plans that he ought not to be compelled to make ectly structural changes either through a whim of the Legislature or the whim of some individual in charge of the enforcement of the law at the time; that a man ought to know definitely what he has to do when he puts up a building.

Q. Suppose the building was erected under the law as it then was and everybody supposed it was safe; then suppose it turned out afterwards it was not safe to be occupied; would you be in favor then of preventing any change being required in that building? A. Not after it had been inspected by a board of competent men and declared to be unsafe; the building then should be changed, of course.

Q. I don't mean it should be torn down, but take this case, this very sprinkler system; it has been demonstrated that sprinklers are a great preventative of fire and at the time that some of these buildings were built people did not know much about the sprinkler system and did not put them in; now suppose the law authorized a commissioner of the fire department authority to order those sprinklers in would you be in favor of the law prohibiting that being done in every case where the building had originally been passed and approved at the time? A. Mr. Elkus, that is a very difficult question to answer.

Q. I understand your position and it is a very hard one at times when a building is erected and under the then existing law it carries out every provision? A. I believe absolutely in the right of property. I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way in favor of individual rights and too little respect has been paid to the rights of property. My belief is that if you continue on with this absolute disregard of property rights life itself will not be of any particular value anyway, and I think when a man puts up a building in accordance with the law and does everything he possibly can to make it safe under the law that before any great structural change is made it ought to be clearly demonstrated that it is absolutely necessary and that such order is not based on the unsafe judgment of an inexperienced official.

Q. You would take that view of it even if it was found that human life was endangered by letting it go on as it was? A. I am not saying that, I say it ought to be absolutely determined that

human life is endangered. Take this same sprinkler proposition; one of the most important insurance men in town told me that he thought the time would come when insurance men would charge a higher rate on buildings with sprinklers in them than on buildings without sprinklers in them. He said he had watched the losses lately and found they were greater from water than from fire.

The CHAIRMAN: All of our large fires have demonstrated the contrary.

Mr. DOYLE: He is an insurance man and I would rather take his view of it than the view of a man who is not experienced.

Q. We have had before us the Board of Fire Underwriters and they all have been unhesitatingly in favor of the sprinkler system.

The CHAIRMAN: I was a member of a commission a few years. ago and the experts all brought out the point that the sprinkler was the main thing.

Mr. DOYLE: You remember the report of the Tenement House Commission and the report of Dr. Gorgas changing the entire so-called expert opinion as to the necessity for light and air.

Q. Your view is generally speaking you do not think that any department or any legislature or any board should interfere with any building that has once been erected no matter how old it is provided that at the time it was erected it complied with the then existing laws? A. I will put it this way

Q. Am I right about that? A. Not entirely right. I believe as far as the housekeeping and the maintenance of the building is concerned that should be absolutely under the jurisdiction of the authorities, but I think any structural change in the building should not be ordered until it is absolutely determined it is neces

sary.

Q. Now you know Mr. Doyle in this city and other cities for that matter a great many buildings were built for one purpose and then afterwards they were used for an entirely different purpose? A. I know that.

Q. For instance buildings were built for residences and then turned into lofts and used for manufacturing; now in a case like

that would you say there should be no change in the structure of that building even if it was expensive? A. Certainly not, that is another matter altogether.

Q. Now are not most of these changes you speak about in buildings which have been constructed for one purpose and changed to another? A. None in the buildings that I represent. Q. You take your very Cable building, that was constructed originally as an office building? A. Yes.

Q. And now they want to use it as a loft building for factory purposes? A. Only eighty people engaged in manufacturing. There are 692 people in the building and only eighty engaged in manufacturing.

Q. But don't they want to use it for manufacturing; isn't that the fact? A. I think probably that is the fact.

Q. And that is because of the changed nature of the building, now hasn't the same thing occurred with all of the theatres throughout the city originally theatres were built in a certain way and were supposed to be as near fireproof as possible and had adequate exits and then after one or two bad fires they discovered they were not adequate and they ordered alterations in the theatres; isn't that a fact? A. Yes.

