NOW… AND THEN…
A celebration of Fire Engineering`s 120th anniversary is a celebration of the fire service–its rich history, proud traditions, and enduring spirit.
November 1997 marks a full 120 years that Fire Engineering will be in continuous publication. Starting this issue and continuing through the year, we`ll present glimpses of our proud past, the intent of which, as in the mission that has prevailed for all these years, is to improve the fire service. For it is in learning past lessons that we better steer the course to the future.
It was 1877. America was 38 States and 15 territories. Rutherford B. Hayes had just won the presidency on an Electoral College vote despite failing to win a popular majority. Thomas Edison patented the phonograph. Reconstruction ended in the South. A year earlier, Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone and General George Custer and 264 men were decimated at Little Big Horn. Six years before, the Great Chicago Fire killed 250 people and destroyed $196 million in property, and Boss Tweed was exposed for his corruption. Joseph Lister just 12 years before had begun practicing antiseptic surgery, the year Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
The Civil War was but 12 years past and the wounds had not healed, but America was forging ahead, industrializing, growing. Burgeoning cities had brought new challenges to firefighting. High-rise buildings extended beyond the reach of the Bangor ladder; manufacturing plants studded the urban landscape; and crowded cities were filled with crowded tenements. America was becoming an unbridled industrial world power, with all the fire safety pitfalls that brought.
The fire service community responded in kind. The emphasis on firefighter safety prompted the invention and reinvention of crude self-contained breathing apparatus. The first aerial ladders were being tested. Telegraphic heat detectors were being installed in commercial occupancies, as were Henry Parmelee`s new fusible-link automatic fire sprinklers. Chemical wagons had hit the market. New hose was in use and the subject of great fire service debate; variable-pattern nozzle technology was emerging; and new tactics included supplying water to high-rise standpipes. