STATE OF NEW YORK kmk REPORT BY LAURENCE M. D. McGUIRE OF THE Factory Investigating Commission TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE MARCH 4, 1915 ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 19 15 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/reportbylaurenceOOmcgu M I 73-c State of New York No. ,50 IN SENATE March 4, 1915 Report by Laurence M. D. McGuire of the New York State Factory Investigating Commission To the Legislature of the State of New York: A majority of the New York State Factory Investigating Com¬ mission presented to yonr honorable body on February 15, 1915, a report of their work for your consideration together with a bill “ recodifying the labor law.” As a member of the Commission I carefully studied the reports submitted and while in the main I agree that the report fairly states the work done by the Commission I can not concur in all the conclusions and I more particularly dissent to the recommenda¬ tions as to recodifying the labor law and as to the consolidation of various inspection departments in the city of New York. It may he that my close connection with business enables me to see matters affecting labor and capital in a different light than that in which my associates view them. I feel, personally, that sufficient consideration has not been given the serious disturbance in all branches of legitimate business which has resulted through excessive governmental interference and regulation. It has also seemed to me that, apparently my colleagues believed that the end justified the means. The safety, convenience and comfort of labor, desirable it is true, appeared to them to be absolutely essential regardless of whether the methods employed to obtain such safety, 4 [Senate convenience and comfort would seriously effect business and possi¬ bly make it unproductive, discourage investment, and lead to the ultimate unemployment of labor. There are many who believe that opportunity can no longer be grasped by the laboring man and that his condition is a serious one. These people believe that the great combinations of capital have made it impossible for the laboring man to rise from the ranks and become an employer and to them there is, apparently, an impassable gulf between the employer and the laborer. My view point and belief are different. I believe that labor has as many opportunities to rise today as it ever had and that the future of this country holds just as much promise for the individ¬ ual as it ever did. It has seemed to me that the very objects for which the Com¬ mission is striving will be defeated by the laws they seek to enact. If unnecessary and burdensome regulations are placed upon the employer they will ultimately affect injuriously the laborer. It is, therefore, my opinion that while the rights of labor should be safeguarded to the utmost it is important that nothing should be done to discourage the employer or to impair seriously his in¬ vestment, for this would cause ultimate unemployment and con¬ sequent hardship and distress. As an instance the enactment of rigid and drastic regulation as the result of what is known as the Asch fire in Hew York city, had the affect of seriously impeding building operations in that community. While it cannot be positively shown that the meas¬ ures enacted as a result of the agitation which followed this fire, excellent though these measures may be, have resulted in saving a single life, their rigid enforcement has seriously discouraged building operations in the city. Last year’s record and that of the year previous were lower than the record of the year of the Asch fire. It is true that part of this loss can be ascribed to the general business depression, yet, the percentage of loss in Greater Hew York was, I believe, larger than in other cities throughout the country where the same business depression existed, but where the investor and builder were not harrassed and interferred with by unnecessary regula¬ tions. In consequence of this slack in building operations thou¬ sands of workmen are without employment and it would be difficult to accurately estimate the privation and hardship which has re¬ sulted therefrom. Yo. 50] 5 That this serious state of affairs does not deter the professional agitator for more regulation is shown by the following letter re¬ cently sent broadcast throughout the State: COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF THE CITY OF YEW YORK A Voluntary Organization of Citizens 30 East Forty-second Street Telephone Murray Hill 4302 January 14, 1915 My dear.