Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/421

 and similarly the ordinary everyday hydrant receives equal attention with the patent hydrant, or ordinary bucket of water with the special fire extinguisher. The door tests of the committee, which cover some thirty different types of doors, deal with no less than twenty ordinary wooden doors that can be made by any ordinary builder or cabinet-maker. These so-called non-proprietary tests are made at the expense of the general funds of the committee, whilst for the proprietary tests the owners have to pay about two-thirds of the expenses incurred in the form of a testing fee. The expenses incurred in a test, of course, not only comprise the actual testing operation of testing, but also the expense of producing the report, which is always a very highly finished publication with excellent blocks. The expense incurred also includes the establishment expenses of the testing station at Regent’s Park.

The British Fire Prevention Committee organized the great Fire Exhibition and International Fire Congress of London in 1903, in both of which it enjoyed the support and assistance of the National Fire Brigades Union and the Association of Professional Fire Chiefs. It from time to time despatches special commissions to the continent of Europe, and these visits are followed by the issue of official reports, well illustrated, presenting the appliances, rules and methods of the countries visited, and serving as most useful reference publications.

Taken generally, the whole of the work of the committee, both in respect of scientific investigations and propagandism, has been most beneficial. Fire waste has been materially reduced, regardless of the fact of the greater fire hazards and the ever-growing amount of property. In Great Britain alone the sum saved in fire wastage annually is about £5,000,000. This great annual saving has been obtained at an expenditure in research work, as far as the British Fire Prevention Committee is concerned, of about £23,000, of which more than half was provided by the membership in voluntary contributions or subscriptions.

There is no similar institution anywhere in the world, although several government laboratories occasionally undertake fire tests, notably the Gross Lichterfelde laboratory near Berlin, and several insurance corporations have testing plants, notably the American Underwriters at Chicago. The efforts at research work outside Great Britain have, however, been spasmodic and in no way compare with the systematic series of inquiries conducted without any substantial state aid in London.

Distribution of Losses.—Property destroyed by fire is practically an absolute loss. This loss may actually only affect the owner, or it may be distributed among a number of people, who are taxed for it in the form of a contribution to their national or local fire fund, a share in some mutual insurance “ring,” or the more usual insurance companies’ premium. In the first two cases some expenses have also to be met in connexion with the management of the fund, “tariff” organization, or “ring.” In the last case, not only the expenses of management have to be covered, but also the costs incurred in running the insurance enterprise as such, and then a further amount for division amongst those who share the risk of the venture—namely, the insurance company’s shareholders.

It is well to distinguish between loss and mere expenditure. The sinking fund of the large property owner should cover a loss with a minimum extra expense; insurance in an extravagantly managed company paying large dividends will cover a loss, but with an unnecessarily large extra outlay. In every case the loss remains; and as property may always be considered part of the community, the province or nation, as the case may be, suffers. It is always in the interest of a nation to minimize its national losses, no matter whether they fall on one individual’s shoulders or on many, and whether such losses are good for certain trades or not. With a suitable system of fire protection it is possible to bring these losses to a minimum, but this minimum would probably only be reached by an extra expense, which would fall heavier on the insurers’ pockets in the form of municipal rates than the higher premium for the greater risk. A practical minimum is all that can be attempted, and that practical minimum varies according to circumstances.

Practical protection must mean smaller annual insurance dues, and the actual extra cost of this protection should be something less than the saving off these dues. Then not only has the nation a smaller dead loss, but the owner also has a smaller annual expenditure for his combined contributions toward the losses, the management of his insurance, and the protective measures. Where there is mutual insurance or municipal insurance in its best sense, the losses by fire and the costs of the protection are often booked in one account, and the better protection up to a certain point should mean a smaller individual annual share. Where there is company insurance the municipal rates are increased to cover the cost of extra protection, while a proportionate decrease is expected in the insurance premiums. Competition and public opinion generally impose this decrease of the insurance rates as soon as there is a greater immunity from fire. Where the insurance companies are well managed and the shareholders are satisfied with reasonable dividends, practical protection can be said to find favour with all concerned, but if the protection is arranged for and the companies do not moderate their charges accordingly, the reverse is the case.

The position of insurance companies subscribing towards the maintenance of a fire brigade should here be referred to, as there is considerable misunderstanding on the subject. The argument which municipalities or fire brigade organizations often use is to the effect that the insurance companies derive all the profit from a good fire service, and should contribute towards its cost. Where properly managed companies have the business, a better fire service, however, means a smaller premium to the ratepayer. If the ratepayer has to pay for extra protection in the form of an increased municipal rate, or in the form of an increased premium raised to meet the contribution levied, this is simply juggling with figures.

Cost.—As to the cost of a practical system of fire protection, better and safer building from the fire point of view means better and more valuable structures of longer life from the economic aspect. Such better and safer constructional work pays for itself and cannot be considered in the light of an extra tax on the building owner. The compilation and administration of the fire protective clauses in a Building Act would be attended to by the same executive authorities as would in any case superintend general structural matters, and the additional work would at the most require some increased clerical aid. If the execution of the fire survey regulations were delegated to the same authority there would again simply be some extra clerical aid to pay for, and the salaries of perhaps a few extra surveyors. To make the inspections thoroughly efficient, it has been found advisable in several instances to form parties of three for the rounds. The second man would, in this case, be a fire brigade officer, and the third probably a master chimney-sweep, who would have to receive a special retaining fee.

The cost of the public training referred to would be small, as the elementary part would simply be included in the schoolmaster’s work, and the Press matters could be easily managed in the fire brigade office. Payments would have only to be made for advertisements, such as the official warnings, lists for fire-call points, &c., and perhaps for the publication of semi-official hints. Self-help, as far as inspection and drills for amateurs are concerned would be under the control of the fire brigade. There would, however, be an extra expense for the purchase and maintenance of the street first-aid appliances referred to.

The most expensive items in the system of fire protection undoubtedly come under the headings “Fire-Call” and “Fire Brigade.” As to the former, there are a number of cities where the cost is modified by having the whole of the electrical service for the police force, the ambulance and fire brigade, managed by a separate department. The same wires call up each of these services, and, as the same staff attend to their maintenance, the fire protection of a city need only be debited with perhaps a third of the outlay it would occasion if managed independently. The combined system has also the great advantage of facilitating the mutual working of the different services in case of an emergency. The indicators which have been referred to involve an outlay; but here again, if the three services work together, the expenses on the count of fire protection can be lessened. The money rewards given in some cities to the individuals who first call the fire-engines may become a heavy item. Their utility is doubtful, and they have formed an inducement for arson.

As to the outlay on fire brigade establishment, a strong active force should be provided, supported by efficient reserves. The latter should be as inexpensive as possible, but should at least constitute a part-paid and disciplined body which could be easily called in for emergencies. Fire brigade budgets cannot allow for an active force being ready for such coincidences as an unusual number of large fires starting simultaneously, but they must allow for an ample strength always being forthcoming for the ordinary emergencies, and this with all due consideration for men’s rest and possible sickness. An undermanned fire brigade is an anomaly which is generally fatal, not only to the property owner, but also to the whole efficiency and esprit of the force. The budget must also allow for an attractive rate of pay, as the profession is one which requires men who have a maximum of the sterling qualities which we look for in the pick