up other people’s property at will, to submit at once to the full rigor of the French Code, but the justice of the Committee’s provision is so evident that there is reason to hope that it will find general acceptance, to the incalculable benefit of the country. The present French law is a development of the principle laid down in the Code Civil, Section 1383, which says that “ Every one is responsible for the damage he has caused, not only by his acts, but also by his negligence or imprudence. ” Section 1733 of the same Code specifies the mode in which the principle of § 1383 shall be applied in cases of fire in rented buildings, as between the landlord and his tenants, by saying that the tenant “ is responsible for fire, unless he can prove that the fire occurred by chance, or by force majeure, or was communicated from a neighboring building. ” The following section, No. 1734, provides that “If there are several tenants, each is responsible for the whole loss from fire; unless it is proved that the fire began in the apartment of one of them, in which case he alone is held, or unless some of them can prove that the fire could not have begun in their apartments, in which case these are not held liable. ” In January, 1883, this last Section was modified by an act of the Legislative Assembly, which substituted for the first clause of it another, providing that “ If there are several tenants, all are responsible for fire in proportion to the rental value of the part of the building which they occupy. ” Around these Sections of the Code has grown up a considerable mass of explanatory decisions, by which it is now established that a person who suffers damage through the spread of fire from a neighboring building can recover compensation from the owner of the building in which the fire originated only by proving that it broke out, or spread, by his, or his tenants’, negligence or fault; while, as between a landlord and his tenants, the legal presumption is that the latter are at fault for the occurrence of a fire, and those of them who cannot prove positively that they are not at fault must make up the landlord’s loss. In practice, all these various responsibilities are assumed by the insurance companies. The landlord insures his building, including his responsibility to adjoining owners, and, by his policy, delegates to the insurance company his right to recover the loss, if any occurs, from the tenants; while the latter, in their turn, insure not only their own furniture, but their risque locatif, or responsibility to their landlord for the consequences of fire which they cannot prove not to have originated in their apartments; but there is always present in the minds of the parties concerned the possibility of a mishap in which their insurance might not protect them, and, in practice, tenants will not hire, or landlords build, houses in which both the occurrence and spread of fire are not pretty thoroughly guarded against.
THE consequence is that while there is a good deal of bad and cheap construction, both in France and in Italy,
where the Code, Section 1590, makes very similar provisions, the economies of the speculating builder rarely take the form of neglecting precautions against fire. In Paris, particularly, where rubble masonry of small stones is much used instead of brick, it is not uncommon to have a house fall down, but it is an extremely rare occurrence to have it burn, for the simple reason that tenants and purchasers, having the fear of responsibility for fire to sharpen their perceptions, assure themselves on that point before they will have anything to do with a new building; while the execution of the mason-work, which involves them in no accountability to others, receives much less attention than it deserves. From the insurers’ point of view, the French system, although it throws nominally a much greater risk on the companies, exercises an influence upon construction which makes the risk, although much more comprehensive than with us, actually far smaller. In Paris, the ordinary premium paid by owners for insuring their own property is ten cents per thousand dollars, — about one-tenth the best rate for dwelling-houses in our cities. The owner’s responsibility to his neighbors is covered by an additional ten cents per thousand dollars; while the liability of tenants to their landlords is covered for twenty cents per thousand dollars; and even at these rates, as we are told by the Massachusetts Commissioners for the revision of the Boston Building-Law, one insurance company pays regular dividends of one hundred and forty per cent. It must, of course, be many years before so. mild a measure as that proposed by the New York Committee would have its full effect, but its influence would very soon be