Q. Now suppose it was discovered as it was then that those theatres that had been built hadn't sufficient exits and were not properly constructed, would you be in favor of saying even if that was so constructed that there should be no changes in the building because it had been approved and the changes were going to be expensive? A. No, but I would say that that change should be determined by some one competent to determine it.

Q. I assumed that; of course if it is dishonestly done or incompetently done that is the end of it and that is true of every one of these things? A. I do not mean dishonestly done, which is impossible you know, of course, because of the character of the men now at the head of these departments and charged with the enforcement of these laws, but I would like to ask you- although I suppose you do not care to express an opinion, if these men had any experience before being appointed that would enable them to determine whether the changes they order were absolutely necessary or not.

Q. Some of the men have had the experience, the building superintendents have? A. The building superintendents are alright and the Board of Examiners are alright.

Q. That question is up to the appointive power.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not here to criticize the Mayor's appointments.

Mr. DOYLE: I am not criticising the appointments but I do say that when a structural change is ordered the men who determine and make the order should know what they are doing and it should not be done on somebody's whim.

Mr. ELKUS: Everybody agrees with you on that.

By Commissioner MCGUIRE:

Q. You want to make the point that in some instances the department ordered sprinklers and other expensive apparatus into a building and there is no security to the owner that when they are installed that they will be satisfactory or remain satisfactory for any stated period? A. Yes, we have had buildings where all sorts of things have been ordered in. Sometime the order is complied with and sometimes it is not and when it isn't it is just as well as if it is complied with and after a while conditions change.

Q. Does that apply to the Bureau of Fire Prevention? A. It applies to all of the departments. I can illustrate that by saying that I was for thirteen years President of the Board of Health and each year we changed our health officer and each health officer told us the last health officer was absolutely no good, and his regu; lations of no value. In many instances where fire escapes are in the rear of the building although they were once ordered there they have now been ordered down.

Q. Take for instance the Cable building you spoke of; if they install a sprinkler system there that was satisfactory to the Fire Prevention Bureau it does not necessarily follow that it would be satisfactory to the Fire Underwriters? A. No or the State Labor Bureau.

Q. And the sprinkler system put into that building now may not be satisfactory to the Labor Department six months from now? A. That is exactly what I mean.

Q. What is the approximate cost of installing the sprinkler system in the Cable Building? A. About $40,000.

Q. Then that owner would be put to the expense of $40,000 in complying with the orders of the Fire Prevention Bureau and perhaps six months from now he would be put to the same expense in satisfying the Labor Department? A. Yes.

Q. Then there is no uniformity today that you know of in the city of New York over sprinkler systems? A. Absolutely none.

Q. Do you think under those conditions today any man should be compelled to put in sprinklers? A. I do not unless it can be shown it is for the saving of life or as a matter of insurance saving.

Q. Do you know whether or not the question of sprinklers being put in is necessarily a property hazard or life hazard? A. It was because it was represented to the property owners that they could get cheaper insurance, the tenants could get cheaper insurance and the owners could get cheaper insurance rates, but in no instance was it installed because it would save life.

The CHAIRMAN: If it prevents the spread of fire it saves life, doesn't it?

Mr. DOYLE: Problematically.

Q. Are you familiar with the orders coming out of the Bureau of Fire Prevention issued by the Bureau of Fire Prevention? A. I have some every day.

Q. Mr. Doyle, are those orders directed to the property hazard or to the life hazard? A. I should think they more frequently are for the protection of the property hazard rather than the life hazard.

Q. Have you ever heard there is any form of co-operation between the New York Board of Fire Underwriters and the Fire Prevention Bureau? A. No, sir. I know there are frequent conferences between Mr. Hammitt and Mr. Stewart, but I don't know that they do co-operate in any way.

Q. Do you know whether any insurance company of New York has written to the Bureau of Fire Prevention relative to certain risks in the city? A. No, I do not.

Q. Have you ever heard anything of that kind? A. No.

Q. Would you believe it to be a fact that the Fire Prevention Bureau received over 150 post cards from one insurance concern