of  late  years  has  caused  the  public  to  expect  little  short  of
infallibility  in  fireproof  construction.  The  fact  that  fireproof
structures  can  stand  only  in  fireproof  cities  is  usually  lost
sight  of.  The  external  fire  hazard  is  no  more  to  be  neglected
than  the  internal,  and  as  long  as  highly  inflammable  buildings
surround  even  the  best  of  the  fireproofer's  efforts,  the  term
fireproof  is  a  misnomer.  But  how  bitter  nevertheless  is  the
disappointment,  and  how  unreasonable,  often,  the  criticism  of
press  and  individual  alike,  when  conflagration  and  the  partial
or  even  well-nigh  total  destruction  of  a  really  well  designed
and  carefully  built  example  prove  the  misgrounded  faith  in  a
structure  claiming  absolute  fire-resisting  qualities.  Then  be-
comes apparent  Avhat  was  entirely  overlooked,  that  the  word
fireproof,  as  applied  to  the  best  of  modern  structures,  does  not
mean  immunity  from  all  danger  of  fire,  but  an  embodiment  of
the  principles  that  have  reduced  the  fire  hazard,  both  interior
and  exterior,  to  a  minimum,  according  to  the  best  skill  and
judgment  of  the  day.
Among  the  fires  which  have  occurred  in  buildings  termed
fireproof,  many  have  hardly  been  worth  serious  attention,
because  more  was  claimed  for  them  than  their  construc-
tion warranted.  Other  fires,  however,  have  taken  place  in
buildings  designed  and  built  according  to  the  best  current
methods.
A  careful  examination  of  past  fires  in  this  better  class  of
structures  would  seem  the  best  way  of  getting  at  data  which
are  invaluable  in  the  problem  of  fire-resisting  construction.
