tion Bureau after the creation of the Fire Prevention Bureau? A. No, it is supplementing the work of the Fire Prevention Bureau. It had nothing to do with the construction of buildings. It has to do with housekeeping after the construction of buildings.

Q. The people from where I come have stated that the Fire Prevention Bureau should never have been organized, but it was. largely the institution of one man who afterwards was appointed? A. The reports were regularly sent in and put away and not acted on because there was no power to act on them.

Q. They were all stacked away? A. Yes.

Q. Similar to the way deeds are in Queens county? A. I don't know anything about deeds in Queens county.

Hon. DOUGLAS MATHEWSON (President of the Borough of
The Bronx) addressed the Commission:

Mr. ELKUS: Mr. Mathewson we would be very glad to hear your views upon this whole subject?

Mr. MATHEWSON: I shall be very glad to give them and at the outset I would like it understood that I am giving them as an individual with some measure of experience, quite as much as I am as Borough President. I do not expect to be Borough President forever but I am a resident of the city of New York and hope to be for some time. Might I say so far as the question of an additional appointment goes, that I feel that with one less appointment to make every borough president would have that much additional peace of mind. That is my experience. I want to say too that the views I express are based not entirely upon recent experience in my present office but upon an experience, running back through the years to a time when a good many gentlemen who are passing views upon this subject were not familiar with New York institutions. In the Assembly of 1898 I voted against the first Greater New York charter in response to the general demand of the people of what is now The Bronx, I being the only resident assemblyman at that time, because of the fact that it presented the same scheme of centralized government that is presented in this bill at present. You will recall that in the first Greater New York charter the government was centralized as to

and

all departments, as to highways and sewers, buildings and everything else. Prior to that time, The Bronx then being a part of the old City of New York, we had a water commissioner in Manhattan with deputies in The Bronx, and particularly at that time. were we tried with the building department. It was a dismal failure and the builders who were operating in The Bronx at that time and who are now operating will tell you so. Notwithstanding the feeble protest of my youth, the charter was adopted and for four years New York tried a centralized form of government. Any one who recalls the four years from 1898 to 1901, the lack of doing anything practically in any department, appreciates the utter futility of trying to conduct an active, energetic government on that plan. The result was that in 1901 the second charter was adopted which did provide for borough autonomyborough autonomy of highways, borough automony in the construction of sewers and in the supervision of buildings was drawn along the line, generally, that matters that required physical inspection, physical work, supervision of physical construction work, should be under the immediate authority of the local officials in the boroughs. Now I do not doubt, I do not suppose that any one does, that there are some functions that are essentially city-wide, such as those, of the Police Department, the Health Department, the Water Department but as to this particular subject now before this Committee, my views, so far as they are worth anything, are these, there is at present a duplication of inspection which is expensive to the city and burdensome to the property owners. I believe that it should be divided at most between two departments, the first having to do with construction and alterations if I make myself plain - -the physical aspect, the erection and changing of buildings. That department I believe should be a borough department. . Mr. Bruére stated, at least as I understand it, that it was conceded that under the 1898 charter, the centralization of this work under a city-wide department did not work smoothly, but that in view of the added experience of years it would work smoothly now. The answer to that is that city-wide departments do not work smoothly at the present instant, and when I say smoothly I do not mean that there is any friction but I mean that the same old question arises.

If there is a deputy in a borough he will not assume the responsibility because the Commissioner will not let him. That is my impression. I do not know that the commissioners have so instructed their deputies but I think it is very natural. If I were a Commissioner and responsible for the management of my department, I would not for a moment think of letting a deputy, for whose appointment I was responsible, in Queens, Richmond or anywhere else, pass on a a matter of any importance. I would want it submitted to me. If that is the plan of this bill and it becomes law, and the old condition is restored, so far as actual physical construction goes, then it will require the submission of vitally important questions to those in authority here in Manhattan, to men who have little. knowledge of local conditions unless they go on special occasions to one of the outlying boroughs to get that knowledge. I am against such a system. My view with respect to what I might call "conditions of use" is that I do not think inspection of such conditions are necessarily borough functions. I do not know but that they may well be made so.

