Obituary for E. M. Butz, Architect

Edward M. Butz was an architect from Allegheny, later the North Side of Pittsburgh, most famous for the sprawling Romanesque Western Penitentiary. This obituary gives his birth date as 1859. The Allegheny West site, which is devoted to the neighborhood in which he lived, gives a birth date of 1850. More pictures of the Western Penitentiary are at Father Pitt.

E. M. Butz, of E. M. Butz & Co., Ltd., and widely known throughout the country as an architect and engineer, died on Sept. 4 at his home on the North Side of Pittsburgh. Mr. Butz was born in Allegheny in 1859. He was identified with the construction of some of the finest buildings in western Pennsylvania and had been a pioneer in the steel business and promoter and builder of the Columbia Iron and Steel Co.’s plant at Uniontown, of which for several years he was General Manager. Mr. Butz retired from active business about six years ago.

—Engineering News, October 12, 1916.

H. L. Mencken Testifies on Lynching

In 1935, the Sage of Baltimore, H. L. Mencken, was asked to testify before a Senate subcommittee considering a bill to discourage, prevent, and punish the crime of lynching. Here is what he had to say.

Senator VAN NUYS. The next witness to appear before the committee is Mr. H. L. Mencken, editor, essayist, and critic, and well known, I presume, to everyone in the United States.

Mr. Mencken, we are very glad to have you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF H. L. MENCKEN, EDITOR, ESSAYIST, AND CRITIC, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. MENCKEN. Mr. Chairman, shall I read this statement or just file it?

Senator VAN NUYS. No; we would prefer to have you read it, if you will.

Mr. MENCKEN. I shall read it. It is very short.

The problem before Congress is the simple one of providing legislative measures to execute the fourteenth amendment.

It is too manifest to need argument that every lynching deprives its victim of his life without due process of law, and denies him an equal protection of the law. The States are charged with punishing all such invasions as the common rights of the citizens, but some of them have failed in their effort to do so, and others have not honestly tried. Meanwhile, lynchings continue, and though they do not increase in number, they show some tendency to increase in savagery.

To large numbers of American citizens life in certain parts of the country becomes intolerably hazardous. They may be seized on any pretext, however flimsy, and put to death with horrible tortures.

No government pretending to be civilized can go on condoning such atrocities. Either it must make every possible effort to put them down or it must suffer the scorn and contempt of Christendom. That Congress has aspired to adopt necessary legislation seems to be agreed by all lawyers, though they differ somewhat as to the wisdom and the constitutionality of the bill now before the Senate. On this point I can offer no opinion, but I hope I may at least suggest that the best plan will be to make a beginning by enacting that bill and then waiting for the proper courts to advise upon it. If defects are found in it, however, whether legal or practical, they may be remedied. But nothing can be accomplished until an actual experiment is undertaken. Even if the worst comes to the worst and we find that preventing lynching is actually impossible, that discovery will at least be something.

Senator VAN NUYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mencken, and I am sure Senator Costigan, the author of the bill, agrees with me that you have been very helpful in bringing about a favorable consideration.

Mr. MENCKEN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator VAN NUYS. Of this bill through your writings.

Mr. MENCKEN. Thank you.

Senator VAN NUYS. Do you have any further observations, Mr. Mencken?

Mr. MENCKEN. I have not, unless you have some questions, Senator. Senator VAN NUYS. You feel like Mr. Woodward, from your knowledge and activities, that this is not a sectional matter, and that in all parts of the United States the better class of citizenship favors this legislation; isn’t that true?

Mr. MENCKEN. I think so. I know of no civilized man who is in favor of lynching. There are differences of opinion as to whether this bill will achieve the end that it seeks. There as been some discussion here earlier today, especially when Senator Wagner was on the stand, as to whether the provision levying a fine on the community would work. I am not prepared to argue that that as it stands is completely defendable. My opinion is that that provision as it stands probably offers a ground for argument against the bill that might be disposed of by leaving out the provision, which does not seem to be necessary at all.

The chief virtue of this bill, as I see it, is that it does not try to set up lynching as a new crime and provide new penalties for it. It presumes lynching is murder, which is precisely what it is, and it punishes it as such. The only new crime it sets up is the crime of conniving at lynching. That is probably not sufficiently covered by our existing law, and that part of the bill needs no defense. The part that provides for penalties, as I have said, on the town, is at least controversial. There are unquestionably cases in which the heaviest burden would fall on the most innocent people; the taxpayers in a lynching, the well to do, and educated people very seldom in favor of lynching. They may find it impossible for various reasons to protest against it, but I have never heard of many of them being in favor of it.

