Page images
PDF
EPUB

and I believe that your Commission has had so much experience in this matter that, with the assistance of the heads of the various. departments of this city, a scheme could easily be prepared by you to cover these various suggestions. To consolidate these departments would not only reduce the expense of operation and the expense to people who have to comply with the requirements of the departments, but it would do away with the conflict and possible jealousy between the Departments and very materially reduce the delays and interruptions incidental to the present condition of things.

Yours very sincerely,

(Signed) GHERARDI DAVIS.” RETAIL DRY GOODS ASSOCIATION, 200 Fifth Avenue, New York.

November 24, 1914.

Hon. A. I. ELKUS, Counsel to State Factory Investigating Commission, 170 Broadway, City:

DEAR MR. ELKUS. I regret that my throat was in such condition yesterday that it was not practicable for me to take the stand, even for a few minutes.

Had I done so I should have said, and I request that you put upon the record as an expression of the Retail Dry Goods Association, that we heartily favor the consolidation of the several departments and bureaus having to do with the construction, equipment and maintenance of buildings into a Department of Buildings in each of the boroughs of the Greater City and that the organization of the Department in each borough rest upon the Borough President.

That there be created a body to which appeals can be made from the determinations of the local building department and that such appeal body be a central organization, with members appointed from each borough.

We think the result of this would be, first, to satisfy the appellant that the merits of his case were being passed upon by a Board that was free from local influences and, second, for the reason that it would probably have a salutary effect upon the local Board to know that its conclusions were subject to review by a Board so organized.

An important part of the bill, that has not been mentioned in your proposed re-codification and which has sometimes been overlooked, should provide, in haec verba that existing laws, by which authority with regard to these matters now rests in the several existing departments, shall be repealed, so that there can be no question as to the jurisdiction being retained in the present Departments, in addition to the authority vested in the proposed Building Department under the act.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) E. W. BLOOMINGDALE."

At five P. M. the Commission adjourned to meet on Tuesday, November 24, 1914, at 10.30 A. M.

Dr. ABRAHAM KORN addressed the Commission.

We believe first in home rule. All the labor and factory laws should be transferred down here and be enforced by the authorities of the city of New York.

As the Industrial Board is now constituted I think they only meet about once a month.

Q. They are meeting all the time? A. I will come to that later on.

By Commissioner MCGUIRE:

Q. You believe the labor law should then be enforced through the local departments? A. Through the local departments in the city of New York.

Commissioner DRIER: You would abolish the State Department of Labor?

Dr. KORN: As far as the city of New York is concerned.

By Commissioner MCGUIRE:

Q. You mean you would enforce the provisions of the Labor Law through the building department in so far as it applies to the structural building? A. Not only that but enforce but in so far as it applies to the employees.

By Commissioner SMITH:

Q. Now Doctor as a taxpayer and a representative of taxpayers you do not subscribe to the theory that the city of New York must continue to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of the Labor Department and then in addition to that provide on the city payroll our own inspectors to do the work they are now doing in the city-you don't subscribe to that? A. I do not think it would work out that way at all.

Q. What would become of the factory inspectors? A. The factory inspectors that were now employed?

Q. Yes? A. Those that are not required can be dismissed or they can take examinations under the Health Department if they are fit for health inspectors

Q. That's enough, you would get rid of them; let me ask you this question do you subscribe to the policy that the taxpayers of this city must continue to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of factory inspection in Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo and then for our own inspection down here besides paying 100 per cent. for ourselves and 75 per cent. for theirs, do you believe in that? A. I certainly do not believe in that, and I do not think it will work out that way.

Q. Then let me ask you this question

let me finish; that is not my answer in full.

A. Will you kindly

Q. It is a full answer? A. The appropriation that is now required for the number of men by the State includes the inspectors that are required down here. Now if we cut out 200, 300 or 400 inspectors, the appropriation for the State can not be the same as it is now if they want to use the money properly.

Mr. ELKUS: I do not think you get Mr. Smith's point.

Q. I am sure the doctor does not understand what I am talking about; no matter how many you cut off you leave a State Department of Labor, do you not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now do you subscribe to the theory that the New York taxpayer must pay 75 per cent. of the cost of that on all labor inspection and at the same time provide their own inspectors to do the work in New York city? A. Don't we ay nearly 75 per cent. and more than 75 per cent. of the running of all departments; over what the people upstate do?

Q. That is not an answer; do you subscribe to that theory? A. I certainly do not; I think that can be remedied though. Q. What is your remedy? A. By cutting down the appropriation.

Q. That don't alter the principle of the thing; we will assume for the sake of argument that the appropriation for the Labor Department this year was $280,000; by eliminating the city of New York we will say we save $80,000; that leaves $200,000 to run the Labor Department the next year; don't you know that the taxpayer of New York pays 75 per cent. still of that of $200,000? A. He certainly does.

Q. Do you believe he ought to do that and then have us pay for own inspectors besides? A. No.

Q. That is what home rule means; we have our own health department in New York here and we pay dollar for dollar, 100 per cent. of the cost of our health department; at the same time we pay 75 per cent. of the cost to maintain the State Department. of Health and that Commission has no jurisdiction inside of the city line; the same applies to the Fire Marshal; we pay 75 per cent. of the Fire Marshal's office and we maintain our own bureau of fire prevention; now I think we have gone as far as we can go, and to have the real estate men and property owners come in with the suggestion that we do that same thing with the Department of Labor seems to me the limit? A. I still think that the thing can be worked out so that New York city-it is not a question so much as the cost of running the Department as it is of convenience to the taxpayers and the people that are burdened by the laws of that Department.

Q. Well if the taxpayers are willing to pay for the convenience that is another thing. A. We are paying dear for a good many other conveniences we are supposed to get and do not get them right here in New York city so a little more or less isn't going to hurt.

By Commissioner MCGUIRE :

Q. You have heard some discussion here as to the proposed amendment to the constitution, giving additional power of discretion to the Industrial Board; perhaps you would be in favor of an amendment to the constitution looking to New York paying

its own way and only its own way? A. Only its own way, certainly I would.

Q. Do you think that would be a solution of it? A. That part I have not given proper thought to.

Q. I only mention that in the line of constitutional amendments? A. If I had my way about it I would have a separate state of New York city; we would get along, better and save much money.

Mr. SMITH: You can be sure I will agree with that if you can bring it around.

Dr. KORN: That I think would be the best solution of it, that we have a state of the city of New York, and we will be able to take care of our business itself and pay our own expenses.

Mr. ELKUS: Do you think the rest of the State would let us go?

Hon. JOHN J. MURPHY (Commissioner Tenement House
Department), addressed the Commission:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. You are the Commissioner of the Tenement House Department and have been for a number of years? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I don't know whether you have been told of some of the testimony of yesterday. A. Yes, sir.

Q. We should be very glad to hear from you about these matters? A. Make a general statement ?

Q. Anything you like, Commissioner?

A. That discussion was on the bill proposing to consolidate the different departments which have relations to buildings under a single head?

Q. Yes, sir? A. Now I think when I appeared at the hearing before this Committee before I expressed rather fully my views. I said then and I say now that I think the function of supervising the tenement houses in the city of New York is so very large, involving the supervision of one-third of all the buildings in the city of New York, that it requires the special attention of a particular department created for that purpose. The department was created in 1901 with the very idea which you gentlemen have in mind at this time. Up to that time the functions which

« PreviousContinue »