fire prevention bureau at this time but to go to the crux of the thing, don't you think, Mr. Veiller, that any legislation that is attempted should be with a view to doing the work with the greatest efficiency at the lowest possible cost.

Mr. ELKUS: Everybody agrees to that; you don't need to ask a question about that.

Mr. VEILLER: Absolutely.

Mr. MCGUIRE: The point I want to make and get on the record is this, that under existing conditions we are paying at least fifty per cent. more in the city of New York for general inspection than it is necessary to pay and we are not getting as efficiently served. We ought to deduct half the price, and that is because the State and the city are in conflict. What applies to the balance of the State does not apply to New York, and further legislation along these lines should be made eliminating the Greater City of New York and whatever jurisdiction the State Factory Department should have should be outside of the city of New York.

Mr. ELKUS: You would have a separate labor department for the State. ?

Mr. MCGUIRE: Not a separate labor department; one general public department of public welfare or whatever you may call it.

Commissioner GOMPERS: Is the trend of your question a statement toward economy to the city of New York or to the greater efficiency in the effective enforcement of the laws of the State and the city?

Mr. MCGUIRE: May I answer that by saying that I would in all instances subordinate economy to efficiency.

Hon. WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Commissioner of Water Supply,
Gas and Electricity) addressed the Commission:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. You are at the head of what department? A. Of the Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity since February 1. Q. Now Commissioner have you read this statement issued by

the Commission of the purposes of this hearing? A. Yes, I received it only Saturday morning, I should add, but I have read it. Q. We would be very glad to hear what you have to say about it? A. My views as to question number one would be of no value, so I will not give them. My views as to question number two; I am satisfied in the light of my present information that it would be impracticable to establish a single bureau of inspection whose function it would be to inspect all the establishments therein mentioned. I agree with what Mr. Murphy and Mr. Veiller said on that subject. It requires special, trained experts, to do the various classes of inspection work. It is useless for me to elaborate on what has heretofore been said on that subject. There has not been any great disagreement of opinion. My answer to number three is no. As to number five, "what suggestions have you tending to lessen or do away with the duplication of inspections in the City of New York," there is apparently very little duplication of inspection. I have been learning a great deal by listening here this morning. When I first came here I confess I thought there was, but since no facts have been adduced tending to show there is any substantial duplication, I am constrained to think there is little or none. People are constantly confounding multiplicity of inspections with duplication. Again I refer to what Mr. Veiller said on that subject, and I agree. The electricity side is only a portion of the work of my Department and I do not pretend within three months time to have mastered even the larger features of it, but I want to say this, that the electricity bureau does not come in contact with the individual to any very great extent. It comes into a great deal of contact with all of the other departments, owing to the requirements of section 469 of the charter. There is perhaps some duplication of work between our Department and the Board of Education. This last named board has its own engineers and architects, but the Finance Department will not pass the bills unless we have approved them.

Q. Is there anything further, Commissioner, that you would like to tell us about? A. I heartily approve, as I said to you this morning before the meeting opened, of the desirability and necessity of conferences between city officials. Whether or not as a result of those conferences it could be made to appear that some legislation were necessary I cannot at this time say.

Q. You think co-operation between the departments will do away with most of the things complained of, Commissioner? A. Well, it will not do away with the multiplicity of inspections, but I think that is inherent in the situation in New York. I will, however, put it this way, I do not think there are many legitimate grounds of complaint which cannot be dealt with by such a conference, particularly if people who have bonafide complaints will come forward and give us the facts.

Mr. ELKUS: Any question of Commissioner Williams? (There was no response.)

Thank you very much indeed.

Mr. L. VICTOR WEIL addressed the Commission:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Will you give your full name and your address? A. L. Victor Weil, No. 5 Beekman street.

Q. Your business? A. Real estate; representing the United Real Estate Owners' Association.

Q. Mr. Weil have you studied these questions which are before the Commission to-day for investigation? A. I have, and I have a written set of answers here which I should like to read, referring in particular to the different questions. I will take them up in their regular order.

The United Real Estate Owners' Associations, through its special factory committee, has considered the questions set forth in the pamphlet entitled, "Jurisdiction over Fectory and Manufacturing Establishments in New York City," which was issued by the State Factory Commission, and respectfully submits its views of the questions contained in the said pamphlet as follows:

Question 1, reads as follows: "Should there be a Department of Labor for the City of New York and one for the rest of the state?"

In order to answer this question in such a manner as to meet the views of the United Real Estate Owners' Associations, the first thing to be determined upon is under whose control a Department of Labor for the City of New York, if one were established, would be as distinguished from another department for the

rest of the State. If the City Department would be under the control and jurisdiction of the State officials our association can see no benefit could be derived from establishing separate departments.

Our Association has always favored "Home Rule" in its broader sense. We believe that City Departments or Departments having charge of city matters ought to be wholly within the control of and subject to orders from the city administration. Following out this principle our Association favors the appointment of a separate Department of Labor for the City of New York, provided, however, that such a Department should be placed under the direct control and supervision of the Mayor of the City of New York, and that the rules and regulations, as well as the laws governing such a department, should be exclusively in the hands of the law-making body of the City of New York, in other words, in the Board of Aldermen.

Real estate owners are directly affected by the acts, conducts and personnel of the city departments. The owners therefore feel that they should be in direct touch with those entrusted with the administration of matters affecting their property interests. They believe that the Board of Aldermen are entrusted directly with the welfare of the city; the Board of Aldermen are the representatives of the residents of the city, in immediate touch with the needs of the residents of the city and most likely to further the interests of the city, keeping in mind at the same time, the rights of the taxpayer.

It is therefore in keeping with the principle of "Home Rule " that the United Real Estate Owners' Association urge the appointment of a separate department for the City of New York, having its existence through the city authorities, responsible to the city authorities, and governed in its activity by regulations and ordinances of the Board of Aldermen.

With reference to questions two and three, the United Real Estate Owners' Association believe that it will be for the best interests of the city and will do away with the possibility of a multiplicity of orders affecting the same subject matter and a frequent issuance of contradictory orders by city departments, if one central bureau were organized, to include, if possible,

all the city departments, or at least as many of the city departments as feasible, all the inspectors to report to this central bureau of inspection which alone shall issue all orders and notices of violations.

The head of this bureau of inspection should have authority over the issuance of all orders. He therefore will be in a position to examine them, sift them and thus avoid contradictory, duplicating and overlapping orders.

In favoring this central bureau of inspection, this association does so on condition, however, that it be appointed by the city authorities, subject to the control of city authorities. In other words, if the principle set forth in answer to question one is conceded and acted upon, the owners favor a central bureau of inspection, but if the principle of "Home Rule" is disregarded, then the owners can see no relief from the appointment or creation of a central body of inspection.

Question four cannot be answered at this time. The appointment of the bureaus will be matter of detail which would have to be left for the future to develop.

With reference to question five, the United Real Estate Owners' Associations submit that the answers to the former questions are applicable as an answer to question five. A central bureau of inspection, as herein briefly outlined, would act a sort of a clearing house for the reports of all inspectors of all the departments and the person in charge of the issuance of orders. would find it comparatively easy to guard against the duplication of orders and against the issuance of contradictory orders.

No separate answer need be made to question six as the matter touched on above is sufficient to include what could be said in answer to question six.

Question number seven we answer in the affirmative, provided that the views herein expressed concerning "Home Rule" and the placing of control over departments in the hands of the city administration be approved by your commission and from the basis of your recommendations for legislation.

Our association is now at work gathering data of orders issued by various departments that substantially conflict with each other. The labors in connection with this work are arduous and require