At the time of the lynching in Maryland the decent people of the Eastern Shore were against it. They could do nothing, because after all they had to live there. They needed help from outside their own area. The Governor of Maryland at the time tried to give them that help, but it turned out under our constitutional laws in Maryland it was impossible to make that aid efficacious.

Are there any other questions, sir?

Senator VAN NUYS. We had several of the citizens of Maryland at our former public hearing.

Mr. MENCKEN. Yes, sir; I remember them, including one of the best public officials we ever had in the State of Maryland, Attorney General Lane.

Senator VAN NUYS. I took occasion to compliment him on his fear lessness as a public official.

Mr. MENCKEN. He is a fearless and an honest man.

Senator VAN NUYS. You were fairly familiar with that lynching, in a general way?

Mr. MENCKEN. In a general way, yes, sir. I do not know as much about it as Attorney General Lane.

Senator VAN NUYS. Has that added to the support of this sort of legislation in Maryland, or are you advised on it, Mr. Mencken?

Mr. MENCKEN. I am not advised. I would not undertake to answer that. My impression is that the decent people of the State of Maryland in the lynching area are heartily ashamed of the lynching, and one of the curious evidences of it is the vote that Governor Ritchie got in that area last election, although there was a very violent feeling against him immediately after the lynching.

I am in contact with very many of the better people of the Eastern Shore, and I think it is safe to say not one of them is in favor of the lynchings which took place there. They were carried on by the very low orders, and the most the upper sort of people did was do nothing, and the reason they did nothing was simply because they faced a sequel situation which could not be dealt with effectually.

Senator VAN NUYS. That is true in most of these lynchings, as relates to county authorities?

Mr. MENCKEN. I think so. After all, these people have got to go on living in that neighborhood..

Senator VAN NUYS. Yes.

Mr. MENCKEN. And the same mob that lynches a prisoner is quite apt to shoot them from ambush, or burn their house, or do something of the sort, and they have a natural fear for themselves and their families.

Senator COSTIGAN. Mr. Mencken, how do you account for the sheriff in Tennessee recently resisting a mob seeking to take a prisoner from his custody?

Mr. MENCKEN. I think that could be accounted for quite easily, Senator. Every now and then you get a good sheriff. Any sheriff could do the same. But I hope we do not have to offer any evidence that the sheriffs in America do not commonly come from the leading class of citizens. They are local politicos of a rather inferior type, and hence not much could be expected of them.

Senator COSTIGAN. In your judgment, if sheriffs were waited on by the leading people of the community and were urged to protect a prisoner by means of saving the taxpayer expense, do you think that sheriffs ordinarily would be responsive to such requests and would be more diligent in the protection of prisoners?

Mr. MENCKEN. I think they would in most cases, provided it would not be dangerous to the life and limbs of the taxpayers to approach them in the face of the mob. They would have to fight their way through the mob to get to the sheriff, probably.

Senator COSTIGAN. Usually such action is taken in advance of the gathering of the mob, and while rumors are current that a mob is being formed for the purpose.

Mr. MENCKEN. Usually there is some effort made to stop them down on the Eastern Shore. In one instance the sheriff made some effort to stop it. They disregarded it. The sheriff had the fear of his life, and he allowed them to go in order to save his own life.

Senator COSTIGAN. Ordinarily an alert sheriff can move the prisoner to some other place.

Mr. MENCKEN. He could nine times out of ten.

Senator VAN NUYS. Any further questions?

Senator COSTIGAN. NO.

Senator VAN NUYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mencken.

Chronology of the Life of Athanasius

This extensive chronology was prefixed to Saint Athanase by the well-known patrologist Ferdinand Cavallera (Paris: Bloud, 1908). Since it seems more comprehensive than anything else I could easily find, I translated it about as fast as I could type (so don’t be surprised by an error here or there). There may be disagreement about some dates and some events, but on the whole this is a very useful guide.

Chronology of St. Athanasius

295. Birth of St. Athanasius. —Classical and religious education.

312. Athanasius ordained reader. He spends six years in that office.

318. Beginnings of Arianism at Alexandria. —Bishop Alexander takes St. Athanasius as his secretary, already deacon. —Apologetic treatise in two books: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione Verbi.