— A cry of fire fills the room. Frantic with fear, fighting in the midst of a panic-ridden mob for air, for breath, for escape — flames leaping higher, the exits blocked, the screaming crowd grows helpless. A frail girl, with clothing torn, eyes staring, choking, coughing, gasping, blinded by smoke, rushing wildly back and forth, tries to decide in the half second that remains whether to leap from the window to almost certain death on the sidewalk below, or with one more breath of the scorching air, fall suffocated to the floor with the flames ready to do their fatal work on the young body. This is what it means to be caught in a factory fire. The Triangle fire in which 147 perished and twice as many were injured; the Yewark fire which destroyed 28 young girls and injured as many more; the Binghamton fire where 38 workers lost their lives and twice as many were injured by jumping, bear witness to the reality of this kind of disaster. Two hundred and sixty thousand working girls and 420,000 working men face this danger every day, when they go to their work in the factories in Yew York city. The Committee on Safety educates the public, the em¬ ployers and the workers, in regard to these dangers and their prevention, promotes legislation to make impossible such disasters, and secures the proper and adequate enforce¬ ment of the laws. A contribution of ten dollars sent immediately will help to assure an effective legislative campaign this winter to protect the workers against the fire hazard. Sincererly yours, FRAYCIS PERKIYS, Executive Secretary (Signed) 6 [Senate The signer and presumably the author of this letter was re¬ tained by the Commission as an investigator of mercantile estab¬ lishments. The harm done by this constant agitation cannot be overestimated. In reference to that portion of the report which refers to the consolidation of building inspection in New York city I wish to state that there have been many meetings of real estate and civic organizations held to discuss the advisability of such a consolida¬ tion and that it was practically the opinion of all, with but one or two exceptions, that such consolidation should be along borough lines. The Building Bureaus of the several boroughs are managed by capable heads with practical experience and their employees, under the charter must have had practical experience. It has, there¬ fore, seemed to the associations previously referred to and real estate men and builders generally, that it would be better to trans¬ fer these jurisdictions and inspections to the bureaus already fully equipped to handle them rather than to create a new city bureau or to allow the Board of Estimate to rearrange city commissions. In fact, I cannot understand why the Commission, after hear¬ ing the testimony, reported in favor of the plan submitted by the mayor’s committee. This latter plan is so indefinite and really gives such little relief to a city in dire necessity that it should not be considered. The bill known as the Lockwood bill should be adopted, for this alone provides the relief imperatively demanded by building and real estate interests. My objections to the report of my colleagues summarized are as follows: 1. That it is not a recodification but is a revision of the labor law. 2. That the proposed additions to the law are drastic and in many instances unnecessary and if enacted business and real property interests will be seriously effected. 3. That the proposed bill does not give sufficient consideration to the request and suggestions of witnesses who testified before the Commission in relation to the requirements for factories and mer¬ cantile establishments. 4. That the enlarging of the definition of the term “ factory ” so that it will include almost every building in the State except those used exclusively for dwelling purposes is contrary to the purpose for which the law was intended. No. 50] 7 5. The attempt to relieve conditions in reference to structural changes in buildings, by stating that provisions of the law will not apply where only four persons are employed in manufactur¬ ing, is frustrated by the clause which gives to the Industrial Board power to order any changes which it may require, regardless of the number of people employed. This change would make it impossible for an owner to know from one day to another what the Industrial Board may demand. 6. That the bill allows the construction and alteration pro¬ visions of the law to be varied by a board, whose members are admittedly not experts in building construction. 7. That the new provision of the bill to make “ the law flexible in its application ” gives the same board the right to specify building material and forms of construction of buildings. It is unwise to vest this enormous responsibility in persons who are not experts. In New York city .this work is done by building experts in the employ of the city and their work is reviewable by a Board of Examiners, composed of experts on building construction. The transfer of this jurisdiction I believe would'be a serious mistake. 8. That the provision which makes “ an agent in charge of property ” criminally liable for failing to do something which he may be unauthorized to do is unfair, and I believe unconstitu¬ tional. 9. That the provision requiring the employment of not less than 125 inspectors regardless of the work to be done is not in accord with business principals of economy. 