Automatic Fire Protection

Automatic Fire Protection

All that the fire prevention bureau can do to increase the safety of the city's theaters will not be too much, nor will anything it does for that purpose fail to receive public appreciation. Judging from reports of action just taken and in contemplation by it, a good many of our theatergoers have been ana are in not a little danger, and there will be some inclination, perhaps, to ask why, if there is so much to do, more was not done before. Such questions as that are always rather ungracious, however, and late is so much better than never, especially when it is m tune, that this particularly inquiry need not be pressed. That the best of New York's theaters can be attended with practically no danger from fire, and that practically all the newer structures devoted to this purpose are reasonably safe, cannot be denied and is a reason for much satisfaction. But the situation is complicated by the fact that a few of our theaters are old. Though some of these cannot be put in really good condition as to either material or exits, there is natural reluctance to inflict heavy injury by closing them peremptorily, and that is done only in the worst cases. The result is that we have, and probably long must have, theaters of varying degrees of safety, and it might be well if the public could he clearly informed as to the comparative chances it took in going to any one of them. A way of doing that would be to make each theater advertise itself, on its tickets and otherwise, as of the first, second or third class, the last to include those that just come within the line of toleration. One good effect of that would be to give the safer theaters a well-deserved and legitimate advantage over the rest, and another would be to bring a heavy pressure to bear upon property owners and managers who are still attracting crowds of people to buildings which, while not actually inviting disaster, do not illustrate the best features of modern construction. There would be objections to this form of discrimination, but none occurs to mind that would not come from the theaters forbidden to call themselves first class.—New York Times.

All that the fire prevention bureau can do to increase the safety of the city's theaters will not be too much, nor will anything it does for that purpose fail to receive public appreciation. Judging from reports of action just taken and in contemplation by it, a good many of our theatergoers have been ana are in not a little danger, and there will be some inclination, perhaps, to ask why, if there is so much to do, more was not done before. Such questions as that are always rather ungracious, however, and late is so much better than never, especially when it is m tune, that this particularly inquiry need not be pressed. That the best of New York's theaters can be attended with practically no danger from fire, and that practically all the newer structures devoted to this purpose are reasonably safe, cannot be denied and is a reason for much satisfaction. But the situation is complicated by the fact that a few of our theaters are old. Though some of these cannot be put in really good condition as to either material or exits, there is natural reluctance to inflict heavy injury by closing them peremptorily, and that is done only in the worst cases. The result is that we have, and probably long must have, theaters of varying degrees of safety, and it might be well if the public could he clearly informed as to the comparative chances it took in going to any one of them. A way of doing that would be to make each theater advertise itself, on its tickets and otherwise, as of the first, second or third class, the last to include those that just come within the line of toleration. One good effect of that would be to give the safer theaters a well-deserved and legitimate advantage over the rest, and another would be to bring a heavy pressure to bear upon property owners and managers who are still attracting crowds of people to buildings which, while not actually inviting disaster, do not illustrate the best features of modern construction. There would be objections to this form of discrimination, but none occurs to mind that would not come from the theaters forbidden to call themselves first class.—New York Times.