By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. As to what? A. As to the penalties that are being inflicted upon the manufacturers by this conflict of inspections.

Q. Is it the conflict or the requirements of the law? A. It is the conflict.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. The laws themselves they don't object to? They don't object to the laws but they object to these constant annoyances, contradictory orders, piece-meal orders. Now while on the subject I want to say, so that you don't think I am coming here to talk about fifteen men, that I am not representing fifteen men in this talk. I propose to represent the sentiment of the borough so far as I can discover what it is. I have addressed meetings in every part of this borough and I can tell you I need to say nothing more than duplication and conflict of inspections and if this were a campaign I would run into office on that platform.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. I hope that isn't influencing you? A. No, this isn't a campaign.

Q. We have heard a lot of these general statements and if there is anything wrong we want to correct it? A. That is right.

Q. But your statements do not help us; there is nothing specific enough? A. Do you want the numbers of the houses?

Q. No. We want cases in which there has been a conflict of orders? A. I have given you three different classes of orders that conflict.

Q. You have give us one in the case of the door going in and out? A. Yes.

Q. Even if that happened that wouldn't ruin anybody? A. They are all over town.

Q. Where are they all over town? A. Shall I send you a list? Q. Yes. I think these gentlemen if they complain should be willing to come before us publicly and tell the whole procedure showing the sufferings which they have undergone as a result of orders. Give us the orders and what the nature of the complaint is? A. I will tell you what I suggest. The real estate owners' associations will give you all the details.

་

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. We have asked for them and they have not given us any as yet, not one case? A. It is their business to do that.

Q. I agree with you but they haven't done it? A. All I can say is to represent the sentiment here and give you my experiences. Q. Now, Mr. President, when you refer to conflicting orders, such as doors opening outwards, that is not a conflicting order because you can not take part of the sidewalk? A. The State Labor Department inspector says you can not swing it inwardly and the owner says the only way he can swing it outwardly is by swinging it over the sidewalk.

Q. That you say is a conflicting order? A. Yes, sir.

Q. We want you to swing the door out but you can not swing it on the sidewalk; you can do that by co-operation? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You can order it without legislation? A. Yes, sir, and you don't need two inspectors on the job. The State Labor inspector is the man who first issues the order.

Q. He don't need to if the owner has complied with the law? A. If you would only give a few less laws to the owner.

Q. That is what I want to get at, what laws would you eliminate?

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What are the laws that are on the statute books that you would repeal? A. I would want to make a study.

Q. That is just the trouble? A. That is what you are doing

now.

By Commissioner GOMPERS:

Q. Wasn't it possible, Mr. President, for this property owner to comply with both orders, the one from the Department of Labor of the State and the other from the Borough Department; was it impossible for him to comply with both orders? A. It would not have been if he had gotten both orders at the same time.

Q. Was it impossible for him to comply with both orders? A. In many cases, yes.

Q. Was it impossible for this particular man? A. I don't know how they are going to work that.

Q. Was it impossible for him to comply with both laws? A. I have complaints, Mr. Gompers, from people who say that the orders that they receive make reconstruction of their buildings necessary. It isn't impossible to reconstruct buildings.

Q. Mr. President, a man of wide intelligence and experience and good will, I know you so well and it is not flattery in which I indulge, but you have made specific complaint against the order that this man must not have his doors swing inward but must swing it outward. A. That is only an illustration.

Q. Permit me to finish please. He placed that door swinging outward so that it interfered and conflicted with the laws controlling the borough; now was it impossible for him to have complied with that first order and still remain within the laws of the borough? A. Oh, no.

Commissioner PHILLIPS: I suppose, Mr. Marks' contention is that it is the duty of the inspector, who is presumed to know the law to say, to the property owner make that door swing out and at the same time he should suggest to him that he must do it without encroaching upon the street, and that if the inspector did not think of that, it is reasonable to think the property owner did not and he would simply shift his hinges and swing the door. A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. If there is nothing more serious than that I wouldn't call that a serious situation? A. That is only a detail.

Q. I think what you find in a good many cases is that a factory owner does not contend that the law which may compel him to make a change is not for the betterment of conditions or for the betterment of the people employed by him, but he is heavily burdened with taxes just now and the additional cost is a burden upon him? A. Mr. Chairman, what I have more at heart than anything else is my fear that we are going to create a disrespect for the law when we give conflicting orders.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. I haven't seen any conflicting orders; I agree with you that if they were conflicting they would create disrespect.

The CHAIRMAN: The people complaining ought to help us.

The WITNESS: I think they are doing so.

The CHAIRMAN: And see if we can remedy it. This year the Legislature passed some laws advocated by the real estate owners in New York. They came up and I think their demands were reasonable and they secured the legislation.

Mr. ELKUS: Does anybody desire to ask any questions. Do you object to answering questions?

Mr. MARKS: I have no objection although I am due back at one o'clock.

Mr. LAUREYNS: When orders are issued there is one eventual thing, there is one certain man who had to execute these orders and the builders and the architects, they are the men who professionally execute these orders. Now I would simply like to ask this question: Isn't it proper that the builders should deal with the Building Department as such and no one else?

Mr. MARKS: That is a thing I will ask the Commission to answer. I want to say though that the majority of owners do not require either architects or builders. Most of the orders are not of that serious nature. They come along in small sections and the citizen takes a carpenter or mechanic who doesn't know of these conflicting orders.

Mr. LAUREYENS: A carpenter or mechanic is a builder?

Mr. MARKS: In a sense.

Mr. ELKUS: Mr. President, I am very glad of this word from you and I would like to impress upon you if there was co-operation between the departments of the city government a great deal of these complaints would be done away with, a great percentage.

Mr. MARKS: A percentage. I have already acted upon it.

Dr KORN: Isn't it a fact that in a great many cases where these orders are issued to swing the doors outward that it is absolutely impossible to take that space from the stores without harming the rental value of those stores and if they do swing them out

side they would come under your jurisdiction and you would have to take them away

?

Mr. MARKS: I think I alluded to that, that even the changes that are ordered, simple though they may seem, require structural changes in the building and for that reason are very difficult to carry out.

MR. ALFRED R. KIRKUS addressed the Commission as follows:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Mr. Kirkus, will you state whom you represent. A. I represent to-day the Merchants' Association of the City of New York.

Q. We would be glad to have your views on this question. A. The Merchants' Association, by action a few weeks ago, considered the question of the duplication of orders which had been reported to them, and resolved that the Chairman appoint a subcommittee or two or more to make a careful study and analysis of the laws relating to fire prevention, to confer with the Commissioner of Labor, the Fire Commissioner and other authorities in relation thereto and obtain the views of experts having special knowledge on this subject and prior to the meeting of the Legislature of 1915 to report to this Committee for its consideration, recommendations and amendments of the existing law. They also opposed the extension of the powers of the Department of Labor and Fire prevention in mercantile establishments. In regard to the questions asked to-day they did feel that there was not enough publicity or time for preparation on such an important matter, as on Friday morning last they had not yet received notice of this hearing. I asked them to write to you, Mr. Elkus, to be put on the mailing list.

Mr. ELKUS: I think they are mistaken about that.

Mr. KIRKUS: I inquired two consecutive days. In answer to the various questions, answering specifically your questions, number one If a Department of Labor is necessary in the City of New York, it should have laws and rules for said city and not be included in general laws for the whole State.