February 17, 1906





KECORD   AND   GUIDE





279









ESTABUSHED "^W^WpHfU-l^ 1868,

DiVoteD p REA.L Estate ,BulLDI^'o ■AR.GKiTEeroi^E .HooseHoid DEeaEiATior(,
Busif/Ess Af/oThemes ofGEffeRAl Wterest.

PRICE   PER   YEAR    IN    ADVANCE    EIGHT   DOLLARS

Published   eilery   ■Saturday

Communications should ho addroBS'^d to

C.   W.   SWEET,   14-16   Vesey   Street.   New  York

Tclophono, Cortluudl 3157

"Entered at the Post CW-ce al IN'ew YorJr., H. Y, as second-class mailer."





Vol. LXXVIL





FEBRUARY 17,  1906.





No. 1979





INDEX  TO  DEPARTMENTS.
Advertising Section.

Page.                                               Page,

Cement......................xxiii  Law.........................xi

Clay   Products.................xxii  Lumber    ...................xxviii

Consulting    Engineers.........vii   Machinery    .....................iv

Contractors   and   Builders......vi   Metal   Work   ..................xix

Electrical   Interests...........viii  Quick Job  Directory.........xxvii

Fireproofing   ..................iii   Real  Estate   ..................xiii

Granite   .....................xxiv Roofers & Roofing Materials___x

Heating   .......................xx   Stone   ......................xxiv

Iron  and  steel...............xviii Wood Products...............xxix

HOW much interest are the architects, the builders, and the
real estate men of this city taking in the proposed revision
of the Building Code? Are we to have another case of post¬
mortem dissatisfaction? That is the usual course of affairs with
us in all public matters. Measures are proposed, amendments
are introduced, bills are passed and sanctioned, aud people will
not give to their consideration one-twentieth part of the time
they devote to the reading of yellow journal stories. Legisla¬
tion, however, affects their interests, and later on, when laws
are in operation, the kickers begin to vociferate. Everybody
is aroused to a belated opposition. Wisdom comes in after
everyone has "quit and gone home." In the past, the building
laws have received about as much cussing as any other law,
but the grumbling has always been futile. It has always arisen
after the event. If architects, builders and real estate men
have anything to say about the Building Code, now is the time
to get ready to say it. An adequate Building Code cannot be
turned out in a day. The mau on the street corner is not com¬
petent to give voice to the proper demands of the community,
and of the many industries that are involved. The matter
shoulcf receive very careful consideration. Organization is
needed, and a competent steering committee, or something of
the kind. Silence and indifference wil! not produce results.
Lamentations by and by will be equally inefflcient.





THOSE who form their opinions frora the daily papers might
fear that serious labor troubles again threaten the build¬
ing trades of this city. As a matter of fact, these fears are
groundless. There may be troubles, of course. There is hardly
ever a time in the huilding trades when some "little war" is
not in progress, and these little wars undoubtedly are always
beset with the danger that they may provoke a bigger conflict.
No doubt, moreover, there is more pugnacity per individual in
the building trades than irt almost any other industry, and in
New York City there are, as we know, some unwholesome ele¬
ments in the relationship that exists between employers and
the employees. On the other hand, in the building trades, Em¬
ployers and Unions are very well organized, and this develop¬
ment of organization, while it makes conflicts serious when
they do arise, is at the same time an impediment to disturb¬
ances in regard to difficulties that are not fundamentally essen¬
tial. The strikes of recent years certainly closed for a time, it
they did not actually settle, a great many differences that exist-
as to essentials. The former belligerents may join issue on
these same points by and by, but to-day the status quo pos¬
sesses too many elements of stability to leave room for any dis¬
sension that is really explosive. In other words, the situation
is sufficiently well adjusted to be workable; there is nothing
in sight likely to throw things out of gear. There is certainly
enough in the situation to make peace very much more profit¬
able for both sides than war, and neither the Unions nor the
Employers are likely to buy trouble unless it somehow promises
a profit. The employers occupy a strong position, and the labor
situation is sufficiently attractive for the Unions to leave it
alone for a while, A serious strike undertaken hy the men
to-day would justify the libelous story told"of a man who went
to Washington Market to buy a.calf's head, which he desired
to take home with him.   When the butcher produced the head





the purchaser inquired, "Is that a 'Union' head?" "No," re¬
plied the butcher, "but 1 can get one." He returned in a
moment with the same calf's head, a fact which the customer
detected immediately. "Certainly that's the same bead," said
the butcher; "but I have taken the brains out."





