Mr. ABRAHAM GOLDBERG (New York Society of Architects) addressed the Commission:

Mr. ELKUS: How many members have you?

Mr. GOLDBERG: Over 200 members all paid in. I am directed by the society to tell you that we have not had sufficient time to go very deeply into the details of the tentative bill, as the committee having charge of this matter did not get it until a few days ago. We desire permission to submit more suggestions to the committee at some future time.

In a general way we are heartily in favor of the consolidation of the various departments as outlined in the tentative measure. We are also in favor of centralization. In view of the fact that there was so much opposition exhibited at this afternoon's session to the idea of centralization, and in view of the fact that there appeared to be so much agreement in favor of consolidation without centralization, I would like to say for myself that I would be willing to accept the plan of consolidation without centralization in order not to jeopardize our chances of having this measure become law. I feel that it would be a compromise in the nature of the Federal Reserve Bank compromise, when twelve reserve banks were planned, in spite of the fact that all the experts agreed that one central bank would have been much better. In this case it was a matter of expediency that ruled. I should like to apply the same sort of expediency in connection with this measure.

The present Tenement House Department best illustrates how the new centralized department would be organized. There is a commissioner appointed by the Mayor. The commissioner appoints deputies and superintendents, chief inspectors, etc., who are assigned to the various boroughs. Still, even under this admirable scheme, I find that there is not that evenness of ruling on the law that one is led to expect. However, the present commissioner has shown himself extremely willing to standardize the practice and rules in the different branches. The Tenement House Department lacks only a Board of Appeals to make its organization look like the organization of the new department, the creation of which we are in favor today.

The New York Society of Architects directs me to call the attention of this Commission that they are not in favor of the Board

of Standards and Appeals as outlined in the tentative bill. There should be two separate bodies as follows.

I. Board of Standards.- The Board of Standards shall consist of the Commissioner of Buildings, the Fire Commissioner and three (3) architects or engineers appointed by the Mayor. (In case the departments of the five boroughs are not centralized, then the New York Society of Architects favors that the Board of Standards shall consist of the five Superintendents of Buildings, the Fire Commissioner and three architects or engineers appointed the Mayor.)

II. The Board of Appeals should be organized in the same manner as the present Board of Examiners is organized, except that the New York Society of Architects should have a representative therein.

In reference to what Commissioner Lynch said this afternoon about the benevolent work of his department, that is, the Labor Department, I should like to lay before you, if it is pertinent, a very interesting case of his department's benevolence. It may be extremely efficient

The CHAIRMAN: I suppose you offer that as an argument for the consolidation of the inspection?

Mr. GOLDBERG: I should like it to be an argument for consolidation. Mr. Lynch seems to be very positive about the benevolent administration of his department. He stated that no other department could do the social work which his department does. I wish to give an example of the social efficiency of that department. A client of mine called my attention to one of his buildings at a certain street, a six story nonfireproof building, which had only one staircase for exit purposes. The Labor Department had placed a violation on his building, which violation demanded that another means of exit be provided. This violation could be satisfied either by providing a stack of fire-escapes, or another staircase, or a horizontal exit, any of which would be acceptable, and would comply with the law. Upon investigation I found that the horizontal exit could be a solution in this case, because there was a seven story fireproof building next door of almost the same total height. I found that my client had an interest in this second building, which fact tended to help the solution which I had de

cided. In looking through this second building I discovered that it too would have to be remedied in the same way for an additional exit because the staircase was its single means of exit. My client. informed me that there was no order on the fireproof building to provide an additional means of exit; that there had been some orders for minor matters which had been satisfied, and that as far as he knew there was no violations of the Labor Department against this building. In order to verify my client's statement I went to the Labor Department and was informed there that all the violations against the second building had been complied with; that there were no outstanding violations against it.

In spite of the fact that this department has been organized for more than a year, and that this department had examined this building and had stricken its violations from the records, it would have been possible for my client to sell this building to another, both seller and buyer in ignorance of the fact that there was a serious structural change necessary in it to make it comply with the law. I have no doubt that there must be many cases of this kind in the city where such example of the benevolence of the Labor Department has inflicted unnecessary hardship on innocent. purchasers.

