ing was in nearly every case torn off and destroyed. As stated in one of the reports on the durability of different fireproofings in the San Francisco fire: "When terra cotta was used the partitions fell down, the fireproofing around the columns came off, and a very large proportion of the floor arches either fell out or the bottom plates of the arches broke off and left the arches in a very bad shape." In most cases the fireproofing of columns was of terra cotta. With the destruction of the column covering by the excessive heat, little protection was left, and the result was that very few buildings in San Francisco did not present the sight of badly bent or buckled columns.

As contrasted with terra cotta, concrete stood the test of the conflagration well in nearly every instance, little or no damage resulting to steel work which was fireproofed with this substance. Another form of column covering, which withstood the fire well, consisted of two thicknesses of wire lath and plaster, with an air space between them. While in many cases the outside covering was torn off, it seems to have resisted the fire during the most intense stage, thus enabling the inner covering to protect the column.

The best material for the construction of walls is hard burned brick. Stone, contrary to common opinion, is a very undesirable building material, and if used extensively, especially for supporting heavy weights, may serve as a means of wrecking the entire building. One of the most prominent fire underwriters in the country, in speaking of this, declares that: "The best fire-resisting materials for walls, it may safely be asserted, is hard burned brick. It is also the best material for the floor arches between the iron beams of fireproof buildings. It is incomparably better than stone, because stone is utterly unreliable for resisting fire, especially the limestones, granites, marbles, etc. In fact, stone is a dangerous material wherever it is subjected to fire and water, and carries a heavy superimposed weight."

Of all the materials used in the fronts of the buildings in San Francisco, stone showed by far the worst effects of the recent conflagration. In the Postal Telegraph Building the granite columns in the first story almost entirely disappeared through the splitting and crumbling of the stone. Accord

ing to one official report: "This is true of every place where the flames or heat touched the stone; it spalled off and left the fronts in such a bad condition that they will probably have to be taken down." Terra cotta did not resist the effects of heat and fire much better than stone.

Semi-fireproof Buildings and Slow Burning Buildings. -Semi-fireproof buildings differ from fireproof buildings in so far that, while constructed of non-inflammable material, they are equipped with structural or tension metal members, which are not properly insulated against heat. These buildings are constructed because of their greater cheapness as compared with fireproof buildings, and because the prevailing building code in many cities does not prevent their erection. They are constructed very often to serve for office purposes or as dwelling apartments, or for other uses of a similar character, in which it is presumed that the limited amount of combustible stock which they contain will make it extremely unlikely that sufficient heat will be generated to seriously injure the ironwork in the building.

Slow-burning or "mill construction" buildings are to be distinguished from semi-fireproof buildings. The floors in slow-burning buildings are without openings, and consist of heavy plank laid on heavy timbers, spaced from 5 to 12 feet apart, such timbers resting on stout wooden posts. It is also prescribed that there must be a tight top flooring, with waterproof paper between it and the plank flooring below, which must never be less than 3 inches in thickness. The aim of such requirements is to separate the different stories by a floor of considerable thickness so that, though large stocks of combustible material may be contained in the

building, it will require several hours under normal conditions for a fire to burn through the flooring. Before this is accomplished it is presumed that the fire department will be able to get the fire under control and prevent its spread.

Fire Doors and Shutters and Wire Glass.-A number of special features must be noted in the construction of buildings designed to retard the rapid spread of fire. The first of these is fire doors and shutters. The door now commonly used is made of wood covered with metal and provided with special lock-jointed tin plates. The idea is to allow the wood to carbonize in case of great heat, and to permit the gas resulting from the carbonizing of the wood to escape through the lock joints instead of permitting it to accumulate and throw off the metal sheets. As the wood carbonizes the charcoal will drop to the bottom of the metal covering, but the metal will hold together, thus preventing the passage of the fire.

Wire glass is also of considerable importance. It gives splendid protection when the sash is fireproof and when the glass is double with an air space between. Wire glass in most cases serves a better purpose than shutters, because the latter must not only be closed to become effective, but will deteriorate if not properly cared for. Moreover, where there is not an exposing risk to be guarded against, shutters are regarded by many underwriters as a nuisance. It should be remembered, however, that wire glass radiates heat, so that in case of a severe exposing fire it may happen that combustibles within the building and near the glass may ignite. In this respect wire glass is inferior to well-designed shutters.

CHAPTER XXI

STATE SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

BEGINNING with the famous case of Paul vs. Virginia, decided in 1868, the United States Supreme Court has again. and again asserted the doctrine "that there is no doubt. of the power of the state (using that term as contrasted with the Federal Government) to prohibit foreign insurance companies from doing business within its limits. The state can impose such conditions as it pleases upon the doing of any business by these companies within its borders, and unless the conditions be complied with the prohibition may be absolute." Because of its broad jurisdiction over all foreign relations, the United States government, in theory at least, possesses the power to exclude or expel alien corporations from all parts of the country; likewise to admit them without regard to the regulation of the States. In actual practice, however, an alien insurance corporation wishing to do business in the United States first seeks admission to a certain state. By complying with its laws it establishes therein its headquarters for American business; and then, if business warrants, seeks admission to other states. Indeed, to such an extent has the jurisdiction of the several states over alien insurance companies been recognized that the Executive Department of the United States has not seen fit, in the absence of a treaty stipulation covering the subject, to consider a complaint of unjust discrimination lodged by an alien company against a state, and has expressed the view that the regulation of insurance corpora

ations by federal treaty would not be sanctioned by the representatives of the states.

Acting in accordance with the numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the policy of our Executive Department, the several states and territories of the United States, including the District of Columbia, have each assumed full supervisory powers over all alien and domestic corporations transacting an insurance business within their borders. In most of the progressive states this control has been entrusted to a supervisory officer, known as the Superintendent or Commissioner of Insurance, who, in nearly all cases, is appointed by the governor, and who is placed in charge of a separate department of the state government. In this matter, however, there is by no means uniformity among the states. In a number of states, including some of the large and wealthy ones of the West and South, the work of supervising insurance companies is left to the auditor or comptroller of the state, and, as we are informed, is "ministered oftentimes in a most perfunctory manner by the same machinery that is furnished by the state for looking after building and loan associations, savings banks, county treasurers, and the like." In certain other states and territories the work of supervising insurance companies is left with the secretary of state, while in a few the state treasurer is the supervising officer. In twenty-five states and territories at a recent date there had not as yet been established a separate insurance department, and the responsibility of supervising insurance companies was attached to some other department of government.

Although the legislatures and courts of the several states, as we have seen, play a prominent part in the enactment and interpretation of insurance legislation, the actual supervision of the companies and the enforcement of the laws is performed by the insurance commissioners. These officials, to say the least, are vested with extraordinary discre