10. That the bill should exempt cities of the first class, which maintain building departments or bureaus, from its provisions in all matters which relate to the construction or alteration of buildings. This exemption might be extended to other cities maintaining efficient building bureaus or departments. In Yew York city there are building bureaus in each borough, the heads of which are required to be builders or architects of at least ten years’ experience and the employees in these bureaus are experts in building construction. The efficiency of the bureaus and the capability of the employees are conceded facts. The requirements in Yew York city are of high standard. Health and life are adequately safeguarded. It would seem to be unfair to take away from Yew York city and other cities of the first class the jurisdiction over the construction of its own build- 8 [Senate ings and place it in the State Department which is not as well equipped to pass upon work involving vast sums of money yearly. While the hill gives the labor law entire jurisdiction over the construction and alteration of factory buildings, it empowers the labor commissioner to demand that the local building bureaus examine all plans filed in the labor department, and inspect and report to it on all factory buildings constructed as to the require¬ ments of all laws and ordinances, including the labor law. This would impose upon the local building bureaus the burden of doing all the work and assuming responsibility, but still leave the control within the labor department. It would seem unnecessary to maintain a building bureau within a labor department in cities of the first class to duplicate work now being done by the local bureaus. A large saving to both the State and cities could be effected by giving to the local building bureaus jurisdiction over building construction. It would not only make a saving but would tend to stop the much complained of over inspection and conflict. The advantages which would accrue to the citizens and to the State at large if home rule prevailed as to building construction seems to me to be too apparent to require further discussion. That the present law has done great injury and damage to property rights, which the proposed new bill will not remedy is a fact gen¬ erally admitted by all who have reason or occasion to follow the operation of the law since its enactment. My opinion is that the recodification bill as presented will prove impracticable, unnecessarily increase the financial burdens of the State, will harass the employer and employee and cause the owners of real estate to spend unnecessarily vast sums of money. In my opinion the Commission in its recommendations and, in fact, in its entire work has, to some extent at least, proceeded upon a wrong theory. They have allowed themselves to believe that laborers are a distinct class and must be legislated for, pro¬ tected and regulated, and that labor as a class cannot prosper and flourish unless the strong arm of the State is stretched out to care for it and protect it. To my mind this is all wrong. We live in a representative democracy and all are laborers. The employer of today is the laborer of yesterday. Those who are drones are so few as not to be reckoned with and the sole duty of the State is to safeguard the individual so that he can pursue his daily legitimate avocation without let or hindrance. No. 50] 9 I believe that this is the sole function of government and when this is done and the individual member of the State is free to pursue his daily work and is safeguarded against those who would take from him his rights it has done all that it ought to do and that the thousands of statutes passed upon the theory that there must be governmental regulation and control with the community divided into classes and each class given protection against the other is all wrong and in the end will result in great injury. I believe that the restrictive and regulative legislation that has been enacted at Washington and in all the states has been less in response to popular demand than as a result of self-seeking agi¬ tators who have sought by stirring up strife between the employer and employed to further their own ends. The experience of the past proves conclusively that the best government is the least possible government, that the unfettered initiative of the individual is the force that makes a country great and that this initiative should never be bound except where it becomes a menace to the liberty and initiative of others. Those laws that are said to be progressive are really reactionary and belong rather to the days of socalled beneficient despotism than to the era of representative government. In conclusion I believe that this matter can be safely left to the wisdom of the Legislature and that as a result of your de¬ liberations wise and beneficient laws will be enacted. I append herewith for the information of the legislature, a pamphlet urging simplicity in building inspection and beg to direct your attention to the representative organizations which plead with you for relief, to which I believe they are fully entitled. LAURENCE M. D. McGUIRE. FOR SIMPLICITY IN BUILDING INSPECTION A Few of the Reasons Why Senator Lockwood’s Bill, Int. No. 424, and Assemblyman Ellenbogen’s Bill, Int. No. 612, in Relation to the Construction, Alteration and Structural Changes in Buildings in New York City SHOULD BECOME A LAW Robert E. Simon, Chairman Richard 0 . Chittick, Secretary George W. Olvany, Counsel CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF REAL ESTATE AND ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATING VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS NOW HAVING JURISDICTION OVER BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY 115 BROADWAY, ROOM 215 Telephone Rector 5413 * J 1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE