互助PLAN IN CONNECTICUT.

互助PLAN IN CONNECTICUT.

A question has arisen in Hartford, Conn., relative to a plan for an exchange of mutual aid between the fire department of that city and other towns of the state, which has been urged by the State Council of Defense, the question being one of legality, the statute now limiting the exchange of this aid to neighboring towns. The fire board has therefore declined to sanction the new arrangement until it is shown that it can do so legally, the matter being referred to the Corporation Counsel for an opinion as to where the board can obtain the power in view of the existing statute of limitation. The argument presented by President Horace B. Clark of the board, who strongly favored such an arrangement as proposed, is to the Point and cogent. He says that if Hartford does not give aid she cannot expect any in return. It is self-evident that the c'sence and value of mutual aid is its mutual character; in fact it is not mutual aid unless it is mutual. The principle of interchange of aid in cases of fire emergency is being more and more generally recognized and the present question in Hartford is one only of how far and wide this principle shall be applied. Commissioner Eisner is quoted as wanting assurance from the State Council of Defense that it would assume liability in the event of accident while apparatus was being sent abroad in disregard of the statute limitation. This appears to be one way of meeting the situation. It is evident that the proposition is one that calls for prompt consideration as the mutual aid plan of the State Council of Defense is one that is of great importance to the municipalities of the state, and of urgent importance in view of war conditions. It may be expected that some way of providing for participation in the mutual aid plan will be speedily found and adopted.

A question has arisen in Hartford, Conn., relative to a plan for an exchange of mutual aid between the fire department of that city and other towns of the state, which has been urged by the State Council of Defense, the question being one of legality, the statute now limiting the exchange of this aid to neighboring towns. The fire board has therefore declined to sanction the new arrangement until it is shown that it can do so legally, the matter being referred to the Corporation Counsel for an opinion as to where the board can obtain the power in view of the existing statute of limitation. The argument presented by President Horace B. Clark of the board, who strongly favored such an arrangement as proposed, is to the Point and cogent. He says that if Hartford does not give aid she cannot expect any in return. It is self-evident that the c'sence and value of mutual aid is its mutual character; in fact it is not mutual aid unless it is mutual. The principle of interchange of aid in cases of fire emergency is being more and more generally recognized and the present question in Hartford is one only of how far and wide this principle shall be applied. Commissioner Eisner is quoted as wanting assurance from the State Council of Defense that it would assume liability in the event of accident while apparatus was being sent abroad in disregard of the statute limitation. This appears to be one way of meeting the situation. It is evident that the proposition is one that calls for prompt consideration as the mutual aid plan of the State Council of Defense is one that is of great importance to the municipalities of the state, and of urgent importance in view of war conditions. It may be expected that some way of providing for participation in the mutual aid plan will be speedily found and adopted.