Year: 1877

one whole block and parts OF TWO otuers
with loss of life which is shocking to
think Of is q discouraging proof OF the
inefhciency Of terrible warnings on the SUD-
ject of fires. If the immense destruction OF
property and life which the press has such
constant occasion to record in other cities
and in this cannot stir up the community
to adopt reasonable precautions against the
deyouring element remonstrance and ex-
hortation are idle, for words can add
nothing to the impressive lesson. The fre-
quency of such fires in America as compared
with Western Europe is conclusive evidence
that their ravages are so fearful on this side
of the Atlantic only because we do not
adopt proper methods of prevention. In
former times such scourges were as frequent
in Europe as they now are in America; but
European cities needed the lesson they
taught, while American cities are rs yet
deaf to their blazing instruction. We shall
learn in time, but the tuition fees we con-
sent to pay are altogether too costly.


The extensive and calamitous fire yester-
day should fix attention upon two points
imbecility in the prevention of great fires,
and criminal want Of foresight in not pro-
viding sufficient means for their extinction.
Each of these points calls for some peril
nent words of reprobation.


TO begin, then, with the disgraceful and
ruinous slackness in enforcing means of
prevention. We believe that the laws on
this subject are sufficient and that the
proper ground of complaint is lack
Of vigor in their execution. The statute
relating to buildings in this city is COM
prehensve in its scope, and the powers
conferred on the Superintendent and In
spectors of Buildings are ample. But these
laws are not enforced in the spirit in which
they were enacted. In spite of the strict
provisions Of the statute the owners and
occupiers Of buildings are left practically
free to endanger their own property and
that of their neighbors. Certain require
ments about the thickness of external walls


the safety of flues and the construc-
tion of cornices and roofs are en-
forced in the erection Of new build
ings, but beyond this everything is
left to the discretion of owners and occu-
piers. 1t is fatal presumption to suppose
that they are safe guardians Of their own
interests. 1t may be said, indeed, that the
man who owns building. or who conducts
his business within it, has greater inter-
est than anybody else in preventing its
destruction. But experience has proved
that self-interest is a frail reliance for the
protection of private property. 1t would
naturally be assumed, previous to expert
ence, that the owners of steamboats, might be
trusted to protect them from injudicious haz-
ards, but the law does not adopt that theory.
The law regulating steamboats, assumes
that false economy or greed of immediate
gain often blinds owners to their true in
terest, and that when the safety Of the COM
munity is concerned the interest Of steam
boat owners in the preservation of their
own property cannot be trusted We have.
accordingly, government inspection of boats
and boilers; government regulation of the
number Of passengers and government
licenses conditioned on the observance of
prescribed rules. In several Of the States
railroads are put under similar restraints,
the Legislatures thinking that the interest
of the companies in preventing the wreck
ing of trains and the destruction Of
their own property an insufficient Sc
curity for the public. 1t is just as unsafe
to trust the owners and occupiers of build
ings to adopt efficient precautions against
fires as it would be to trust the men who
own or charter steamboats, to judge of the
safety of boats and boilers. The New York
Building law goes on the assumption that
private owners will carelessly or recklessly
expose their property to destruction by fire,
and that the public safety requires the Legis-
lature to interpose its authority for the pro-
lection of the owners themselves and the
rest Of the community. But the Depart
ment of Buildings would seem to adopt
different theory in its slack execution of
the law.


The vigilance which we have q right to
expect of the Department of Buildings need
not be obtrusive or meddlesome, but it
ought to be active and discriminating
There are certain classes Of structures to
which its attention should be constantly
directed, and especially those which are
seats OF large manufactures in wood In
such establishments the law should be en-.
forced with extreme rigor, because n fire
starting among vast mass of dry combus-
tibles gains such sudden headway as to put
whole blocks in peril. Every large manu.
factory which uses dry wood as its chief
material should be built in compartments
separated by thick brick walls, with sheet
iron doors, which can be immediately
closed if fire breaks out in any part Of the
building. In a building SO constructed a
fire would seldom spread if the iron doors
were promptly closed at its beginning. as
they would naturally be by the workmen
for self-protection. Piano manufactures
are buildings which, above all Others
shoul IN be watched with susDicious vioiJnncc