THE Elsberg Rapid Transit bill, after all, is not to get
through without opposition. There are good reasons for
this. At the time the Subway enterprise was undertaken, the
prospect ahead was thickly sowed with problems, financial and
otherwise. The experimental stage, however, is now completely
left behind, and tiie construction of new lines or extensions of
the present lines should properly be conducted much more
rigidly in the interests of the community. There has arisen a
difference of opinion as to the direction these interests now take.
Hence the controversy over the Elsberg bill. The Elsberg bill
is a measure of some antiquity. It was proposed when present
conditions did not exist. It permitted the Rapid Transit Com¬
mission to separate construction-contracts from operation-con¬
tracts. In this way, it was thought power would be conferred
upon the Rapid Transit Commission to compel satisfactory bids.
Those who advocated the measure declared it was essentially a
permissive bill, one urgently demanded by conditions then
existing. This was well enough, but curiously to-day the Els¬
berg bill is advocated on the ground that it is "mandatory,"
and as a result, if passed, the Rapid Transit Commission would
be compelled to completely separate contracts for construction -
from contracts for operation. The purpose of the bill is even
avowed to be to force the city to build and equip a new subway
at its own expense. The purpose of this, undoubtedly, Is to
bring about the municipal operation of new Rapid Transit
routes. At any rate, that is likely to be the effect of the
measure. Now, this may be a very desirable result. The
operation of the present subway by private interests is in many
respects unsatisfactory. One can easily imagine how a "ser¬
vice for profits." such as we have to-day, might, under munic¬
ipal ownership, be developed to the point that it would be a
"service for public convenience." A great many people believe
the latter is the kind of service the Subway should render the
community. Situated as New York City is. Rapid Transit is
essentially a public utility. Transportation, indeed, is even
more of a public necessity than the supply of electric light, or
of auy of those other services that it is at present proposed
siiaJI be brought within the scope of municipal enterprise.
From the very beginning, New York City bas sweated and
fretted more under the private control of Rapid Transit than
any other general service it receives at the hands of individual
enterprise. The Subway to-day, while it affords great accom¬
modation to our people, is not much, if at all, more liberally
managed than the Elevated roads. Dividends have been paid
at the sacrifice of the "utmost public convenience," and it is
just this utmost public convenience that is the main matter in¬
volved in transportation in this city. Of course, it is entirely
questionable whether municipal ownership will do any more
for us than private enterprise. No doubt it could, because the
conditions under which it would work would be freer, but would
it? A great many facts indicate that any hope in this direction
might prove to be delusive. But, at any rate, the question of
the future municipalization of our subways should be put be¬
fore the public with the utmost candor. The Elsberg bill is
not candid. It does not assert its object—municipal ownership—
with entire frankness. On the contrary, it introduces the prin-.
ciple surreptitiously, and the matter is too important to be
sneaked  in by indirection.





Salaries—Big and  Little.

THE question of the salaries paid to government and cor¬
porate of&cials has of late been exciting a great deal of
public discussion. It began, of course, with the revelations as
to the rate of payment which had been made to the chief
officials of the insurance companies, and it was continued by
the discussions iu Congress relative to the remuneration
which the national government has been paying to a number of
the most important employees engaged in the work of building
the Panama Canal. But it cannot be said that the discussion has
as yet had any very edifying result. Much of the condemnation
bestowed upon the people who received and paid tbe high sal-
ai'ies was unjust, and on the other hand many of the argu¬
ments by which the high salaries have been justified can only
be described as disingenuous. It is, consequently, worth while
considering what the real justification is for the payment of
high salaries to important public and corporate officials, and
how far the practice can be legitimately carried.