very desirous of making this as far as possible a discussional convention, and I trust you will all help in carrying out this desire.

MR. W. M. CLARK (Carbondale, Pa.): I should like to ask whether or not there are any regulations by the Underwriters regarding the fouling of electric wires by gas pipes, and so forth, after the electric wiring has been installed and passed on by the inspectors. We have an installation where the wiring was done according to the Underwriters' rules, was properly inspected and passed upon. The plumbers came in directly afterward and placed the gas pipes across the wires, strapping them against the ceiling. In the course of time the natural vibration of the building will wear the insulation through, causing a puncture in the gas pipe from the short-circuit, and consequently making a fire probable. What would be the duty of the lighting company in the premises to protect itself against criticism and liability to prosecution? In this one case we notified the owner, but he took no notice of our protests, saying it was none of our busiThe menace is still there and is liable to give trouble at

ness.

any time.

MR. BLOOD: In reply to the first question-there were a number of rules proposed that would have had the effect of preventing the use of knob and tube work entirely. Following these, was a rule intended to prohibit the use of molding for show windows, which meant that nothing but iron conduits could be used there. As molding is used in thousands of show windows, and as it serves the purpose very well, without increasing the fire hazard materially, it appeared that a great hardship would be inflicted upon the smaller companies if its use were prohibited. As a matter of fact, upon reconsideration the rule was left in the Code. The rules proposing to stop the use of knob and tube work were fought very hard, but they were finally allowed to stand as at present.

As to the consideration of the life hazard, I have had a number of conferences with the Underwriters in regard to that, and I think their position in the matter is very commendable. The rules are primarily gotten up as a safeguard against fire. The Underwriters take the position that if the wiring is in such a condition that death is liable to ensue it removes from the building or property the service of some one who might be of

great value in putting out fire that may come at the same time through faulty wiring, so they are in favor of the passage of rules that will protect against a life hazard. They do not want to make them paramount; they are willing to receive suggestions, as is witnessed by their attitude in connection with Rule 13A, which refers to the grounding of the secondary alternating-current circuits, and which has been referred to four committees for conference.

In regard to wiring against gas pipes, I think this is a question of detail. If the gentleman who asked the question has any rule in mind that he thinks should be introduced, the time to present it will be about a month previous to next March, at which time the Underwriters will be glad to receive suggestions from any and all who wish to make them, and preferably from associations. They give greater weight to recommendations as to changes in the rules coming from associations than to those that come from individuals.

THE PRESIDENT: The next business will be the report of the committee on standard rules for electrical construction and operation, Mr. Ernest H. Davis, Williamsport, Pa., chairman.

MR. DAVIS: I suggest that this report be considered in connection with the report of the committee on the grounding of secondary alternating circuits, as the report will have to do practically with that alone. The details as to the past year's changes in the Code have been partly taken up in Mr. Blood's report, and the rest will be taken up in the report on the grounding of secondary alternating-current circuits.

THE PRESIDENT: If that is the case, we will take up the report of the committee on the fire hazard of electricity, Mr. C. E. Skinner, Pittsburgh, chairman.

Mr. Skinner presented the report, as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE FIRE
HAZARD OF ELECTRICITY

The appointment of a committee on the fire hazard of electricity to bring in a report at the annual meeting of this association last year was due to complaints which had been made by members of the association that publications put out by the underwriting interests, giving figures for the number of and losses by electrical fires without comparative figures for other hazards, was working a hardship to the electric-lighting interests. Your committee last year brought in a report giving in tabular form comparative figures obtained from sources readily available to the committee in the short time at its disposal. The object of the report of last year was to put before this association figures that should, at least, give some general idea of the actual hazard of electricity as compared with other hazards. Your committee has this year endeavored to bring tables Nos. 3 to 11, inclusive, as given in last year's report, up to date, these figures being from municipal records of fires occurring in the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx. These tables are repeated herewith, with additional figures as noted, tables being numbered the same as last year, to prevent confusion.

Your committee has further undertaken this year to get together certain general information relative to the insurance situation, which should give your members a better understanding of this very important matter and should promulgate a better understanding between the association and the underwriting interests. To this end circular letters were sent out to each member of the association, these letters containing questions which are given, with their answers, below. The same questions were sent in circular form to about 50 prominent underwriters and insurance companies. The response to these circulars from both the association and the underwriting interests has been very gratifying, and the committee's chief difficulty has been in condensing to reasonable space the mass of valuable information which has been received. It is for this reason that the com

$19,520

8,993

436

15,408

381

248,602

457

151,283 456,212

998

237,615 III

93 4.66 0.647

1.31 1.951

235,356

with the answers, Delow. The same questions cular form to about 50 prominent underwriters ompanies. The response to these circulars from iation and the underwriting interests has been g, and the committee's chief difficulty has been in reasonable space the mass of valuable information been received. It is for this reason that the com