CAN ANYTHING BE DONE ABOUT IT?

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE ABOUT IT?

NO one thing has occupied the attention of intelligent firemen more than the question “How can the losses by fire be reduced?” No other subject has been so generally discussed at conventions of firemen, or so much written about in the journals devoted to the fire service. Chiefs of fire departments are constantly devising means of preventing fires; they do not feel that their sole duty lies in fighting fires as they occur, but their interest in the welfare of the communities in which they live is so great that they seek to prevent the destruction of the property of their fellow citizens. The best building laws in force in our cities have been formulated by chief engineers ; it is they who are constantly sounding the note of warning in their reports to their superiors and pointing out the perils by which the community is surrounded. But their words are, to a great extent, unheeded ; their recommendations are regarded generally as an effort to increase their own importance, and the fire departments are left with insufficient appliances to fight the battle with the flames. As a consequence, the fire losses of the country are increasing at a rate out of all proportion to the annual increase of taxable property, and every fire that occurs adds to the burdens of every citizen. For several years the fire loss has averaged $100,000,000 a year, but if the rate of burning is continued for the ensuing two months to correspond with the preceding ten months, the fire losses for 1884 will exceed $120,000,000. This is an enormous amount to abstract from the wealth of the nation each year, and the question may well be asked: “ How can it be prevented ?”

这巨大的浪费的原因在于彻底indifference of the masses of the people, and in the careless and reckless habits growing out of this indifference. One of the chief causes of the indifference of the people is the facility with which insurance upon any kind of property can be obtained. No matter how cheaply a building is constructed, or how slightly the fire hazard enters into the calculations of the architect and builder, nor how much they may slight their work, insurance companies can be found who will contract, for a small annual premium, to indemnify the owner for any loss by fire. Knowing that this can be done, owners put up the flimsiest kind of buildings, and provide no means of protection against fire. The most inflammable material is used in the'construction, and every facility furnished for spreading the flames throughout the building. Everything calculated to make the building proof against fire is carefully omitted, but every facility afforded for a fire to get headway. What does the propertyowner care ? Such a cheap building will rent for as much as one more substantially built, and the insurance companies take all the risk of its burning. Upon the same theory, our smaller cities are filled with frame buildings, many of them bunched together to form a business block, all being subject to one fire hazard, for, in case of a fire in one building, the chances are that the entire block will be destroyed. There have been many fires of this character of late, in small places, where the fire department was wholly inadequate to the amount at risk, and the consequence has been an unusual destruction of property. This touches the insurance companies in their pockets, the only tender spot they possess, and the consequence is an effort on their part to induce propertyowners to improve their risks. The method adopted is to increase the rates of insurance, and then to allow the propertyowner a rebate, provided he adopts the means of protection recommended. It will cost the owner of an average cotton, woolen or paper mill from $10,000 to $25,000 to equip his premises so that they are acceptable to the mutual insurance companies. Many owners prefer to pay the extra rate charged by the stock companies, that do not require such an expenditure for fire equipment, and let the companies take the risk. If every propertyowner was compelled by law to stand part of the loss himself in case his premises were burned—in other words, if the insurance companies were prohibited from paying him more than three-quarters of his loss—we should very soon have our buildings made more nearly fireproof and better means of extinguishing fires provided. Touch the pockets of the propertyowners and they will take better care of their property. As it now is, they are actuated by selfish motives only—putting up cheap and dangerous buildings regardless of the peril to the community caused thereby. Make them sharers in any loss occasioned by fire and they will erect buildings that are more nearly fireproof. It is shown that contents are more frequently the cause of the destruction of buildings than the reverse; any additional precautions adopted for protecting a building would necessarily include the protection of its contents. At least, if the owner is made responsible for a share of the loss, he will protect his goods to the best of his ability.