The CHAIRMAN: The Commission understands you. I do not think you should be submitted to this sort of cross examination. As I understand it this committee agreed upon the general principle involved in the proposed plan but as to the details they had not studied them and desired to present their views later.

Mr. SIMON: Yes, sir.

Mr. LEACH: May I ask if the Citizens' Union you read is the former political organization?

Mr. SIMON: I don't know. They call themselves the Citizens' Union.

Mr. YOUKER (representing the Citizens' Union): I want to make it perfectly clear that we attended this conference but we were not at that time prepared to take any attitude with respect to the subject whatever, nor are we at this time. We hope we can have a further hearing before your Commission. We want to give further study to the subject and will be prepared later.

Hon. ROBERT ADAMSON addressed the Commission:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. You are the Commissioner of the Fire Department and you have appeared before the Commission with reference to the subject matter under discussion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. We will be very glad to hear from you upon the matter? I know you have studied it and considered it pretty carefully. A. My feeling is that the tentative bill prepared here is aimed in the right direction to accomplish something which needs to be done, but it seems to me that it trys to accomplish too much at one stroke. There are undoubtedly too many jurisdictions now dealing with the subject of inspection of buildings. We have five superintendents of buildings in the boroughs and the State Labor Department and we have four city departments dealing with it, and of course that has created a great deal of confusion and created a deal of justifiable complaint, but so far as the bill goes in proposing to consolidate the Tenement House Department and the Fire Prevention Bureau at this time it seems to me it would be in the nature of a reaction instead of progress to do it. That, per

haps, can come in time, probably in seven or eight years, but I do not believe that time has been reached yet.

Those two departments were created in response to a sentiment in the city that conditions existed which needed special attention and they have been giving special attention to the subject and I believe we can continue to do that without creating any conflict of jurisdiction or any confusion of administration at all. As Mr. Bruère stated there has been a conference called by the Mayor and I think he outlined pretty fully the plan that was there agreed upon. Of course, there are a good many details about it that were not worked out. It seemed to us that it would be in the line of simplification and would make it very much better from the standpoint of the property owner, and building owner, if the jurisdiction over this question were reduced. In other words, if there was a central building department for the entire city; if the jurisdiction now exercised by the State Labor Department were distributed into the logical departments where it belongs, and if the police jurisdiction now over boiler inspections and the Department of Water Supply inspection, the jurisdiction over wiring, installations, if those should go to the proper jurisdiction, either to the building or fire prevention bureau; that the central building department should have jurisdiction over plans for construction work and that the fire prevention bureau should look after the work of maintenance and proper conditions in buildings so as to minimize the chances of fires occurring, to save lives in case fires did occur.

Q. In case the maintenance which you speak of involves an alteration which department would have jurisdiction over that? A. Involved in any alteration of what?

Q. Of a building? A. If it was an alteration which required a plan and the approval of a plan the fire prevention bureau should issue the order and a copy be sent to the Building Department. The Fire Department should do that, in my opinion, because it has the point of view of fire prevention, and conditions in this city still require a great deal to be done before that transfer can be made, in my opinion.

Q. Do you take the same view as Mr. Breuère, that the building department for the entire city should be as it was sketched

out by legislation with authority to take in and have this Board of Appeals and have the building construction put in there, the construction of new buildings and then with power to the city authorities to include all the other work as they from time to time see fit? A. Yes, I think there could be a gradual transfer.

Q. In other words, to authorize it, but to put off the time when it should be transferred so that it can be done gradually? A. Yes, sir, and I believe the agency for that would be this Board of Standards and Appeals. They could certify when the transfer should be made.

Examined by ALFRED E. OMMEN (representing the Typothetae):

Q. Do I understand you correctly when you state you favor the taking away of the powers of the Labor Department and distributing them among the other departments of the city of New York? A. The local departments.