For Manhattan Stewart Browne, United Real Estate Owners’ Asso¬ ciation Alfred R. Kirkus, Merchants’ Association Laurence M. D. McGuire, Real Estate Board of New York Cyrus C. Miller, Advisory Council of Real Estate Interests. Allan Robinson, Allied Real Estate Interests Robert E. Simon, Real Estate Board of New York George H. Stege, West Side Taxpayers’ Association For Brooklyn W. B. Greenman, Brooklyn Builders’ Association Charles Partridge, Brooklyn Board of Real Estate Brokers For the Bronx P. J. Reville, Builders’ Protective Association Clarence S. Shumway, North Side Board of Trade For Queens Clinton T. Roe, Chamber of Commerce, Borough of Queens John J. PIalleran, Flushing Business Men’s Associa¬ tion For Richmond Cornelius G. Kolff, Staten Island Chamber of Com¬ merce For Neiv York State Mortimer J. Fox, Real Estate Association, State of New York [Senate No. 50] 13 THE LOCKWOOD-ELLENBOGEN BILL Is Endorsed by the Conference Committee of Real Estate and Allied Organizations in the Matter of Consolidating Various Departments Now Having Jurisdiction Over the Buildings in New York City, which Includes the Following Organizations: For Manhattan Building Managers’ Association. Fifth Avenue Association. Beal Estate Board of New York. Harlem Property Owners’ Association. Merchants’ Association. Twenty-third Street Improvement Association. United Beal Estate Owners’ Association. Washington Heights Taxpayers’ Association. Advisory Council of Beal Estate Interests. Central Mercantile Association. West Side Taxpayers’ Association. Broadway Association. Forty-Second Street Association. Harlem Board of Commerce. 18th and 20th Wards Taxpayers’ Association. Beal Estate Owners of the 12th and 19th Wards. Building Trades Employers’ Association. 10th, 11th and 17th Wards Association of New York. Joint Committee on City Departments. Greater New York Taxpayers’ Association. New York Society of Architects. For the Bronx North Side Board of Trade. American Beal Estate Company. Bedford Park Taxpayers’ Association. Builders’ Protective Association. Taxpayers’ Alliance of the Bronx. Woodstock Taxpayers’ Association. Bronx Board of Trade. ! Italian American Property Owners’ Association. South Bronx Property Owners’ Association. 14 [Senate For Brooklyn Brooklyn Board of Beal Estate Brokers. Builders 7 Association of Brooklyn. Citizens 7 Association of Bay Bidge and Fort Hamilton. Bidgewood Board of Trade. Borough Park Board of Trade. Fulton Street Board of Trade. Bedford Heights Board of Trade. Brooklyn Chapter American Institute of Architects. City Club of Brooklyn. South Midwood Besidents 7 Association. West End Board of Trade. Central Borough Board of Public Improvements. Allied Board of Trade and Taxpayers 7 Association of Brooklyn. South Side Board of Trade. Citizens 7 Association of New Utrecht. West Brooklyn Board of Trade. Brokers 7 and Builders 7 Exchange of New Utrecht. Martense Business Men’s Association. Borough Park West Civic Association. * Lelferts Park Improvement Association. Gravesend Board of Trade. Brooklyn Civic Committee. 28th Ward Taxpayers 7 Protective Association. For Queens Chambers of Commerce. Flushing Business Men’s Association. Astoria Taxpayers’ Association. Morris Park Citizens’ Association. Hillside Beal Estate Association. United Civic Association. Far Bockawav Taxpayers’ Association. Brenton Construction Civic Association. Beal Estate Exchange of Long Island. For Richmond Staten Island Civic League. Taxpayers’ Alliance. Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. For Neie York State Beal Estate Association, State of New York. No. 50] 15 THE VALUES OF REAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK CITY HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY DEPRECIATED BY NEEDLESS OVER-INSPECTION AND CONFLICT OF LAWS Over inspection and needless inspection of real property have seriously and adversely affected the income of the city of New York, and have caused a depreciation of the value of loft and factory buildings south of Twenty-third street, borough of Man¬ hattan, of more than fifty per cent in the last three years. It is absolutely impossible to sell an old factory or loft building, because the investor will not speculate as to what the whims of the officials of the different departments will bring forth in the way of violations and orders. The need of a reform from the present method of inspection is conceded by everyone who is in touch with the situation, and a quick remedy would be a salvation to the real estate owner. It would not only relieve the financial condition of the city, but would revive real estate and business conditions, and thereby neces¬ sarily help to alleviate the labor situation. A few of the instances of over inspection, needless inspection and conflict of laws in reference to buildings in New York city: 1. Factory buildings are inspected by seven different depart¬ ments, viz.: Fire, Health, Police, Tenement House, Building, Labor and Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. 2. Tenement houses are inspected by six different departments, viz.: Police, Tenement House, Fire, Building, Health and Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. 