We believe, however, that the existing departments and laws applicable to the City of New York cover all matters taken care of in the Labor Laws.

Number 2 - Establish an "Examining and Enforcement Bureau" for the City of New York, in which the various city or other departments shall concentrate their usual or special inspection reports covering all buildings. This could be built up from selected employees of the various departments interested. These reports should be examined, tabulated and recorded to see that there is no duplication or conflict. When a violation appears, the Bureau should differentiate between what should apply to the owner and what should apply to the occupant, if separate and distinct. The one order when issued should be specific and should include the legal requirement in that case of the different departments. No order should be sent to an owner of the building, that should apply to the tenant and vice versa, and in drafting laws this distinction should always be carefully considered. The usual procedure being to send an order to the owner of a building and force him to straighten out any difficulty or any illegality caused by no matter whom. Questions three, four, five and six are answered by the above answer to number two.

Conditions have changed in three years, we are now faced by facts instead of theories.

The matter of question seven would adjust itself by the suggestion in answer two. The various departments would, under it, have to have a working agreement. The Building Department, the Fire Department and all others would send their orders to this Examining and Enforcing Bureau. It would reply to the Building Department you say this and the Fire Department says that get together, tell us what you want and the section of the law covering same. The order must be explicit and must not conflict with any other.

There will have to be also considered simple methods of appeal or arbitration regarding orders with discretionary powers, following along the lines of the Board of Examiners of the Building Department, the present laws of the City Departments being fully competent to cover any special cases requiring immediate

attention.

The saving in cost by the above suggestions is estimated as very large, and the saving in loss to owners and occupants incalculable.

A vital mistake has been made in the existing Labor Law, in that no consideration has been given to the different classes of buildings and occupations included in the law. A building where one or more persons are employed at labor is legally just as bad as one where one thousand or more persons are employed. An occupancy with highly inflammable stock and large numbers of excitable women is graded with an occupancy of heavy machinery and a few men. A mercantile establishment, any place where goods, wares or merchandise are offered for sale," might be a 10x10 delicatessen store, or an H. B. Claflin Company wholesale warehouse, a newspaper stand or an Altman's.

Replying to the statement in the call for this meeting that practically all who appeared before the Commission in person or who submitted written statements when it first commenced its investigation, were opposed to the establishment of a Board of Inspection, etc., I wish to call attention to the fact that in my brief for the real estate interests, filed with your Commission in 1912, I said: "A large number of the proposed bills embodying recommendations submitted to the New York State Factory Investigating Commission are practically building laws, and it would seem most essential to have separate laws covering such a city as New York and small places in the rest of the State. We have been striving for years to have "Home Rule" and we are being hampered all the time, in the City of New York, by a multiplicity of bills regulating us from Albany."

Also, "proper and fair regulation could be made for existing buildings for factory use when complied with and the Factory Commissioner might properly be given power to license these buildings under classes. One standard for certain restricted business, number of employees, etc., another standard for a broader range of occupancy."

I also corresponded with every Senator and Assemblyman in the State Legislature, protesting against the amendment to the Charter curtailing the powers of the Fire Commissioner and the

Fire Prevention Bureau in the City of New York, and putting these powers under the jurisdiction of the Labor Department.

Q. Mr. Kirkus, have you any examples or specific cases of duplication of orders on the same property? A. I have.

Q. Have you got them with you? A. No, sir.

Q. Will you let me have them? A. Yes, sir. At the present time the rules for fireproofing and fire resisting materials have not yet been made by the Industrial Board. The rules on sanitary provisions have not yet been made by the Industrial Board. I have some cases which I would prefer not to give you where they are distinctly conflicting, which I am holding up. I would ask the Commission to hold them out because we do not want to make a complaint. There are specific instances of mixing of jurisdiction, but we believe that the Commissioner and the Industrial Board will wipe them out when they have their rules made.

