Cornell University Library A statement addressed to Hon. Charles TT Sa THE LIBRARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY TABLE OF CONTENTS. Pace Part I. Evidence from the Coroner’s Inquest........ 2 Part II. Further Facts Submitted by Undersigned CO ADS hose erearsrtern acs 56 Part II. Summary 63 Hon. Cuarres S. Wuitman, Governor oF THE State or New York. Your Excellency: The Williamsburg fire on November 6th, 1915, which caused the death of twelve persons and the injury of thirty-five others calls sharply to attention the urgent need of more adequate protection for wage-earners from the dangers of fire in the factory buildings of New York State. The public is appalled at such a repetition of the Triangle fire of four years ago, and calls for an explana- tion of this new catastrophe. It is a matter of common knowledge that following the Triangle fire the New York State Legislature, after exhaustive investigations, enacted a detailed code of fire regulations. These covered comprehensively the con- struction of factory buildings, adequacy of exits, maxi- mum occupancy of buildings, and various precautions against the occurrence of spread of fire, collectively called fire prevention regulations. In addition, the In- dustrial Board was created with authority to supplement the statutory law by rules and regulations having the force of law. Last year, further, by the passage of the Spring Bill, the administration of the Labor Department was trans- ferred to the State Industrial Commission composed of five members, with still broader powers. The law designates the Commission head of the Labor Department and empowers it ‘‘to apportion its work among the members to be performed under its own direc- tion and control.’’ It is therefore as a body acting in its 2 corporate capacity that the Commission is to be judged and every Commissioner bears equal responsibility by reason of his membership in the Commission. The indi- vidual members are, however, to be judged also by their conduct as supervising heads of their respective bureaus. We shall not enter on a discussion of the complicated provisions of the act which the Commissioners have to enforce and the question whether its provisions are the best possible. It is clear from the testimony of the Commissioners themselves that their powers are suff- ciently broad and authoritative to do away with any question of their ability to enforce the laws and to pro- vide the fullest possible protection of the life and wel- fare of the working people of the State. How comes it, then, asks the public, that a repetition of the Triangle horror can still occur in the City of New York? And what is the cause? Have the enforcing officials been false to thetr trust? To answer these crucial questions and to place the responsibility where it rightly belongs, we the under- signed respectfully beg to submit the following state- ment for your Excellency’s consideration. The data will be presented under the headings :— I. Evidence from the Coroner’s Inquest; II. Further Facts Submitted by the Undersigned Organizations ; Il. Summary of Findings. PART I. Evipence From THe Coroner’s INQUEST. The present members of the Industrial Commission are John Mitchell, chairman, of Mt. Vernon, James M. 3 Lynch of Syracuse, Louis Wiard of Batavia, Edward P. Lyon of Brooklyn, and W. H. H. Rogers of Rochester. In the Coroner’s inquest in the Williamsburg fire (In re Celia Brooks, et al.) each member has been examined by District Attorney Cropsey and excerpts from his own testimony are below quoted verbatim. The official inquest was held before Coroner Ernest C. Wagner in the Coroners’ Court, Brooklyn, from Nov. 9th to Nov. 29, 1915, inclusive, and what follows is from the record of the inquest. We submit that on their own sworn testimony— 1.—The Industrial Commission has shown gross neg- lect in the exercise of its high office. 2.—The Commission has shown itself inefficient in administering the labor law and industrial code; and 3.—The Commission has been proved ignorant of its duties as responsible head of a state department en- trusted with the protection of life and welfare of over two million wage earners and dispensing the enormous appropriation of $1,000,000 a year. INTRODUCTORY. NEGLECT IN THE CASE OF THE DIAMOND BUILDING. The law passed in 1913 (Section 79b) contained a mandatory provision that all factories more than four stories in height should have at least one stairway en- closed in fire-resisting material. In August, 1913, the Industrial Board enacted Rule 2, making the same re- quirement apply to certain classes of buildings less than far stories in height. On April 7, 1914, an amendment to the law went into effect prescribing the enclosure of stairways only for buildings more than five stories in height. As Rule 2 was not amended until Nov. 18, 1915, a hiatus between the law and the rule leaving five-story buildings without legal regulation existed for 181% months. Notwithstanding the hiatus between the law and Rule 2, the Industrial Commission continued to issue orders for the enclosures of stairways in five story build- ings. Mr. Lynch: Q. Did you consider the law to apply to five story buildings? A. We issued the orders. Q. Do you mind saying as to whether you treated it as applying to five story buildings? A. We assumed that a fair construction would be ap- plied and we issued the orders. Q. Did you continue orders in regard to five story buildings after you got this opinion from your counsel? A. Yes, sir. (Nov. 9, pp. 5-6.) 5 1—Orders Previous to 1915. The Commission’s records show that the owners of the Diamond Building were old offenders. On March 12, 1914, the Department had sent an order to enclose elevator counterweights and wrote letters on various orders dated March 24, 1914, Jan. 2, 1915. But no com- pliance with these orders is noted. On the visit of March 12, 1914, to the building, the inspector failed to order the enclosure of the stairways although the law at that time was mandatory for five story buildings, such as the Diamond Building. Mr. Lynch: Q. Now, the stairways at that time, back in March 12, 1914, were not fire-proofed. Should not an in- spection have revealed that fact, and should not an order have been made requiring them to be fire- proofed on March 12, 1914? A. * * * I should think the law applied in that way. (Nov. 10, p. 49.) 2.—Record in 1915. (a) The order to enclose the stairways in the Diamond Building was issued on January 7, 1915. Mr. Lynch: Q. Will you tell us please what was the first thing you found in the record of the Department with regard to this building so far as it relates to fire-proofing stairways? A. I found the proper or- ders had been issued. Q. When did you find they had been issued? A. I think under date of January 7th. Q. Of this current year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Addressed to Mrs. Celia Diamond? A. Yes, sir. (Nov. 9, p. 11.) (b) The first compliance visit (Feb. 23) was made 37 days after the order was issued. Mr. Rosquist: = Q. This factory, the Diamond Candy Company 6 place, 281-287 North Sixth Street, Brooklyn, was it in your district? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember when you first inspected or looked or saw that place officially as an inspector? A. December 30, 1914, I made the inspection. That was one of the appeals I had. Q. What was the next time after that you vis- ited this same place? A. The 23rd of February. Q. How did you come to go there then? A. I had received orders, issued from the office. Q. What orders were issued on the 7th of Janu- ary, 1915—that is what you had? A. Yes, sir. Q. On the 23rd you went there and you made out asummary? A. I did. Q. Showing the Diamond Candy Factory, that is, the first visit you say under the compliance visits, that is the first one?