3. Tenement houses with stores, or factories are inspected by seven different departments, viz.: Police, Tenement House, Eire, Health, Labor, Building and Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. 4. Hotels and office buildings are inspected by five different departments, viz.: Police, Fire, Labor, Building and Water Sup¬ ply, Gas and Electricity. 5. Theatres or motion picture houses are inspected by six dif¬ ferent departments, viz.: Police, Eire, Building, Water Supply, Gas and Electricity and Licenses. 6. Churches and semi-public buildings are inspected by five different departments, viz.: Police, Eire, Building, Water Supply, Gas and Electricity and Licenses. 7. Garages are inspected by four different departments, viz.: Police, Fire, Building and Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. 16 [Senate 8. Private dwellings are inspected by two different departments, viz.: Building and Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. The bureaus of buildings in each borough pass upon and ap¬ prove or disapprove of all plans for the construction and alteration of every building in New York city, irrespective of its character or use, and inspect every building during its construction and alteration. In view of this fact, why should it be necessary for any of the other seven departments to inspect the same buildings over again. Any inspection made by departments other than the building department in reference to construction and alteration of buildings is certainly needless and over-inspection. A great deal of needless inspection is caused by the piecemeal issuance of orders. If competent building inspectors were em¬ ployed, they could, on one inspection, ascertain exactly in what particulars a building did not conform with the laws and ordi¬ nances, and one order could then be issued covering every de¬ ficiency in such building. If one bureau had entire jurisdiction over building construction and alteration, an owner could feel reasonably safe if he complied with its orders, that additional orders involving the same building would not be issued, and he would be relieved from the constant worry of the possibility of orders emanating from the other seven departments. Is it unreasonable to ask that the Building Laws be made uniform and that one department enforce such laws? Needless and over-inspection would then be impossible as the records of the office would show the exact conditions of each building in New York city at all times, and orders would not be issued except upon the facts as shown on the records. The following are a few of the difficulties which have been experienced by real estate owners: '(1) An order was received from the State Department of Labor, stating that one of the stores in a tenement house was being used for manufacturing purposes, and therefore all doors should be altered and arranged to swing outwardly, and various other changes made. On examination, it was found that the tenant and his wife were making jam in the rear of the store which was on the ground level. The department was notified that the tenant would vacate on the first of the month, and a re¬ quest was made for a stay of the order. The extension of time was refused on the ground that the risk was extra-hazardous. No. 50] 17 * p £ Ul ? t < g U. M ° iO K m \j\3 < m a, vo z b £S> *C f U h - fniL * O | £ It is this Tangle of Multiplicity of Inspection the Lockwood-Ellenbogen Bill is Designed to Unravel, 18 [Senate (2) A letter from an architect: “ Yonrs of the 17th inst., received, and in reply would say that I have never had any serious delay in seeing Mr. Blank (Building Bureau Official) but I have been troubled very greatly in matters of approvals. These delays seemed to be mostly caused by lack of accord between the Bureau of Buildings and the Labor Department. “ I find that the Bureau of Buildings do not send their ap¬ proval for construction to the Department of Labor, and the applicant is supposed to get the approval from the Bureau of Buildings and submit it to the Department of Labor, which I think is unwarranted, and also the ideas of the two departments do not coincide. “ The decisions of the Department of Labor and their procedure in regard to application for approval of work are unbusinesslike; and I have found in one case unreliable/’ (3) An owner of a tenement house, which in every particular complied with the Tenement House Law, received an order from the Department of Labor, which read as follows: “ You are hereby directed to comply with the following requirements of law * * * in the building located at * * * now used for store purposes, and of which you are the owner. “ Provide suitable water closet, and properly screen, light and ventilate.” The water closet for this store is located in the cellar, and was approved by the Tenement House Department. However, in order to comply with the Labor Department order it was necessary to first file plans with the Tenement House De¬ partment and then with the Bureau of Buildings, and in order to be sure that they would be satisfactory to the Labor Depart¬ ment, to that department. When the work was done, it was inspected by inspectors from the Tenement House Department as to construction, light, ventila¬ tion, sanitary conditions and plumbing; by inspectors from the Building Department as to construction, sanitary conditions and