320. St. Athanasius subscribes to the deposition of Arius.

325. Council of Nicaea; St. Athanasius, still a deacon, attends with his bishop.

328. June 7. St. Athanasius ordained bishop of Alexandria.

329. First Paschal Letter.

330. St. Athanasius visits the Thebaid.

331. Difficulties with the Melitians and the Arians, who accuse him before Constantine.

332. St. Athanasius, summoned to Nicomedia, defends himself clearly and returns before the feast of Easter. He visits the Pentapolis and the oasis of Ammon.

333. Letters from Constantine to the Catholics and the Arians. —Arius, summoned to the court, makes a profession of faith that satisfies the emperor; Athanasius refuses to receive him in his communion.

334. Visit to Lower Egypt. —New intrigues against St. Athanasius. —The censor Dalmatius, half-brother of Constantine, is charged with investigating the affair. —The Synod of Caesarea, before which Athanasius was charged, is dissolved; letter of Constantine condemning the enemies of the bishop of Alexandria.

335. Accusations renewed. —Council of Tyre: the majority, hostile to St. Athanasius, who has come to defend himself (July 11), names a commission of inquiry composed of adversaries of the bishop of Alexandria; the inquiry, made in Egypt with no contradictory debate, concludes that Athanasius is guilty. He betakes himself to Constantinople to demand justice. The Council of Tyre deposes him and prohibits him from returning to Egypt. —New session of the Council at Jerusalem (September); Arius is there admitted to the ecclesiastical communion. —The most influential members of the Council, called to Constantinople by the emperor, bring political accusations against Athanasius. —St. Athanasius is exiled to the Gauls, but no successor is named.

336. November 6. St. Athanasius arrives at Trèves, where he is detained. —Troubles in Egypt. —Letters from St. Anthony to Constantine in favor of Athanasius.

337. May 22. Death of Constantine; his son Constantine II sends St. Athanasius back to Alexandria (June 17). Athanasius encounters Constantius, Emperor of the East, at Viminacium and at Caesarea in Cappadocia; he returns to Alexandria November 23.

338. July. St. Anthony at Alexandria; new intrigues of Athanasius’ enemies; Pistos is consecrated bishop of Alexandria by the Arians; embassy sent to Pope Julius I to denounce St. Athanasius; synod of Alexandria and embassy of Egyptian clergy at Rome in his favor.

339. Pope Julius invites the Easterners to come to Rome to discuss the case of Athanasius in a plenary synod. —In March, Philagrius, Prefect of Egypt, announces that Alexandria has a new bishop, the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia. —March 18, bloody riot; the 22nd, entry of Gregory. —Athanasius secretly leaves Alexandria. —Letter of protest to the bishops: Encyclica ad Episcopos. He embarks for Rome.

340. Letter of the Easterners to the pope; they refuse to attend the council. Athanasius is recognized as innocent; Julius notifies the Easterners and Egyptians of that sentence of the council. —St. Athanasius by his descriptions acquaints the Westerners with the marvels of the cenobitic life.

342–3. Interview of St. Athanasius and the emperor Constans at Milan (May). —St. Athanasius in Gaul; he betakes himself with Hosius to the Council of Serdica or Sardica; letter of the Council recognizing his innocence; deposition of Athanasius by the schismatic Council of Easterners.

344. Constans vigorously demands of his brother Constantius the recall of Athanasius, then at Naissus.

345. June 25. Death of Gregory of Cappadocia. —Letters (3) from Constantius recalling Athanasius to Alexandria. —Athanasius quits Aquilaea; at Rome, Pope Julius gives him a letter for the Alexandrians.

346. From Rome he returns via Adrianople to the East; interview at Antioch with Constantius; Athanasius attends the synod at Jerusalem, which approves him; he returns to Alexandria October 21. —St. Anthony greets him.

347–50. Period of calm; various works; Orationes III contra Arianos; De Decretis Concilii Nicaeni; De Sententia Dionysii. Synod of Alexandria to confirm that of Sardica; Valens and Ursatius, old enemies of Athanasius, ask for his friendship. —Death of the emperor Constans (January 350) deprives Athanasius of a devoted protector. —New intrigues around Constantius against the bishop of Alexandria. —Constantius reassures St. Athanasius, who publishes his apology: Apologia contra Arianos.