Q. How would that reduce any of the troubles of inspection? A. It would certainly consolidate the inspections under one head. Q. I thought you meant that everything should be in statu quo and that these various departments should exercise the jurisdiction they now have and that simply the Labor Department jurisdiction should be distributed among the various departments? A. I should say the Labor Department jurisdiction as to construction should go to the Building Department; as to fire it should go to the Fire Department. That is what I mean by distribution.

Q. If only from the Labor Department, isn't the centralization in the Labor Department better now than it would be in again distributing it to all of these various departments? A. Not in my opinion. I think the complaint that has arisen has come from this division of jurisdiction between a State Department and local jurisdiction.

Q. But you heard some gentlemen here this morning stating that their opinion is that the boroughs should exercise the jurisdiction; we have one State Labor Department that exercises one centralized jurisdiction with one inspection insofar as labor conditions are concerned; if the plans of these gentlemen were approved would you favor that the Labor Department jurisdiction should be put into the hands of each borough president to carry out, the fire and construction and all of that of the various

boroughs? A. I am advocating the centralization of the building department in one central city department.

Q. Not that the Labor Department jurisdiction should be div tributed among the five boroughs? A. No. That should go into the other central department where it would logically belong.

Q. The question of factory inspection is not a borough question but a city question? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the question of fire inspection is a city question and not a borough question? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The one point I want to make is that whatever jurisdiction the State Labor Department now has in a centralized plan you would favor that some centralized plan be made a city proposition and not a borough proposition? A. Yes.

Mr. ELKUS: In other words, the Labor Department's work would still be centralized and not divided up?

Mr. OMMEN: Of course. I am satisfied the manufacturers whom I represent do not want the jurisdiction distributed over five boroughs of that which is already centralized.

Mr. ADAMSON: No, the plan we have just discussed here provides in my opinion for a great centralization of power. It eliminates several jurisdictions and brings it down to the Building Department, the Fire Prevention Bureau and the Tenement House Department, eliminating all the rest from the administration. By Mr. LEACH:

Q. You believe in centralization of the departments practically in New York City or Manhattan similar to the Fire Department A. I don't understand the question.

Q. That is, the jurisdiction of the Fire Department is now under the Mayor and not under the presidents of the various boroughs? A. Yes.

Q. And that in your opinion is the best possible way it could be worked out? A. Yes.

Q. Do you suppose if the jurisdiction of the Fire Department in the Borough of Queens was under the Borough President that the two fire houses in Woodhaven would remain unoccupied up to this time?

The CHAIRMAN: I want to give you all the leeway possible, but I do not think that this is a hearing of criticizing of the administration of any particular department.

Mr. ADAMSON: I would be very glad to answer the question.

Mr. LEACH: This gentleman was testifying as an expert in favor of this bill. I want to bring out some things to show that some of them should not qualify as experts on this bill.

Mr. ADAMSON: My answer to the gentleman's question is that if the authority were vested in the Borough President that those two stations in Woodhaven would not be open at this time; is that the gentleman's question?

Mr. LEACH: I asked the Commissioner if the Borough President had jurisdiction over the Fire Department if the two houses in Woodhaven would have remained idle so long after their completion?

Mr. ADAMSON: In answer to that my answer is, I did not understand that there was any proposition to transfer the Fire Department to the Borough President, and if you want to know whether I think those two houses would be built, I might say this, that the Borough Presidents being members of the Board of Estimate and the Fire Commissioner not being a member, might get a great more, particularly on the Fire Commissioner's application for funds for apparatus for those departments, and we could probably have had them opened a good deal sooner. I might say there we have had pending before the Board for several months an applications to provide funds for this department.

Q. You understand I am not criticizing the Fire Commissioner for those houses not being equipped but I am trying to bring out that experts called to affect these bills if other things were done it might be possibly better; now Mr. Adamson the Fire Prevention Bureau is in existence to-day; may I ask if the same work is not done by the captains of the local companies if that was done by them before the creation of the Fire Prevention Bureau ? A. They made semi-annual inspection and we have in addition to that monthly inspections.

Q. That is certainly duplicating the work of the Fire PrevenVOL. V 78