plumbing, and by inspectors of the Labor Department as to con¬ struction, light, ventilation, sanitary conditions and privacy. (4) An owner desired to make an alteration in a tenement house, to provide for a cleaning and dyeing establishment, and before he could start the alteration he was compelled to file plans No. 50] 19 and secure the approval of the following departments, viz.: Fire, Labor, Tenement House and Bureau of Buildings. (5) An owner desired to construct a loft building, 40 by 90 with stairways on the extreme north and south sides of the build¬ ing, and submitted his plans to the Building Bureau which duly approved of them, as being in accordance with the City Building Code. The owner wishing to cover the possibility of the building- being used as a factory, submitted the same plans to the Labor Department and was refused an approval of them because the exits were not more than twenty-five feet from each other, although they were situated in the most advantageous parts of the building from a safety standpoint. It can readily be seen that this decision was an arbitrary one, in view of the fact that the labor law only says “ that there shall be two exits remote from each other.’ 7 (6) The fire department issued an order directing that an out¬ side stairway be erected from the balcony of the front fire escape on the first story to the ground. The owner complied with the order and received an approval from the fire department. Shortly thereafter the building department filed a violation against the building because the stairway was not ten feet clear of the side¬ walk. The owner then appealed to the fire department, and was told “ the building department supersedes the fire department in all matters relative to the encroachment upon highways: Their decision is final in these matters.” A few days later the matter was laid before the borough pres¬ ident and was by him referred to the building superintendent, who wrote to the owner, requesting a personal interview and suggested a conference with the fire department officials, and thereafter the owner received a letter from the building superintendent which read as follows: “I (building superintendent) had an interview with Mr. Hammitt, chief of the bureau of fire prevention, in con¬ nection with this matter, with a view to avoiding similar conflicts in the future.” But the stairway had to be removed. (7) The department of health issued orders for the changing of a plumbing system in a building which were duly complied with and approved. Less than six months thereafter the labor de¬ partment issued orders against the same building, ordering that an entire change in the plumbing system be made, although it was in good sanitary condition, and in every way complied with health department requirements. 20 [Senate (8) Plans for a theatre were filed in the bureau of buildings and were obj ected to by the superintendent on the ground that the exits and courts did not comply with section 109 of the building code. An appeal was taken to the board of examiners and they approved the plans as to the exits and courts. The bureau of fire prevention refused to accept the decision of the board of examiners, and disapproved the plans as to exits and courts. The corporation counsel rendered an opinion to the effect that the fire commissioner could, in his discretion, accept the final de¬ cision of the board of examiners, but was not bound to do so. The fire commissioner absolutely refused to approve the exits and courts, and the theatre remains unbuilt. (9) An application was made for a dance hall, and the super¬ intendent of buildings disapproved of it for the reason that a viola¬ tion was pending for a change of occupancy from a dance hall to a dancing school, contrary to the approved plans. Hotwithstand^ ing the disapproval of the application by the superintendent, the department of licenses issued a license for the dance hall. (10) An application was made for a dance hall license in a fire-proof structure built in June, 1913, in accordance with the provisions of the building code, and the application was approved by the superintendent of buildings. The fire commissioner refused to approve the application, be¬ cause an automatic skylight was not provided, as required by section 109 of the building code although the building officials themselves had passed on the plans on this point. (10-a) In order to build a side-walk elevator it is necessary to get the consent of the building department, bureau of highways and department of water supply, gas and electricity. (11) A man purchased an eight-story tenant factory building, and in order to avoid a direction of the labor department to install automatic sprinklers, he made his leases with the tenants above the seventh story so that not more than two hundred people could be employed above the seventh floor. He took this precaution because his equity above the mortgage was very small, and he could not afford to install a sprinkler system which would cost between four and five thousand dollars. A short time after he had purchased the building and made his leases, he received an order from the fire department to install sprinklers in the building, and upon taking this matter up with the fire de¬ partment, was informed that they could order