351–2. Construction of the church of Caesareum furnishes a pretext for a calumny against Athanasius directed to Constantius. —Election of Pope Liberius (May 17). —Athanasius is denounced to him by various bishops. —The pope defends the bishop of Alexandria. —Letter to Amun, Epistula ad Amunem.

353. Legation of Serapion of Thmuis in favor of Athanasius, at Rome and Milan. —Liberius asks the emperor to convene a council to settle the questions definitively.

354. Constantius imposes the condemnation of Athanasius on the Synod of Arles. —All the bishops present succumb to the pressure, with the exception of Paulinus of Trèves, who is exiled to Phrygia. —Liberius, mortified, asks Constantius to convene a new synod.

355. In the spring, the synod meets at Milan, succumbs again; all the bishops sign the condemnation of Athanasius except Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli, Dionysius of Milan, who are exiled. —Athanasius’ Letter to Dracontius. —In August, first alert at Alexandria. —The notary Diogenes tries to make Athanasius leave of his own free will and to stir up the population against him. —On the strength of Constantius’ promise (in 350), Athanasius demands a written order.

356. Signatures are collected against St. Athanasius throughout the West. —Hilary of Poitiers and Rhodianus of Toulouse, then Pope Liberius and Hosius of Cordoue, refusing to abandon communion with Athanasius, are exiled. —At Alexandria, January 5, second alert. —The dux Syrianus clashes with Athanasius, meets same refusal. —In the night of February 8–9, a traitor to his promises, he invades the church of Theonas, whence St. Athanasius is able to escape furtively. —Violence and threats. —Protests of the Catholics; Constantius orders the bishops of Egypt to abandon communion with Athanasius, who is actively pursued. —June 14: the churches are handed over to the Arians. —Letter of St. Athanasius to the bishops of Egypt, Epistula ad episcopos Ægypti et Lybiæ. —Death of St. Anthony.

357. February 24: entry of the intrusive George of Cappadocia; the dux Sebastian terrorizes Egypt.

357–61. Athanasius in the desert. —Numerous works, polemical, dogmatic, or personal: Apologia ad Constantium; Apologia de fuga; Historia arianorum ad monachos; Epistula de morte Arii; Epistula ad monachos (358). —On the controversy over the divinity of the Holy Spirit, at about this time St. Athanasius writes the Epistulas ad Serapionem (359). —According to certain critics the Orationes contra Arianos should also be attributed to this time. —Lucifer takes up his defense in his De sancto Athanasio. —Athanasius writes the Life of St. Anthony.

357. Liberius, exiled, subscribes to the deposition of Athanasius; at the second synod of Sirmium (summer) Hosius, while accepting an objectionable theological document, energetically refuses to imitate Liberius.

358. Before Easter, Synod of Ancyra; Third of Sirmium; in August, at Alexandria, revolt against George; he abandons the city October 2. —Athanasius secretly spends a few days in Alexandria.

359. Councils of Rimini (Western) and Seleucia (Eastern). —Athanasius in his de Synodis makes advances to the moderate faction of his adversaries, the partisans of Basil of Ancyra.

360. Synod of Constantinople in January.

361. November 3, death of Constantius. —November 26, Georges returns to Alexandria; in December, riot against him; he is imprisoned, and on December 25 snatched from his prison by the pagan mob and slaughtered.

362. Beginning: Julian recalls all the exiles. —Athanasius returns to Alexandria, February 21. —Council of Alexandria presided over by St. Athanasius: Tomus ad Antiochenos. —Decree of expulsion, launched against him by Julian, does not take effect until the following October 24. —Athanasius reaches Memphis and the Thebaid; he visits Tabennisi and its monks. Epistula ad Rufinianum.

363. June 26, death of Julian. His successor Jovian invites Athanasius to return to Alexandria. —Interview of Athanasius and Jovian at Antioch: Epistula ad Jovianum. —Talks on union between Athanasius and Meletius, bishop of Antioch, come to nothing; Athanasius recognizes Paulinus, rival of Meletius. —Fruitless attempts against St. Athanasius by the Arians.

364. February 17, death of Jovian. Valentinian and Valens emperors.

365. May 4: The edict of Valens is posted at Alexandria repealing that of Julian in favor of the exiles. The Alexandrians protest for their bishop. Athanasius leaves Alexandria alone, October 5. That same night the prefect vainly has him searched for in order to send him into exile. —Athanasius remains hidden in the country near Alexandria for four months.