I asked one of the officials of the Labor Department why there was no violation for the additional means of exit against the building. I was told that the policy of this department was to treat the worst cases first, and that they knew that this building did not comply with the law, and that they were holding back the violation in order to avoid public clamor; that they would place this violation on the building a year hence. The benevolence of the department is evidently brought out by the fact that the Labor Department has tender feelings for the owners of property which makes it seem to say to owners, "We are serving you with this new violation now, although we had examined your building last year, because we did not want to give you heart disease." I am unable to discover in this case that there was any social or welfare benefit either to the factory workers of the building, or to the owners of property. If it is true that that is the attitude of the Labor Department, I fail to see where the worker or property owner benefits. This offense might be condoned by saying that ignorance of

the law would not excuse the owner, who is presumed to know not only the law but also the condition of his building.

By Commissioner JACKSON:

Q. Will you give the stenographer the name of the concern and the number of the street? A. I wouldn't like to just now if you don't mind.

Q. Will you give it to me personally? A. I will. This case is under examination by the Labor Department now, and while I do not think they would be guilty of prejudice, still I would not like to speculate on that proposition.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. You are in favor of the consolidation of the departments? A. We are in favor of consolidation of departments.

Q. But you feel that it has to be done under the Borough President? A. As a matter of expediency only. The building departments, given the various laws now in ordinance or statute, could easily see that they were carried out. I think that too much time is spent upon going into the intricacies of the law which are not of sufficient economic or social benefit to warrant the time and the money that is spent upon them.

A proper supervision of inspector's reports could affect a great saving in the managements of the various bureaus if the departments would change their attitude with reference to the matter of their records. They require that architects shall amend their papers to a degree that is not only costly to him, but also to the city, as it involves a large amount of clerical work. They accept inspector's memoranda in some cases to note the changes, whereas they require the architect to make the changes in other cases. The attitude of the various departments should change in reference to plan examination. They should recognize that a plan represents the solution of a problem. That solution has certain economic features which they should not miss. The departments are too prone to insist upon literal adherence to the law, even in cases where there is no social or welfare gain but which could result in effecting a saving in the cost of construction. Why should not the building bureaus and other bureaus relax their efforts in causing an unnecessary economic waste. That is the reason that we

have such violent upheavals of aroused public indignation. Laws should be general. The interpretation of the law should be applied to the solution of the plan.

I have previously dwelt upon our suggestions in the matter of the Bureau of Standards and the membership of the Board of Appeals which should be patterned after the membership of the present Board of Examiners.

Q. You mean they should be selected by societies but not by those now named? A. Well, some of them. Some of them may be omitted. We could send a memorandum on that if it is wished.

I should like to speak to you about that part of the tentative bill relating to the qualifications of the Superintendent of Buildings. The law is not very clear. It reads, It reads, "a builder, architect or engineer of ten years' experience." We should like to make hat a little more definite. A builder means anyone who has ever had anything to do with buildings. We have had several building superintendents who were builders in the sense that they had been factors of buildings; in other words, they would construe themselves general contractors and have buildings erected by numerous subcontractors. In that case the erection of their buildings depended more upon accident than upon the design. If the term builder must be maintained, I should like to see it read "Builder who was engaged in one of the building trades."

Q. Isn't that up to the appointing power? A. It is, but I think the definition would clear it up.

Q. You might say the same thing of architects? A. We could say the same thing of architects. A practicing architect of ten years' experience would be a better definition.

Q. Anybody can be an architect who wants to call himself such? A. There is no ruling on it.

Q. Anybody can be an engineer? A. Anybody can be a lawyer if he passes an examination.

Q. If he passes an examination? A. If you are an architect of experience your work speaks for itself.

Q. Those are professions which unfortunately are not yet regulated? A. We hope to have them regulated very soon.

The New York Society of Architects stands sponsor for a bill regulating the practice of architecture, and would be pleased to see