high in the
councils of Tammany to put on sale
In New York a plumbing device that
would effect saving of from 80 to SO
per cent. in building construction was
wood committee. 1t appeared that
they were opposed to the device be-
cause it effected substantial saving
in labor and material.
Dates played an important part in the
testimony. For instance. Samuel Inter
showed that in October. 1918. TanImany
group, consisting of John A. Mccarthy.
formerly business partner os Charles
f. Murphy, and one Of the defendants
who, on Tuesday. pleaded guilty to vio-
lations OF the Donnelly act: Philip It.
Donohue. treasurer Of Tanmany; Frank
J. Farrell, former owner of the Yam
KEGS. and James II. Naughtin obtained
half interest in the Cody Brass Works.
from a reorganization following the
death OF George II. Cody. inventor OF
the "Geco" anti-siphon trap. a device
designed to dispense with open vent
plumbing on waste pipes.
In the reorganization plan the Cody
estate retained twenty-five of the fifty
outstanding shares of stock; John a.
Mccarthy got fifteen, eight OF which
he subsequently disposed of to Philip
Donohue: Farrell got eight and Naugh-
tin two. All this was while there were
ho general regulations governing The
INSTALLATION of anti-siphon traps in New
York city except those imposed by the
plumbers unions.
hoard Approves New Device.
On November IL. 1918, the Board OF
Standards and Appeals adopted a con
clusion" that the Coco trap had sue
cessfully passed a test especially drawn
up for the occasion and a month later
adopted a resolution that an anti-siphon
trap did not need back venting. Later
the board formally approved the Coco
trap. Then. in January, 1918. the board
promulgated n set or general regula-
tons for anti-siphon traps so stringent
that no manufacturer since has cared
to act under them.
Thus the Coco entered the field as the
only antI-siphon trap approved by the
New York city authorities. although II
was testified there are a dozen or more
on the market and in use in practically
every other large city in the country.
But about that time Messrs. Mccarthy.
Donohue and their associates appear 10
have run head on into the plumbers
combine. This. II was testified, was so
rock ribbed In some cases that master
plumbers laid themselves open TO a hne
OF SIS, IL they permitted the instaila-
tion OF an antl-siphon trap. and Journey
men plumbers were fined SIS or $50 and
expelled from their organization on the
third offence IL they were discovered
installing II.
Charles Ericsson OF 2s6 Columbus ave-
nue., a former secretary o: the Manhat-
tan branch OF the Master Plumbers As
ISOLATION. identified a resolution adopted
by his organization imposing the $4,000
penalty on members, the latter part OF
which showed that It was applicable
only to New York city. This resolution
was adopted In December, 1918, month
or more after the city authorities had
approved the Coco trap.
Alexander Mackintock. an architect.
of 55 Bible House. and Harry III. Muir
dock. another architect, OF so East For
ty-second street, told OF tie economy
that could be effected In new and altera-
ton construction work through use OF
the anti-siphon trap. IL reduced costs
anywhere from 80 to 40 per cent, they
said. while additional testimony was
given that sometimes II might run as
high as so per cent.
impossible Test for Traps.
Eugene A. Pinchon representative Of
tie wolverine Company Of Grand Rap
:ds. Mich, manufacturers or another
snti-siphon trap IN use In many cities.
.old OF his unsuccessful attempts 70 get
\ test OF his trap. lie finally gave up
after being shown list of tho specifi-
cations to which his product would have
70 conform. lie gave II as his expert
opinion that no trap manufactured could
meet the tests that had been imposed
by the Board OF Standards and Appeals
after the Geco trap had been favorably
passed upon.
In this Mr. Pinchon was contradicted
ty John +. Leo. formerly chairman Of
tho Board OF Standards and Appeals.
Mr.. Leo said that the Coco trap had
been subjected to the most rigorous tests
and had stood up under them. lie CAV,
4. as his uneuuivocal opinion that the
plumbers opposition TO the anti-siphon
trap was not because they believed II to
) unsnnitary, but because II reduced
die amount OF labor and material enter
nC into plumbing and construction jobs.
In this attitude Mr.. Leo thought the
plumbers were supported by the manu-
lecturers OF soil pipe who. he said, did