felt, and, in connection with the provisions with which the Committee proposes to combine it, and the acknowledged skill of American architects in fireproof construction, which, when they have the opportunity, they practise with a perfection unequalled anywhere else in the world, the result would certainly be a rapid improvement in building methods, to the great advantage of the whole community. We need not apologize for restating the figures of the fire-losses in this country, which every citizen should not only know, but understand in their full significance. The best estimate of the annual cost of fires in this country, including losses actually suffered by uninsured owners, and premiums paid for insurance, puts it at more than two hundred million dollars, while the cost of maintaining our fire-departments is about a hundred million more, making three hundred millions of annual outlay which might be saved if buildings, and the goods in them, would not burn. If this annual loss were reduced to the French standard, which, as indicated by the relative premium rates, is not more than one-tenth of ours, we should make a saving of two hundred and seventy million dollars a year. What this means may be best shown by a few comparisons. With that sum, which, it must be remembered, would unquestionably be actually saved every year after the rules proposed by the New York Committee had come into general use, all the pensions, the interest on the public debt, and the whole cost of maintaining the army and navy of the United States could be paid, without drawing on the public treasury; or, if we preferred, we could distribute it to our Congressmen, to whom it would give an income of nearly seven hundred thousand dollars a year apiece; or to our army, the private soldiers in which might thus have their wages, without expense to the Government, raised to the handsome sum of eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year each. If, which would be more reasonable, we should save up the money, and apply it to the improvement of building, it would, if put at interest, pay the cost of rebuilding every house, store, warehouse, factory, theatre, schoolhouse, church, hotel and office-building in the United States every twenty years, not only without expense to the owner, but with enough left over to give him a handsome douceur in addition; or, if he were content to keep his building without change, it would put the value of it into his pocket in cash; and we say without fear of contradiction, that the money would be better applied to any of these uses than to its present object, of feeding huge bonfires, and paying people to go about and collect contributions for putting them out; and if the New York Committee has accomplished anything towards making the change, it will deserve the gratitude of the community.
FIRE AND WATER, in speaking of the work laid out for the Combined Committee which met in New York last week, expresses its surprise that in the preliminary suggestions which were prepared for it no mention was made of the subject of the “ safe construction of elevator and light shafts, such dangerous conductors of fire. ” At the meeting of the committee, this subject was discussed at great length, but it was evident that a diversity of opinion existed, not only among architects and builders, but among fire-engineers, as to the way in which such shafts should be constructed, and it was finally decided to omit all reference to them in the scheme of general suggestions adopted by the committee, in the hope that closer observation would make it more certain how to build them with the best effect. The question is, naturally, between shafts open on all sides, and those enclosed in brick walls. Of late years, the latter have been commonly regarded as the safest, and are required by law in several cities; but the experience of fire-engineers does not show that they are always the best. Unless carried above the roof, and covered with a skylight which is easily broken by the heat, so as to let smoke and flame pass out, they act as chimneys, which draw the fire strongly from the basement to the upper stories and roof, so that, in such buildings, the appearance of flame in the cellar and roof is almost simultaneous. If the shaft has tin-covered doors, kept closed, and the skylight glass breaks at the right time, the fire will be kept in the shaft, and escape without communicating to the upper stories; but it is found that, in practice, it is often advantageous to have the doors to the shaft left open, as when the glass in the skylight breaks, the draught into the shaft assists greatly in clearing the upper stories of smoke, which penetrates into them in various ways, and may do great damage, even if not accompanied by fire.
