While there is room for reorganization in other existing bureaus, it is quite natural that sufferers should first seek relief from the burdens of the "two last straws which broke the camel's back."

Whether it is possible to organize a board of inspections in order to prevent duplication or conflict, or whether bureaus are to be physically combined in order to get the same result, the main point now is to proceed quickly in the direction of relief which is so urgently needed.

The tentative bill which is here offered for consideration by the New York State Factory Investigation Commission I would strenuously oppose for the following reasons:

1. Because it will bring deputies instead of chiefs into each borough. This would give less opportunity to obtain high grade talent for the then subpositions.

2. It would delay finality in action which would be caused by awaiting the judgment of the chief who would be out of personal touch with at least four of the boroughs. The boroughs building bureaus were united under central city control years ago and the plan failed dismally.

3. Becase it is an unbalanced and incomplete attempt toward charter revision of borough and city functions.

It would throw out of balance the relations between city and borough and a little later, when other city and borough departments pass in review before the charter revision commission, other radical changes, now contemplated would again endanger this equilibrium.

The two principal departments under borough authority are public works and buildings. Cut out buildings and you practically break in two the duties and responsibilities of borough government.

If it be wise to aim at the destruction of borough autonomy by such a heavy stroke as the elimination of the building bureau, why not take away the other half, namely, public works, thus ending borough rule.

This subject is too large to discuss at this moment.

There has been no conflict, or overlapping of inspection or duplication of orders regarding buildings between one borough and the

others.

The sharp separation of territory prevents any such

possibility.

Why then now seek relief from over inspection and duplication or orders by taking from borough control a function which has operated without the slightest conflict of this nature?

If the solution of the difficulty is to be found in a city or State department, the functions of which can safely be consolidated with the borough building bureaus, I have no doubt that the borough authorities would be willing to assume this added responsibility in the interest of simpler and more efficient government.

I understand that such a suggestion is being elaborated.

It should have full and serious consideration as a logical move along the lines of least resistance.

I am prepared to co-operate with State, city and borough authorities who will work toward speedy relief from the present cumbersome and trying system of building regulation.

Mr. HELMS: Mr. Marks, do you approve of this principle of a board of appeals and standards as specified in this bill; do you believe in separate borough building departments and do you think it would be advisable to have that central board of appeals?

Mr. MARKS: I think that a combination, a board of appeals between the various boroughs would be very useful you can call it by any name you like a co-operation I believe, the closest co-operation between the boroughs but without cutting the boroughs in two and thus breaking up that form of government. Mr. ARCTANDER: Mr. President, may I ask a question?

Mr. MARKS: You may.

Mr. ARCTANDER: Do you think that the tenement house department with its inspectors as they are to-day would be a department most desired to have control?

Mr. MARKS: That is a question which I think you will probably go into after you get your testimony. I prefer not to express any judgment as to the relative value of the tenement house department and the building department.

Mr. ARCTANDER: Then, Mr. President, may I ask you another question; you are aware, I think, by your experience as president of the borough of Manhattan that the building department has practical inspectors to do that, that know all about buildings, and as a general thing they are appointed with practical knowledge are they not?

Mr. MARKS: That is the intention, surely.

Mr. ARCTANDER: You are aware, I think, that the tenement house inspectors are not appointed as practical men?

Mr. MARKS: I am not aware of that.

Mr. ARCTANDER: Well, are you aware that the percentage in the examination is only twenty per cent for practical experience? Mr. MARKS: I am not prepared to pass upon any criticism of the tenement house department.

Mr. ARCTANDER: Thank you. I only wish to bring it forcibly before the Commission that the building department inspectors are practical men whereas the tenement house department inspectors

are not.

Mr. MARKS: I am willing to admit the former since the building department comes under my jurisdiction.

Hon. JAMES M. LYNCH, Commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State of New York, addressed the Commission.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Commissioner, will you be kind enough to give us your views on the subject under discussion? A. I am opposed to the proposition so far as it in any way menaces the power or authority of the State Labor Department. I expressed that view before and I reiterate it now. If wage earners are to have adequate protection in factories, factory buildings and mercantile establishments it must come to them through a department that is in sympathy with the laws enacted for their protection. I want to make this suggestion, however, that if this tentative proposition is to be presented to the Legislature that it should at least have a section

that will permit the State Labor Department legally to call the attention of the central board provided therein to the violations of the Labor Law so that we may retain at least that much power to exert in behalf of the people who are at work in factories and stores. That is about all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN: Does any one want to ask any question of the Commissioner?

Mr. JAMES O'BRIEN: I want to ask the Commissioner if it isn't possible for the superintendent of buildings in the different boroughs to have inspectors to enforce the State Labor Laws the same as they enforce the State Labor Laws relating to the construction of buildings?

Mr. LYNCH: It is possible for him to have the inspectors, of course. As to the method for enforcing the laws from the particular point of view of the people employed I have grave doubts.

Mr. O'BRIEN: You have doubts that a man employed by the borough president in Queens or in the Bronx would not be as good

Mr. LYNCH: I have doubts whether the workers could get any such protection as they have now through the State Labor Depart

ment.

Mr. PATRICK J. REVILLE, of the Builders' Protective Association, addressed the Commission.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. About how many members are in your association? A. 135. Q. We should be very glad to hear from you about the matter we are discussing? A. The sense of our members is that the building industry is not an illegal operation to begin with. We take exception to the spirit expressed by Mr. Miller to the effect that the duties of a superintendent of buildings are to execute. We claim, and we claim justly, that the duties of a superintendent naturally devolve on his inspectors and not only to inspect but to advise. There are many types and classes of people engaged in building operations and alterations. Very few of them are

thoroughly conversant with the laws and practically none are sufficiently active to keep up with the regulations. The result is that they unconsciously get into violations of the law or regulations and leave themselves open to a second prosecution. Now we feel that under the present borough system we have in the building department a condition similar to what the Municipal Court is to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has its functions and nobody would think of bringing a suit for fifteen or twenty dollars into the Supreme Court, because the cost would be so extreme and for other reasons. But in the Municipal Court is is a different proposition. In the building department it is very much the same. A person goes into a little alteration in their building and they unconsciously violate the law. They want to reach somebody in sympathy with them. They do not want to go down to the borough of Manhattan or deputy commissioner or somebody else, they want to reach a borough president, who if he does not give them a fair ruling he can chastise. We are getting nearer to the spirit of recall in our government and we ought to have it. We in the Bronx have had reason to suffer from deputies. As there are a few Bronx people here I am calling their attention to the matter. During the administration of Mayor McClellan we had the proposition of a gentleman who had spent most of his life in Albany as a newspaper man made Tax Commissioner. I question whether he knew a block east or west of Third avenue. The situation was this, that if a man came there

Q. There are a good many people to be heard, Mr. Reville. Get down to the question. A. To get down to the question, we are opposed to the centralization of the building department in this sense, we are opposed to a commissioner being appointed with deputies.

Q. Are you in favor of consolidation? A. We are very much in favor of consolidation of inspection. We do not agree with Mr. Lynch that the same sympathy would not be dealt to the laboring man through the building department as through the Labor Bureau.

Q. Do I understand you correctly if I say you are in favor of the consolidation of all these departments for the construction of buildings and alteration of them under borough control? A. Our