chitect), 71 Broadway.

This

No air shaft should be less than 600 square feet area at bottom, and even a greater area should be insisted on under some conditions. size would be perfectly feasible economically if on wide frontage. Mr. Francis C. Osborne (Professor of Architecture), 4061 Sansom street, Philadelphia.

Enclosed air shafts of any size or material should be absolutely prohibited.

Messrs. Carl Otto and Frank Hutton (Architects), 63 William

street.

Not less than thirty square feet for less than six stories.

Miss Lavinia L. Dock (The Nurses'

Settlement), 265 Henry street. Can not answer the following questions as I believe all "air shafts" should be forbidden in future construction.

Rev. John Hopkins Denison (Church of Sea and Land), 61 Henry

street.

Twenty-four square feet. Messrs. Israels & Harder (Archi

tects), 194 Broadway.

This should depend upon the height of the building; also the exposure to the sun.

Mr. Arthur Boehmer (Architect), 751

Tremont avenue (East 177th street). Fifty square feet.

Mr. P. J. Owens, 887 Trinity avenue. Twenty-five square feet.

Charity Organization Society), 527 Amsterdam avenue.

Three feet wide-from second room in front to yard in rear. Mr. F. B. Pratt (Pratt Institute), Brooklyn, N. Y.

No air shafts, but courts. Mr. H. G. Von Hafen (Owner). Wantagh, L. I.

Three feet.

F. R. Comstock (Architect), 124 West Forty-fifth street.

This is a hard question to determine, as so much depends on the requirements of the plans.

Otto L. Spannhake (Architect and Civil Engineer), 315 Madison

avenue.

Fifty square feet for bath rooms, etc., only; all habitable rooms to receive light either from a street or court, of not less than 500 square feet.

Anthony Peyerl (Builder), 518 East Eighty-sixth street. I am against air shafts. I do not think it is absolutely necessary to have air shafts; other large cities do not have them, but court yards instead. Of course, that means our system of building must be entirely changed to that above mentioned.

Admitting that this can not be done on a 25 feet by 100 feet lot. there should be no tenement house built to be occupied by more than ten families, on a lot less than 50 feet by 100 feet. It certainly makes building more expensive, but how are we to overcome this? We must

sacrifice more ground to accomplish some good. I know speculators will not agree with me on this point, simply because they would like to know who will pay for all this.

I don't approve of party air shafts connecting two houses (nor wall), as at present system. Would prefer former way of independent air shafts if they were fire-proof and large enough. The house I live in now was built ten years ago, and is the only one I have seen laid out or planned that way. It is five stories, occupied by ten families; each have two air shafts, three by five feet up to the roof (that makes four in all), the window of two on each floor leads to hall and stairs and thereby give light and ventilation, but they are not fire-proof, if they were I would not want anything better. Mr. John D. Shea, 224 East 117th

street.

I advocate all the space possible. Mr. Orrin G. Cocks (Union Theological Seminary), 41 East Sixty-ninth street.

The area should be at least fifty square feet. Anything less should be considered part of the building. Miss Caroline Goodyear (Charity

Organization Society Agent), 220 West Sixty-ninth street. All air shafts should be open to the outer air on one side, and the width should be in such proportion to the length that the lowest and most remote window opening upon the shaft shall receive full daylight. The arrangement by which the width

of the shaft increases by gradations, as its length increases from within outwards, so that every room opening upon it may have one window directly facing the open side, seems a very good one.

Miss Elizabeth S. Williams (College Settlement),95 Rivington street. Fifty square feet.

Mr. Hugh Getty (Carpenter and Builder), 274 Ninth avenue.

Present law requirements with regard to size of shaft are sufficient. Mr. James Forbes (Charity Organization Society Agent), 9 Chambers street.

Air shaft should not be less than six feet in width for a five-story building.

Views of Conference of Settlement Workers.

Dr. Jahe E. Robbins (Normal College Alumnæ House), 446 E. Seventy-second street; Antoinette C. Eldredge (Friendly Aid Settlement), 248 East Thirty-fourth street; Ada Laura Fairfield (West Side Settlement), 453 West Fortyseventh street; Helen M. Hall (Hartley House), 413 West Forty-sixth street; Agnes Daly (College Settlement), 95 Rivington street; Hugonette Pary (Madison Square Settlement), 249 East Thirty-second street; Ellen L. Haims (Madison Square Church House), 249 East Forty-second street; Annie Marion MacLean (College Settlement), 95 Rivington street; Eleanor Johnson (Hartley House), 413 West Fortysixth street; William Potts (Friend

Settlement); W. Franklin Brush (East Side House); Edith P. Austin (Friendly Aid House); Mary R. Sinkhovitch (Friendly Aid House). Air shafts should be six feet in width. Mr. John J. Bealin (Superintendent Free Employment Bureau), 30 W. Twenty-ninth street.

In the matter of the size of "air shaft," I would state that I believe they should be of such size as to permit a free current of air at all times, in order that in the winter when snow will fall and at other times when rain will come down that the sun and air could pierce the bottom of the shaft and dry the same quickly. The minimum width as allowed by law, at present twenty-eight inches, is entirely inadequate. The width of the shaft should be, in my judgment, at least six feet, in order to permit of a circulation of air and to prevent spread of disease in case of contagious sickness, and also to maintain the privacy of the home, as in nearly all cases bed rooms open on the air shaft.

