Q. Which one was it, the Labor Department? A. I don't know which one. It was up in Madison Square. Q. The head of that department we have just had on the stand? A. This party told me this alleged fact. I can give you the name of the man if you would like to have the man. By Commissioner PHILLIPS: Q. In the case of a large manufacturing concern with a diversified line of work do they not have specialists in the various departments? A. If they have a large manufacturing plant with a variety of products they probably would have specialists with different lines. Q. The same as we are doing for the State? A. In the same way that department stores are being run at comparatively less expense than a large number of small stores can be conducted for. By Mr. ELKUS: Q. Are you a manufacturer? A. I have been. I am a retired manufacturer. Hon. HENRY BRUÈRE (City Chamberlain of the city of New By Mr. ELKUS: Q. Mr. Bruère, what official position do you hold in the city government? A. I am city chamberlain. Q. And prior to your being city chamberlain you were engaged in what occupation? A. Director of the Bureau of Municipal Research. Q. And have you given considerable study and thought to this question of inspection that we are investigating to-day? A. I remember, Mr. Elkus, that I was before your Commission when it was considering the codification of the Labor Law, Factory Law, and then we discussed the possibility of consolidating some of these different branches of inspection, and it was then apparent, I think, that there would be a considerable amount of inspection of a single premises. It did not seem clear at that time that it would be desirable to consolidate these various inspection boards. Recently, at the request of the Mayor, I have taken up again the problem of duplication of inspection services in New York. The Borough President, as you know, in the borough of Manhattan has called attention to some duplications and states that there is a good deal of irritation on the part of those who are subjected to it. The Mayor feels, I believe, that very careful consideration should be given to the possibilities of consolidating these inspection processes, and we are now studying the present conditions in New York city. If I may say a word, it seems to me that the problem is not so simple as it appears. I somewhat sympathize with the if I may so characterize it- the helplessness of the last witness. It is hardly fair to ask him to diagnose the difficulty and point out a remedy here. We know there is duplication of inspections. Now the question is, is it wise to attempt consolidation? We all know the various inspections to which a single building is subjected. It seems to me the problem is this: Can we get the character of service we want by centralizing the whole inspection service? Is the problem one of conflict between jurisdictions or conflicts in orders issued? If you consolidated all these various authorities and had an inspection board for fire tenements and buildings, water inspection for the protection of the city in respect of water, and electrical inspections, etc., would it then be possible to have a single inspector go through the building or would five or six inspectors still be necessary? Do you require specialists, and if it is necessary to have specialists, to go through the building looking for these different things, would the fact that you have consolidated jurisdiction lead to less friction or less annoyance and equal afficiency. Q. Isn't the trouble really complained of this, that the orders required by the inspectors to be carried out are issued at different times; I am just asking for information; it isn't so much that the inspections are made by different inspectors at different times but that a property owner or manufacturer gets an order one day and he complies with that order and on some other day he gets an order to do something else, not the same thing but another thing, and that goes on until we feel that he is very much to be sympathized with? A. I imagine that condition does exist but it has not come forward in the form of concrete complaints. The various inspection services may have knowledge of specific instances of that kind. For instance, Mr. Adamson and Mr. Hammitt may have encountered instances of that kind, but it is unquestionably true and cannot be ignored that we have various lines of inspections or inspectors being sent into a building to accomplish the same result and I cannot help but feel that the owner of a building must feel a considerable amount of irritation. Now the question is, can you accomplish what is desired to be accomplished by centralizing the inspection forces or centralizing jurisdictions? The answer to those questions is the purpose of our present study. I think it is fair to bear in mind before any conclusion is reached that you cannot get an improvement of these specific conditions unless you specialize attention upon them. I assume that is why special attention is given to tenement house conditions. A question has been recently raised whether or not it is feasible to consolidate the examination of plans and inspection of buildings in process of construction in respect to tenement houses, with the work now done by the Bureau of Buildings in the various boroughs. Those who are specially interested in tenement house control raise the point that there may be a lack of emphasis upon the special