sprinklers in any building, irrespective of the provisions of the labor law. No. 50] 21 The man being financially unable to comply with the order will be compelled to close his building if the order is enforced. (12) An order was received by a proprietor of a small fish store, stating, that as he was conducting a mercantile establishment he must comply with the labor laws and provide suitable toilets, etc., in the store for his employees. The “ employees ” consisted of one man, a brother of the proprietor, and there were toilets for his use on the second floor. The following are examples as to what is necessary to have a building approved: Tenement House: Plan with application is filed in the tenement house de¬ partment, examined by plan examiner and when approved is forwarded to the bureau of buildings. Plan is then examined in the bureau of buildings and if in accordance with the re¬ quirements of the building code is approved. The construc¬ tion of the tenement house is supervised by the inspector of the tenement house department and the inspector of buildings. Before the issuance of the certificate of completion by the tenement house department the approval thereof must be granted by the bureau of buildings and the department of water supply, gas and electricity. Theatre: 1. Location must first be approved by the department of licenses. 2. Plan must be approved by the fire prevention bureau and certificate of completion issued. 3. Plan must be approved by the bureau of buildings and certificate of completion issued. 4. Electrical equipment must be approved by the depart¬ ment of water supply, gas and electricity. 5. Sanitation and ventilation must be approved by the de¬ partment of health. Upon receipt of the approvals of the foregoing depart¬ ments and bureaus the inspector of the department of licenses makes a final inspection before granting the license. Factory or Loft Building: 1. Plan must be filed in the bureau of fire prevention, which has jurisdiction as to the stand-pipes, sprinkler system, etc. 22 [Senate 2. Plan must be filed in the State Department of Labor which has jurisdiction over fireproof construction, exits, etc. 3. Plan must be filed in the bureau of buildings which has jurisdiction over the general construction of the building. In connection with the above, duplicate and therefore un¬ necessary records must be kept in the various departments concerning the same premises. (13) What department has jurisdiction over a building which is used for both tenant and factory purposes ? The tenement house and fire departments allow ladders to be used on fire escapes from the first balcony to the ground while the labor department demands stairways. The labor department requires wire glass to be used on windows on the course of the fire escapes, while the tenement house depart¬ ment does not. The fire department orders that doors be made to open out¬ wardly, where practicable, whereas the labor department arbi¬ trarily orders all doors to be opened outwardly, irrespective of conditions. The sanitary provisions of the labor department, health, tene¬ ment house and building departments are in serious conflict. (14) The labor department requires that all windows in certain new factories must be wire glass, including the store. The building code requires no such drastic requirement and allows plain glass to be used. (15) The building superintendent can modify the law and ordi¬ nances if the spirit of the lav/ is adhered to. The labor commissioner can only say 11 the law must be carried out,” irrespective of the merits of the case. The building requirements as prescribed in the building code and labor laws are vastly different. (16) If the definition of a factory, as proposed in the revised recodification of the labor law is approved by the legislature, every building in Hew York city whether it is a private house, office building, tenement house or factory, will be under the jurisdiction of the labor department. The labor commissioner may declare a man’s private house a factory if he employs a cook who makes pies or biscuits; likewise a private house could be declared a factory if you packed a trunk in it. Hundreds of additional instances, such as the above, could be given, if space permitted it. No. 50] 23 Some idea may be gathered of the burden imposed upon owners by the number of orders issued by the various departments, as reported for the year 1913 : Bureau of buildings. 21,950 Board of health (affecting real estate). 12,700 Bureau of fire prevention. 45,310 State Department of Labor. 10,000 Tenement house department. 175,226 265,186 Together with an unknown number from the bureau of boiler inspection, department of water supply, license bureau and bureau of incumbrances. The cost to comply with these 265,186 orders has been estimated at about $11,500,000. Thousands of these orders were issued to cover petty technical conditions. It is the unanimous opinion of persons interested in real prop¬ erty that there will be no end to over-inspection, needless inspection and unnecessary harassing of the property owner until the juris¬ diction over the construction, alteration and structural changes in buildings is given to one bureau, the laws and regulations made uniform and one interpretation of the law be made.