year within a short radius of New York city moving-picture film fires causing a damage of nearly $9,000,000 occurred.

The fire prevention bureau is only a little more than three years old. It was created as a result of the great Triangle shirtwaist fire in which 147 lives were lost. Perhaps the public supposed that after that great horror and the public sentiment which it aroused it would not be difficult for the new fire prevention bureau to secure prompt compliance with its orders, but that was not the These orders were resisted, some of them all the way to the court of appeals, and there was consequently a delay of more than a year in establishing the authority of the bureau in respect to certain important fire extinguishing devices. It was only in May of last year that the authority of the fire commissioner to order automatic sprinklers in certain buildings was upheld by the court of appeals.

case.

The automatic sprinkler is perhaps the most effective mechanical device which has yet been perfected for the extinguishment of fires. It consists of water pipes stretched along the ceiling with openings at stated intervals through which the water may flow in case of fire. The water is liberated when the heat fuses the soft metal which closes the openings, the fusing taking place at the temperature of 155 degrees. The history of automatic sprinklers in this city is that no life has been lost in a building in which they were installed and that no great fire has ever occurrred in such a building. The sprinklers either extinguish the fire entirely, or hold it in check until the firemen arrive. At the same moment that the water begins to flow through the sprinklers, an automatic alarm is sent in, and in most cases the firemen find the fire extinguished when they arrive.

But, as I have said, we have found great difficulty in securing compliance with orders for the installation of sprinklers. Early last year a fire occurred in a great factory on East Ninety-ninth street, a fire which lasted practically the whole afternoon, and engaged the services of something like twenty fire companies. In the fire no less than 50 firemen were overcome. Upon investigation I discovered that a sprinkler order had been issued against this building two years before and had been ignored. We at once cast about to see whether or not some means could not be

found for penalizing the owner of that factory for ignoring our order. I was finally advised by Mr. deRoode, the special assistant corporation counsel assigned to the fire department, that under two sections of the charter we stood a good chance of collecting at law the cost to the fire department of extinguishing that fire. Those two sections had never been availed of by the city before and we were laughed at when we proposed to bring suits under them. But we brought suit for $1,500 and those who laughed were the first to congratulate us when, a few months later, the appellate division of the supreme court, by unanimous decision, upheld our contention. The very next day another firm against which a similar suit had been brought sent its representative to headquarters with a check covering the expense of the fire department in that particular fire. So by this decision there was placed in our hands a weapon which I believe will be tremendously effective in compelling compliance with fire department orders. The principle established by that decision was that the fire department can collect the cost of extinguishing fires if it can be shown that the fire was caused by "wilful or culpable negligence."

Personally, I feel that this principle should be carried further, that the law should provide that the owner of a building may collect for damage done by fire from the person responsible, through carelessness or negligence, for starting such fire. Under the Code Napoleon the man upon whose premises a fire starts is presumptively at fault, and the burden of proof is upon him to show that he was not responsible for causing the fire. If a fire starts upon a man's premises and is communicated to the premises of that man's neighbor, the neighbor can bring suit for damages unless the man can show that the fire was due to no fault of his own or his servants or agents. I see no sound reason why we should not have such a law here. If we had, I feel sure that the number of fires occurring in this city would go down amazingly over night. If men have to go into their pockets to pay the cost of their carelessness and negligence, you may be sure that they are going to be more careful.

In the work of the fire prevention bureau we have made publicity and education a foremost feature. We have sought in every way possible to show people how fires occur; through what acts of carelessness they are started and how they may easily be prevented.

We feel that the number of fires which are not preventable is almost negligible. In fact it can scarcely be said that no fire is unpreventable except those due to earthquake or lightning.