Brooklyn.

Eight feet by four feet.

Dr. R. A. Black (Board of Health), Assistant Sanitary Superintend

ent, Borough of Brooklyn. Six feet by three feet.

Mr. James W. Naughton (Board of Health), Sanitary Inspector, Borough of Manhattan. Twenty-five square feet. Dr. Eugene Monaghan, Assistant Sanitary Superintendent of the Bronx Department of Health. To depend on height of building, average from twelve to twenty feet, and bottom of shaft to be connected with street or court yard by fresh

air inlet.

Mr. David E. Johnston (Health In

spector), Board of Health.

There should be no enclosed shafts. All space occupied by such shafts should be used to enlarge open courts and yard spaces. Dr. Charles A. Clinton (Medical In

spector), Department of Health. Rather indefinite. Inside and outside shafts should vary. And

Broadway.

The minimum size of air shafts will be fixed by the percentage of uncovered area required.

Seventy-five square feet. Mr. Joseph M. Brody, 320 Broadway. Mr. H. E. Bramley (Board of

Health), 201 West 132d street. Where necessary to provide shafts, twenty-five feet square should be the minimum area.

height of building and number of openings.

Mr. W. A. Deming (Sanitary Inspector), Department of Health. Thirty square feet.

Mr. William H. Dobbs (Chief Sanitary Inspector), Department of Health.

In accordance of the size of lot and height and depth of building.

Mr. William P. Bannister (Architect), 69 Wall street.

Present law seems adequate, provided one side of shaft is open. Mr. Archibald A. Hill (West Side Settlement Worker), 737 Tenth

avenue.

By all means, a long, narrow shaft, may comply with "area" laws, but at same time be very bad. Mr. P. Tecumseh Sherman (Lawyer), 59 Wall street.

Yes. (At least for the average or general width of the shaft. There may be cases when it will be proper to extend a part of the shaft with very narrow width, say to reach "end" windows.)

Dr. Robert Newman (Inspector-Council of Hygiene, 1865), 148 West Seventy-third street.

Air shafts should be in size in proportion to the width and height of the building. Architects are the best judges about determining particulars.

[To be continued.]

The estimates for the street cleaning department for the year 1901, filed recently, amount to $5,730,063.70, against $5,031,282.27 allowed for the year 1900.

**

*

The total number of baths taken at the public bathing places of Boston for the months of June, July, and August was 1,950,608. In 1899 the total was about 1,500,000.

Classified Advertisements. Advertisements under this head, two lines or more without display, 5 cents a line.

HE CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY

Tappeals for a monthly pension of $15, wherewith

to help two widows, one with three and the other with five children, all under fourteen. The women are faithful and hardworking, but find it impossible to support their families on their earnings. It is desirable to extend this aid to them for at least a year.

Any money for this purpose sent to the Charity Organization Society, 105 East Twenty-second street, will be duly and publicly acknowledged.

CHARITIES

THE OFFICIAL ORGAN OF

THE CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE NEW YORK, N. Y., POST-OFFICE. Issued every Saturday. Five cents a copy. Subscription price, one dollar a year, in advance. Three dollars a hundred.

ADVERTISING RATES.

Classified advertisements, 5 cents a line, eight words to the line, agate measure. Display, 5 cents a line, 14 lines to the inch. Full page, 200 agate lines, $10. Half page, 100 agate lines, $5. Quarter page, 50 agate lines, $2.50. Special position, twenty-five per cent additional.

EDWARD T. DEVINE, Editor.

PUBLICATION OFFICE.:

105 East 22d Street.

NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 29, 1900.

We publish in this number a portion of the report of the Central Auxiliary Committee of Women. which refers to the workrooms now located in the Industrial Building at 516 West Twenty-eighth street, and in this connection we respectfully suggest to church workers, clergymen and private citizens, who desire. to aid effectively women who are ablebodied that they make increased use of the workroom tickets on sale at the Central Office of the Charity Organization Society. Full information regarding the workrooms, the laundry, and the woodyard, will be supplied upon application to the society.

**

The Children's Court and the accompanying probation system are together the most important change which, so far as we are aware, has been suggested to the Charter Commission. It is proposed that the

Children's Court shall be held by justices of the Court of Special Sessions in a building which is already devoted to the investigation of destitute children by the Department of Charities. Several of the Magis trates' Courts are overworked, and in those courts it is very difficult to give proper attention to the chil dren's cases. To impose upon the present Board of City Magistrates the duty of providing a separate court would be a hardship, and, so far as we have learned, both magistrates and justices of the Court of Special Sessions agree that in the existing situation it is very expedi ent to place the duty of holding the new court upon the latter.

The Court of Special Sessions, which is a court of appeal from the magistrates, consists of five judges, only three of whom, however, are required to sit at one time. Two of the justices are thus always off duty. By the provision that one justice of the Court of Special Sessions. may hold the Children's Court, but that any criminal cases of sufficient gravity may, upon the decision of the Children's Court, be transferred to the regular Court of Special Sessions, there is a minimum of

innovation.

Several years ago an attempt was made in the legislature to amend the penal code by providing a separate court for all cases involving the commitment or trial of children. This measure was opposed and the law as finally passed made the holding. such court permissive only, and so far as we are aware no advantage