火又熄灭了。
11月份在火灾问题上对此表示异常灾难性。商业公告，这是录制火灾的权威，估计上个月的损失为10,000,000美元，这些月份超过了多年的相应月份的损失。纪事消防桌11月的平均亏损约为7,300,000美元，除了1874年，当波士顿的大型大型大幅增加，该月份的总汇率很大。根据公报，今年十一个月的总损失已经超过了105,000,000美元，而随着12月份的损失，可能会在这些数字的基础上假设这一年度的消防浪费的基础上在115,000,000美元的附近汇总。在这一巨大金额中，保险公司可能支付了大约六十百分之六十，损失的余额完全落在财产所有者被摧毁的业主上。这是一个巨大的财产浪费，但对于这种破坏，以各种方式持续向公众提供贡献。自然出现的问题，可以避免这种破坏吗？如果是这样，通过什么方式？这个问题绝不是一个新的，但在公众面前一直保持着众多岁月的股权，保险公司和公众本身。 But all the warning and advice that have been given seem to have little effect in the way of providing a remedy for the carelessness that is largely the cause of this waste. If it was a matter of ignorance that caused this damage to the welfare of the country, it might be excused to a certain extent, but it is not. On the contrary, every propertyowner in the country knows substantially what he should do to protect his property from fire; but it is too much trouble to take the necessary precautions, and so they insure their property as largely as they can, and ignore their own responsibilities in the matter.
火灾原因清单清楚地表明，至少90%的火灾是可以通过一般的深思熟虑和适当的预防措施加以防止的。这种做法之所以没有实施，很大程度上是因为保险太便宜了，而且确定火灾财产损失责任的法律太松散了，这些问题至少在一定程度上可以通过立法加以补救。例如:
如果被禁止保险公司的赔偿，那些被证明损失的四分之三，那些将被迫携带一部分保险的储藏机构将非常适应他们的财产。并提供更好的防火和防火手段。然后建立司徒的责任，建造建筑物和储存财产所需的更好的法律。立法甚至可能会提供，通过粗心或忽视，允许火灾发生火灾的人应该适应可能因其受损而可能受损的所有可能性。
也许可以立法以这种方式确定个人的责任，但是，除了迫使市政当局提供适当的手段来保护其公民的财产外，还应该有别的办法;或者，换句话说，每个社区都应该被法律强制为其公司范围内的财产提供防火保护。为此立法机关授权的税收可能会征收所有财产的维护消防部门,因此需要政府的每个城市和乡村提供一定数量的消防,这可能被添加到根据每个地方的公民的慷慨。每个社区，无论大小，只要是成立的，或从国家获得任何权力，法律都应强制要求每年在防火方面花费一定数额。火灾保险公司已经以百分之二的速度在他们的溢价收入征税的维护消防部门,也没有理由财产的所有者不应适量,以防止征税的破坏他们的财产的火。经验表明，财产所有人，或在这件事上有最大利益的各方，不会自愿在这方面采取任何行动。他们不顾一般的防火措施，胡乱盖房，然后投保尽可能多的金额，并说:“我们买了保险;让保险公司来承担风险。”现在保险公司对任何一种风险都只有附带利益，这种利益是如此的微不足道，以至于他们不可能为每一种风险提供防火保护。他们的座右铭是在发现风险时收取费用; and if they only did this, propertyowners would speedily find the cost of their insurance very greatly enhanced. Unfortunately, however, the competition in the business is so great that it is impossible for the companies to obtain adequate rates in all instances. And so, through excessive competition and the neglect and indifference of propertyowners, the fire losses continue to increase from year to year, and the insurance companies to do business without a profit. When the losses paid by the companies exceed sixty per cent of the premiums, as they have done for many years past, there is not a ghost of a shadow of a chance for them to make a profit. Their only remedy is to insist upon propertyowners providing reasonable safeguards for the protection of their property, and to do what lies in their power to secure better building construction. In this latter respect, however, there seems to be no improvement.
巨大的建筑向四面八方拔地而起，覆盖了广阔的空间，丝毫没有考虑到火灾的危险。举个例子;通知在日报几天以来的铺设来者石头在布鲁克林一个巨大的建筑,它是由辛迪加的竖立干货的经销商,他们提出需要保持一个屋檐下几乎所有的家庭,并为任何建立家庭用品,家具,衣服或规定。这座建筑将有七层楼高，占地一英亩，面向三条街道。据推测，在它的围墙内存放着价值数百万美元的资产。我们冒昧地说，我们对火灾危险不作特别的考虑，但我们希望保险公司按一般费率投保。一家日报上的另一段话，谈到要在奥尔巴尼建造的州长官邸，说它所包围的面积将等于20万立方英尺，而普通城市住宅的面积约为5万立方英尺。由于它将配备所有现代化的设施，它将包括几乎所有已知的火灾隐患。从其他城市传来的说法是，人们在建造巨大的建筑物时，也同样无视防火措施。因此，当这些建筑物装满了价值巨大的货物时，火灾损失不断增加也就不足为奇了。 The plan of erecting large high buildings for business purposes, or as apartment houses in the prominent cities, places them beyond the protection of fire departments, for the simple reason that there is a limitation to the capacity of fire extinguishing machinery beyond which it cannot go. The steam engine that can play a satisfactory, serviceable fire stream 100 feet perpendicularly is doing remarkably good service. Yet there are hundreds of business structures far exceeding this height. When a fire occurs in such a structure, firemen can do little else than stand by and wait till it burns down to within their reach. What is wanted to control propertyowners and builders in the erection of structures, are better laws more rigorously enforced, and until we have these, there is little hope for any material reduction in the annual loss by fire.