Last year we had 14,425 fires in this city and of this number more than 9,000, or exactly 64%, occurred in places in which people lived, the homes of the people, private residences, tenement houses, hotels and boarding houses. And they occurred from causes which, as ascertained by our fire marshals upon investigation, were due to ordinary acts of carelessness. Of these fires 1,674 occurred in cellars; 478 in chimneys; 1,031 in parlors and dining rooms; 357 in closets; 189 in bathrooms; 190 were awning fires: 105 occurred in dumbwaiters and 215 occurred under stoops, porches and in areaways. And all of these fires were carelessness fires.

Investigation by our fire marshal shows that carelessness with cigars, cigarettes and pipes caused 1,342 fires; carelessness with candles and tapers, 523; children playing with matches or fire, 755; careless use of matches, 287; overheated stoves, boilers and ranges, 958; defective insulation, 471; bonfires, brush fires and rubbish fires, 1,491. We have issued thousands of circulars pointing out these facts and warning and admonishing the people. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to impress grown-up people with facts like these until they have been hit by some personal experience of their own, so we have begun with the rising generation. We have prepared a text book on fire prevention, and through the co-operation of President Churchill and Superintendent Maxwell fire prevention is now being taught in every class in the public schools of this city. It is our hope that in a few years, perhaps even this year, we may begin to reap the advantage of this training.

This indicates the great task which is before the fire department-the prevention of fires. Fire prevention is not, as many people suppose, merely a matter of fireproofing buildings. That is fire protection which, in the case of a fire occurring, will limit the loss of property and the loss of life. But almost as many fires will occur in fireproof buildings if the people who occupy those buildings are careless with matches and lights and allow rubbish and combustible materials to accumulate.

It is the great task of the next decade in the fire department to take the people into co-operation in the prevention of fires. We are going ahead as well as we can with a limited force to make buildings in this city safe, but what can 200 men do in a vast city like this with more than 375,000 buildings, and a population of six million? It would take years and the complete re-building of many parts of the city to make our buildings fireproof, as we understand the term to-day. And even when that work is done, its effectiveness will be lost unless the people themselves co-operate. Fire prevention is really the work of the people of the city. A handful of inspectors can not do it all. I should like to see every man, woman and child in this city a fire prevention aide, and when we have that help we shall have such a reduction in fires as to enable us to get along with much fewer firemen than we need to-day.

(556)

DISCUSSION OF FIRE ADMINISTRATION

CLEMENT J. DRISCOLL

Bureau of Municipal Research

S Commissioner Adamson has clearly stated, New York's fire department has within the last few years advanced to a higher point of efficiency than ever before attained. The officials of the department have made the scientific training of the men an essential part of their program. They have likewise developed a system of fire prevention inspections through the use of civilian inspectors and uniformed firemen, and have secured the enforcement of the department's orders by protecting it against political interference. In these respects the fire departments of other American cities have not been so progressive.

In New York, however, and in most American cities there remains to be solved a problem of administration vital from the point of view of both efficiency and economy. That question, which puzzles most administrators of fire departments, concerns the hours of labor of firemen and the distribution of the force so as to secure the best results. In a word, the great question is, what shall be done with firemen during the many hours they are not called upon to perform active work?

All over the country fire departments and those interested in them are to-day discussing the question of platoon systems. Most of those who have studied the situation are agreed that the present so-called continuous-service or single-platoon system is unfair to the fireman and far from satisfactory. Most fire chiefs are opposed to any change from the present continuous-service system principally because of the increased cost of management that must necessarily come with a change of platoon system. They likewise argue that by having the firemen constantly under their control, and housed under the barracks system, they can secure better service. Nevertheless, the firemen of America who are working under the single-platoon system are discontented, and their discontentment is not conducive to efficient service. It was once said in connection with police, and with a great deal of wisdom, that "a contented force is an efficient force."

Those who argue for a continuance of the present system contend that its justice lies primarily in the fact that the firemen are for the most part idle, and are called into action only occasionally. This is true, but in this very fact may be found the great problem of fire administration. During the year 1913 the 289 companies of New York's fire department