366. February 1: The imperial notary Bresidas, on the order of Valens, brings Athanasius back to Alexandria and replaces him definitively in possession of the churches. For the bishop, the is the end of the persecutions. —July 11, the pagans burn a church and are punished.

367. The self-styled Arian bishop Lucius introduces himself into Alexandria in September; riot, from which he escapes with great effort; he leaves the city and will not reappear there until after the death of Athanasius. Athanasius builds churches and peacefully occupies himself with the religious administration of Egypt. He is in communion with more than four hundred bishops.

368. Letter to the Bishops of Africa; various letters, in particular to Horsisius, successor to Abbot Theodore.

369–70. On the instigation of Athanasius, Pope Damasus deposes Auxentius, bishop of Milan. —Christoplogical controversies: troubles on that subject in the church at Corinth. —Athanasius consulted, refutes the principal errors in a letter to the bishop Epictetus; two other analogous writings also date to this time (Epistula ad Epictetum, ad Adelphium, ad Maximum.)

370. St. Basil, holy bishop of Caesarea, sends notice of his election to St. Athanasius.

371–73. Correspondence with St. Basil on the subject of the affairs of Antioch and the East. —Dorotheus, deacon of Meletius, comes to Alexandria; Peter, priest of Alexandria, goes to the East and to Basil. —Negotiations with the Easterners; they send the Milanese deacon Sabinus to Athanasius. —St. Athanasius takes up the defense of St. Basil, whose orthodoxy is suspected (Epistula ad Joannem and ad Palladium). —Marcellus of Ancyra sends him a legation to defend himself against accusations of heresy. —Athanasius excommunicates the governor of Libya.

373. May 2: Death of St. Athanasius.

Leunclavius Defends Zosimus

The German historian, classicist, and orientalist Johannes Leunclavius published a translation of Zosimus, and he felt obliged to defend the pagan Zosimus (the last important pagan historian of Rome) from his Christian detractors. In the best tradition of Renaissance scholarship, he enthusiastically debates the ancient authors as if they were alive today and right in front of him. This translation of Leunclavius’ Apology appeared in an English translation of Zosimus published in 1684.

Leunclavius’s Apology for Zosimus

Although I were either to Dispute against Men even of a different Religion, or were not to undertake the defence of a Man, who, for having professed the old exploded Pagan Superstition, would certainly at first sight lose any manner of favour that he could expert in his cause among Men of our times; yet encouraged and supported with evident Arguments from Truth it self, and the weakness of those which are brought against him by his Adversaries, I will not fear but that what I have to say will with impartial Men obtain. But I foresee his Defence is like to prove no easie Province, being to reply to those Men who under the pretence of defending the Christian Religion and those Princes who were the most celebrated Patrons of it, charge one of the most elegant and useful Historians with lying and calumniating; and who because he was no Christian must not be admitted to be a proper or a faithful reporter of those things which were transacted in the Commonwealth. For mankind is generally so unhappily built, as easily to believe those Men whom they find of the same Opinions with themselves, even in things indifferent, but especially in matters of Religion, crying down in the mean while Men of different Sentiments, although the things they deliver do not appear repugnant to truth. But seeing there is that force in Virtue in general, but especially in truth, that we cannot but approve it even in an Enemy; we hope you will hear what we have undertaken to say in a few words in defence of Zosimus, and that Men not too perverse and disingenuous will acknowledge that matters of fact may with candour and integrity be transmitted to future Ages by Men even of a different Religion from our selves.

A New York Tenement House

A 1905 architectural dictionary gives us a description of the usual New York tenement house, which historical novelists and students of working-class conditions at the turn of the twentieth century will find invaluable.

TENEMENT HOUSE. A building occupied by more than one family and usually having suites of rooms, a public stairway, dumb-waiter, and toilet room common to two or more families on each floor, each suite consisting of a living room, with one or more bedrooms opening therefrom, and furnished with cold water supply and a chimney flue, and renting for less than $300 a year. (See Apartment House.)

Historical. With the growth of a town, the first tenements have always been abandoned houses of the wealthier classes, but these are ultimately replaced by houses divided into separate suites and occupied by many tenants. The tenement house was undoubtedly an early result of ancient city life, coming as an inevitable consequence of the increase of population within circumscribing defensive walls. Rome is known to have had tenements many stories in height, and the crowded cities of medieval Europe housed their poor under steep gables and in high buildings. The conditions of life under these circumstances are always very objectionable, in both a sanitary and moral sense, and the menace which such crowding constitutes has become well recognized by legislators and philanthropists.