Mr. ELKUS: You mean maintenance conditions?

Mr. MATHEWSON: Maintenance conditions. They are practically a police function, in the large sense of a police function. I do not think that there is any necessity for that supervision being vested in a borough official, but if not, I do think they should be consolidated either under the health or some other department. I do not think that there should be the duplication now existing. As to the argument that a local department as you have defined it, so far as physical changes in structures go, could not fulfill the functions of the Labor Department and that there would be a variety of rules in the different boroughs, I think the answer to that is very simple, As I understand the Labor Law, that has certain provisions as to structures. No local authority could vary them for a moment. It is simply a question of seeing that they are carried out. And so with regard to the Tenement House Law, which provides as to construction, cubic feet of air space, etc., and as to the Building Code. Those laws are for the State and the City of New York and not for any borough but for all of the boroughs. If, however, there were a borough head over physical

construction work or alterations or changes having to do with buildings, my suggestion would be that there should be some kind of an organization formed of the heads of the different boroughs to provide for uniformity of ruling in trivial matters. When I entered upon the discharge of my duties the first of this year, I found, for instance, as to street encroachments, privileges, etc., one thing was permitted in the Bronx and another in Manhattan and another in Brooklyn, and since the first of the year we have voluntarily, largely ended that by the aid and cooperation of the different building superintendents in the various boroughs so that there might be uniformity of action.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. As I understand you, Mr. President, you favor a consolidation of the departments that have to do this work we have been discussing, but as to some of them you favor a consolidation either in the building departments of the different boroughs or in some other department which shall be responsible to the borough head and in others they shall go to one centralized department? A. I say, while I do not favor the centralized department controlling uses, I have no objection to it. I think that that is perfectly logical. Inspection of uses may be termed a police function in the larger sense of the term. The other work of supervision of construction and alteration has to do with a physical something in the borough. The builders there prefer to go to a responsible borough official. They want a final decision promptly. They do not want to have questions affecting their work lead to a series of interviews between a deputy in a borough and the principal, out of it, with perhaps additional time consumed obtaining advice from the Corporation Counsel. We get this frequently in the different boroughs though.

Q. But what we are after is your view on the consolidation ; that you are in favor of? A. I am. A. I am. May I mention one or two other matters. My understanding of this bill is, it is purely tentative.

Mr. ELKUS: Absolutely.

Mr. MATHEWSON: I want to call you attention to one or two matters. I notice the salaries for the building superintendents

I would pro

The Board of

and deputies and chief inspectors are provided for. test against that and ask that it be reconsidered. Estimate is responsible for the financial affairs of the city. There has been a good deal of legislation fixing salaries

Mr. ELKUS: It is left blank in the bill.

Mr. MATHEWSON: It is as yet but

Mr. ELKUS: You mean that you would provide that the Board of Estimate fix the salaries?

Mr. MATHEWSON: Yes.

Mr. ELKUS: The Legislature have nothing to do with it?

Mr. MATHEWSON: Yes, and I would suggest also what Mr. McAneny suggested, vesting the power in the Board as to their functions, which might be omitted in the bill prepared by your Committee.

Mr. ELKUS: Give a general power to the Board?

Mr. MATHEWSON: Yes, sir. I think there is also another question deserving of very careful consideration, and this is regardless of whether the commissioner would be appointed by the Mayor or appointed by the Borough President. He appears to have a most absolute power. In fact a person can not, as suggested here, even obtain an injunction from the Supreme Court until after five days. It does seem to me that is a little too much power to trust

to one man.

Mr. ELKUS: Isn't that in the present Tenement House Law?

Mr. MATHEWSON: It is, I think, but if it is, it should be changed. My suggestion as to that would be that in a case of drastic action on one man's initative it should receive the approval of some one. Probably of the appointing power. Affecting the vacating of a house because of disease I doubt very much the wisdom of taking that away from the Health Department. The head of a new department should not be put to the responsibility of closing houses because of disease. He would need medical inspectors.