conditions prevailing in respect to tenement houses, and that seems to me to be the condition existing in every one of these fields of inspection service. We have formulated tentatively a plan for consolidating the jurisdiction over buildings including inspections by the bureau of buildings. Q. Into one department? A. Into one department. It looks very cumbercome. At first blush it seems to me that you would lose the necessary emphasis that must be given to these special conditions, otherwise we won't get the improvement in conditions we are looking for. The other proposition which has been crudely formulated (and I would be very glad to submit to your Commission such data as we have and to keep in touch with you), is to retain the present jurisdiction over conditions, the present administrative arrangement and responsibility, but to consolidate inspection work, in a measure, having a single inspection department ascertain the facts upon which the administrative orders are issued. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. You say the city administration has that under consideration now? A. Yes, these two plans have been carefully formulated in the study we are now making. Q. Does that take the inspectors in the Building Department? A. I want to be clear that it is entirely tentative because I do not believe that you can reach a sound conclusion on any of these points unless you go thoroughly into the work done by the divisions and get the point of view of the different members of the community who are specially interested in these classes of inspection. Q. I did not know but what you had gone that far, and we would like to get the result? A. Here is the rough outline. The idea is that it is possible to conceive of a department having jurisdiction over these matters, over the work now done by the Bureau of Buildings in the five boroughs, the work of the Tenement House Department, the work of the Fire Department in reference to fire prevention, the Department of Water Supply in reference to the supervision of electrical installations, the Police Department in reference to the supervision and construction of exits and inspection of boilers, the provison for exits in theatres, the Health Department as to light and sanitation, the Department of Licenses in respect of area and ventilation requirements in moving picture theatres, and the State Labor Department in respect of the physical structure of the building itself and sanitary conditions. Now, it is conceivable that you could have a department for all of these things broadly enough organized, with competent supervision, but it seems to me at this stage that we would run the risk of losing emphasis, having some of the work slighted. Now for this same group of activities of which I think, so far as I now recall, my description is comprehensive, it has been suggested that possibly you might have one inspection service. It seems to me that those two alternatives should receive very careful consideration. Either they are wholly possible or they are possible in part. By Mr. ELKUS: Q. Have you considered this question which was raised before when we discussed this matter that the inspection department ought to be connected with the department which enforces the result of the inspection and that if you have the two separate, there never will be any practical harmony or practical working? A. 'I think that is a very practical question. If the inspection force is separated it removes the administrative organization from responsibility, from interest. I say it is conceivable that you would have a well organized inspection department and then have it subject to the superior administrative control. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. If the matter were put right up to you now, Mr. Bruère, would you favor the consolidation of all these departments in one inspection department or leave them as they are now? A. I would not be in favor of starting out with complete consolidation. would be in favor of eliminating some of the illogical conditions which I think have arisen because one thing has been taken up after another. By Mr. ELKUS: Q. Mr. Robert W. DeForest, you know, of course? A. Yes. I Q. He wrote in reference to this matter. He said "the Bureau of Inspection, such as is suggested in this question should emphatically not be established. The duty of inspection and the duty of enforcing the results of inspection should not be separated;" do I understand that you agree with him? A. I think I do. My conclusions are not final because as I say I believe this whole question ought now to be thoroughly gone into and everyone who has information regarding it and who is interested should be consulted. Q. While we are discussing this matter, may I make this sug gestion for your consideration: would it be possible and practicable to make the Bureau of Buildings, for instance, the Department of Buildings, and make that a bureau of the Fire Department and thus do away with a number of inspections by different inspectors there; in other words the Bureau of Buildings has charge now of passing upon the plans for the erection of buildings and alterations of buildings, and they have to have their inspectors for that purpose; the plans or most plans for buildings, have to go then to the Fire Department to be approved by them to cover the particular statutes in reference to buildings as to the fire |