Q. In other words, you have called their attention to it and they are remedying it? A. Yes, sir; I have a specific case where an order has been given to alter toilets and I have an order from the Labor Department with an absolute dismissal of the order. By Commissioner JACKSON:

Q. Absolute dismissal or being held in abeyance? A. Absolute dismissal.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Will you give us that case? A. I would prefer not. I want to find out and ask the Department, "Do you insist on this order or do you stand by the order made last October?" it is only fair to them.

Q. Mr. Kirkus, you have heard the questions I have asked the Borough President; isn't it a fact that the principal complaint is that orders are given piece-meal? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that is the real complaint and principal complaint? A. Yes, sir; I believe we are all getting together, sir. I believe you, as the Commission, the city officials, the Merchants' Association, the Real Estate Board and all want to get together so that this duplication will not continue.

Q. It is a wrong name to call it duplication? A. No, we get orders to put a fire escape on from the Fire Department. There are thousands of them the Labor Department will give you an

order that if you have that fire escape you must do so and so. We say to them, all right, we do not ask for that fire escape as a means of exit, we will take it off. The Fire Department does not want it taken off?

Q. They say they want it for the firemen to get upon? A. Exactly. Then why should we be put to the additional expense of complying with the Labor Law? That I consider a duplication of orders.

Q. May be you call it by a different name, and you should not be put to that additional expense. Now this Commission, as you know, has acted with your various bodies in having the law changed and amended as was proper, and whenever you have come to us with a statement of facts we have always investigated them? A. Yes, sir.

A. A great majority of these cases could be avoided by the cooperation of the city departments? A. Exactly, with the State departments.

Q. The city itself, however, could co-operate and the State together and a little co-operation in giving out orders would solve most of the difficulty? A. Nine-tenths of the difficulty.

Q. That you say as a practical real estate man? A. Yes.

Q. Representing a large number of owners? A. Yes, sir. I am not speaking for real estate owners to-day, but I am a real

estate owner.

Q. And without any legislation - there would not be required any legislation? A. I am afraid there will have to be an adjustment of the legislation.

Q. In what way? A. We haven't go to that quite. We will simplify that and ask you to consider it with us. There is no question that we will have to regulate some of these laws.

Q. Now you spoke about a general inspection board and that board you say would inspect and then report to the various departments of the city? A. No, this shall be- this is very hurriedly drawn — an examining and enforcing bureau.

Q. That board would examine; suppose to-day they wanted to find out if all doors in factories did open outwardly, that board would take it upon itself to make the inspections? A. No, an inspector comes from the Department of Labor and reports to this Bureau.

VOL. V75

Q. Then you would have the Labor Department still having its bureau of inspections? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they would examine that building and say we find these doors opening inwardly and they ought not to, but instead of reporting back to their own department they would report to this new department? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then this new department would send the inspector there and find out if that was so? A. No, this bureau would then immediately communicate with the other departments have you any orders on that- we will send out one order on that door question for this reason

Q. I understand your reasons; then this one department would not inspect at all, they would just inquire? A. Absolutely not.

Q. You have a sort of clearing house and instead of writing one to the other, would write to one individual who in turn would correspond with all the others; instead of the Building Department or Labor Department saying we are going to order the doors of Mr. So and So's building to open outwardly and writing a letter to all the other departments of the city and asking, what have you against this building, you would have them write to some other man who would in turn write to the different departments? A. Yes.

Q. So you would not abolish any department now in existence? A. No, I am not ready to suggest that.

Q. And you would not abolish any inspecting force of that department nor any enforcing force of that department? A. Yes, I would make this the enforcing force.

Q. Then you would have them enforcing a law as to all departments? A. Yes.

Q. Then they would have to have a separate force of men to see that the law was enforced? A. They can have that.

Q. That would mean more expense? A. Not necessarily. Supposing the enforcing bureau said we have received word that our orders have not been complied with, Mr. Building Department, Mr. Fire Department. Will you see that that order has been complied with and notify us. Understand, I have not yet worked this out, but an efficiency man would work it out.

Q. Wouldn't it be better, Mr. Kirkus, if you are going to have