THE consequence is that while there is a good deal of bad and cheap construction, both in France and in Italy,
where the Code, Section 1590, makes very similar provisions, the economies of the speculating builder rarely take the form of neglecting precautions against fire. In Paris, particularly, where rubble masonry of small stones is much used instead of brick, it is not uncommon to have a house fall down, but it is an extremely rare occurrence to have it burn, for the simple reason that tenants and purchasers, having the fear of responsibility for fire to sharpen their perceptions, assure themselves on that point before they will have anything to do with a new building; while the execution of the mason-work, which involves them in no accountability to others, receives much less attention than it deserves. From the insurers’ point of view, the French system, although it throws nominally a much greater risk on the companies, exercises an influence upon construction which makes the risk, although much more comprehensive than with us, actually far smaller. In Paris, the ordinary premium paid by owners for insuring their own property is ten cents per thousand dollars, — about one-tenth the best rate for dwelling-houses in our cities. The owner’s responsibility to his neighbors is covered by an additional ten cents per thousand dollars; while the liability of tenants to their landlords is covered for twenty cents per thousand dollars; and even at these rates, as we are told by the Massachusetts Commissioners for the revision of the Boston Building-Law, one insurance company pays regular dividends of one hundred and forty per cent. It must, of course, be many years before so. mild a measure as that proposed by the New York Committee would have its full effect, but its influence would very soon be
felt, and, in connection with the provisions with which the Committee proposes to combine it, and the acknowledged skill of American architects in fireproof construction, which, when they have the opportunity, they practise with a perfection unequalled anywhere else in the world, the result would certainly be a rapid improvement in building methods, to the great advantage of the whole community. We need not apologize for restating the figures of the fire-losses in this country, which every citizen should not only know, but understand in their full significance. The best estimate of the annual cost of fires in this country, including losses actually suffered by uninsured owners, and premiums paid for insurance, puts it at more than two hundred million dollars, while the cost of maintaining our fire-departments is about a hundred million more, making three hundred millions of annual outlay which might be saved if buildings, and the goods in them, would not burn. If this annual loss were reduced to the French standard, which, as indicated by the relative premium rates, is not more than one-tenth of ours, we should make a saving of two hundred and seventy million dollars a year. What this means may be best shown by a few comparisons. With that sum, which, it must be remembered, would unquestionably be actually saved every year after the rules proposed by the New York Committee had come into general use, all the pensions, the interest on the public debt, and the whole cost of maintaining the army and navy of the United States could be paid, without drawing on the public treasury; or, if we preferred, we could distribute it to our Congressmen, to whom it would give an income of nearly seven hundred thousand dollars a year apiece; or to our army, the private soldiers in which might thus have their wages, without expense to the Government, raised to the handsome sum of eleven or twelve thousand dollars a year each. If, which would be more reasonable, we should save up the money, and apply it to the improvement of building, it would, if put at interest, pay the cost of rebuilding every house, store, warehouse, factory, theatre, schoolhouse, church, hotel and office-building in the United States every twenty years, not only without expense to the owner, but with enough left over to give him a handsome douceur in addition; or, if he were content to keep his building without change, it would put the value of it into his pocket in cash; and we say without fear of contradiction, that the money would be better applied to any of these uses than to its present object, of feeding huge bonfires, and paying people to go about and collect contributions for putting them out; and if the New York Committee has accomplished anything towards making the change, it will deserve the gratitude of the community.
FIRE AND WATER, in speaking of the work laid out for the Combined Committee which met in New York last week, expresses its surprise that in the preliminary suggestions which were prepared for it no mention was made of the subject of the “ safe construction of elevator and light shafts, such dangerous conductors of fire. ” At the meeting of the committee, this subject was discussed at great length, but it was evident that a diversity of opinion existed, not only among architects and builders, but among fire-engineers, as to the way in which such shafts should be constructed, and it was finally decided to omit all reference to them in the scheme of general suggestions adopted by the committee, in the hope that closer observation would make it more certain how to build them with the best effect. The question is, naturally, between shafts open on all sides, and those enclosed in brick walls. Of late years, the latter have been commonly regarded as the safest, and are required by law in several cities; but the experience of fire-engineers does not show that they are always the best. Unless carried above the roof, and covered with a skylight which is easily broken by the heat, so as to let smoke and flame pass out, they act as chimneys, which draw the fire strongly from the basement to the upper stories and roof, so that, in such buildings, the appearance of flame in the cellar and roof is almost simultaneous. If the shaft has tin-covered doors, kept closed, and the skylight glass breaks at the right time, the fire will be kept in the shaft, and escape without communicating to the upper stories; but it is found that, in practice, it is often advantageous to have the doors to the shaft left open, as when the glass in the skylight breaks, the draught into the shaft assists greatly in clearing the upper stories of smoke, which penetrates into them in various ways, and may do great damage, even if not accompanied by fire.