52 SAFETY OF LIFE FROM FIRE AT SEA. 



and property is to maintain the very best fire-fighting equipment on these steamers, manned 

 with crews well drilled and competent to fight fire should it break out. 



"Until Congress requires fireproof construction of excursion steamers it is believed that 

 the use of the sprinkler system already adopted by many passenger steamers should be 

 extended." 



With reference to the above recommendation that sprmklers be provided on excursion 

 steamers of non-fireproof construction, this procedure would of course be a great step in 

 advance, but experience on land has shown the necessity for sprinklers even in so-called fire- 

 proof buildings, the contents of which are of a more or less combustible nature. I accord- 

 ingly am of the opinion that sprinklers should also be installed in steamers of fireproof con- 

 struction. The latest example demonstrating the necessity for sprinklers under these condi- 

 tions is the recent burning of the Thomas A. Edison Factory, West Orange, N. J., December 

 9, 1914, which involved a loss of several million dollars, largely because of the complete 

 burning of the contents and injury to reinforced concrete buildings. 



I have recommended that vessels be constructed of steel and other non-combustible 

 material and that the proper fire-extinguishing apparatus, particularly automatic sprinklers, 

 be provided, under which conditions steel will prove efficient as a fire retardant. The use 

 of so combustible a material as wood, even if metal covered, is not advisable. 



My paper is intended to apply principally to passenger steamers, and I have recom- 

 mended automatic sprinklers wherever practicable, which means throughout the vessel ex- 

 cept possibly in the cargo spaces where some other means of extinguishment, such as gases, 

 may be more effective. Certainly there is no more danger of sprinklers being broken open in 

 the passengers' and crew's quarters than in buildings where the water damage from this cause 

 is so small that insurance companies insure against water damage from the sprinkler system 

 without additional cost. 



In case of collision, water may be discharged from broken sanitary service pipes extend- 

 ing throughout passengers' and crew's quarters as well as fire service pipes supplying hose 

 streams, and while the sprinkler system would add another possible means of discharge, it 

 should not increase the danger of panic materially. 



I agree that if a constant water pressure could be maintained continuously by the steam 

 pump, there would be but little necessity for other sources of water supply such as a gravity 

 or pressure tank, but long experience on land has shown that pumps can not be depended 

 upon to continue in constant service without repairs, and that they sometimes fail at time of 

 fire. The most recent instance of this occurred during the Salem conflagration, June 25, 

 1914, when one of the two steam fire pumps at the Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. broke down 

 at the height of the fire in the tenement district adjoining, and although only twenty minutes 

 were required to make repairs, the fire got into the mill buildings, and a good fire-fighting 

 pressure could not again be raised. While of course I can not say that the mill would have 

 been saved if this accident had not occurred, it undoubtedly hastened the complete destruc- 

 tion of the property, resulting in a direct loss of $3,500,000. A tank supply would have 

 maintained pressure automatically during these critical moments. 



Furthermore, engineers, with whom I have advised, agree that the installation of a 

 gravity tank on shipboard is entirely practicable. To secure the best pressure the tank should 

 of course be placed above the highest portions of the vessel provided with sprinklers, and 

 although this would have some detrimental effect on the stability of the vessel, it would be 