The Modern Tenement House. This is the result of conditions which are ditterent in different localities and times. These are briefly:

(a) The size of the lot in Europe is large and approximately square, and the building is erected about a central court with an open passageway to the street on the first floor; in America long narrow lots are in vogue, resulting in buildings with small air shafts.

(b) The amount of capital employed limits the building to a certain size and character; in Europe the investors represent wealth, in America they commonly represent small capitalists who erect buildings on small lots.

(c) Legal restrictions which have generally resulted from a struggle between forces allied to vested interests on the one side and those associated with sanitary requirements on the other.

The New York Tenement House. This being built under what are probably the most severe conditions in the world, small lot, small capital, and stringent laws, is commonly erected on a unit lot of 25 feet by 100 feet. The law limits the percentage of the lot that can be occupied, requires an open rear and courts of a certain size, and regulates the plumbing, ventilation, construction, etc. The commonest type produced under these conditions is the “dumb-bell” plan (Fig. 1), and the modified form of this plan which provides narrow courts along the party lines and open at the rear. Three or four families are accommodated on each floor, each family having a living room looking upon the street or upon the open yard, and bedrooms on the air shafts. Public halls are long and narrow, lighted only at the middle point, if at all. The chief advantages of this plan are cheapness and simplicity of construction, and small running expense; the chief disadvantages are wasted room in public halls, narrow air shafts giving little light or air below the top story and rendering privacy in summer almost an impossibility, public water closets, and the like. Other types of plan have been used on wider lots which have a much better disposition of area and arrangement of courts. An absolute departure from old lines has been made lately (Fig. 2) by building companies which have erected tenements upon large plots of ground, generally on a unit lot of 100 feet square. This type of building has a large square court in the middle with broad courts open at the street or yard along the party lines. The advantages of avoiding the long, dark, public hall, the public toilet room, and the dark, narrow air shaft are evident. The chief disadvantages are the many living rooms which have no outlook upon the street or yard, the amount of capital required to erect, the fewer number of suites on a given area than are provided by the “dumb-bell” plan, and the smaller income from the capital invested.

Figure 2: Tenement house on a lot 100 feet square.

Requirements. The living room is the largest room and must accommodate laundry tubs, table, range, sink, and dresser, the minimum area being 120 square feet. The other rooms should have a capacity of at least 600 cubic feet with direct access to outer air by means of a window of at least 12 square feet of area. The living room must be accessible from the public hall either directly or through a private entry. The bedrooms must be entered either from the living room or from a hall. It is very desirable that each suite should have a short private hall, stand for refrigerators, private toilet opening off private hall, windows on narrow courts not opposite each other, and a closet in each bedroom. The laundry tubs frequently have a removable partition so that they can be used for bathing. It is desirable to have the cross partition set so as to divide them un- equally, making one tub larger than the other. The sink and the back of the laundry tubs may be of metal. Gas should be provided for lighting with rising mains for the supply of each row of apartments and branches taken off so that metres can be placed in each suite, using either the old type or the new prepay system. Each suite of rooms should have a second exit by means of a fire escape. The drying of clothes must be provided for by a drying frame on the roof or by means of tall poles with pulleys thereon set on the rear lot line, and each suite must have a locked coal box or room in the yard or cellar. Halls are lighted and cared for by the owner. Lighting of halls may be furthered by setting wire glass in the upper half of doors opening upon them. It is very desirable to provide for the safe use of the roof by the tenants in hot weather by means of slat platforms and proper railings and guards at front and rear and around courts. Shower baths are sometimes provided in the basement. The walls and ceiling of the passageway from the entrance doorway to the public staircase should be fireproofed and have the floor concreted and the walls tiled or cemented to a height of five feet.

Construction. A complete fireproof construction is much the best from every point of view except that of expense. It is feasible only when the only restriction on the builder is safe construction. In any case the stairways, stair landings, and dumbwaiter shafts with all openings therein must be fireproofed. The ceilings should be wire-lathed and plastered, both being carried completely across all floors to prevent the communication of fire between stories. The first tier of beams should be of iron with fireproof floor construction. All toilet rooms should have water tight floors and impervious side walls to a height of at least two feet.
—George Hill.

Figure 3. Tenement house on a model plan approved by reform committees.

—A Dictionary of Architecture and Building.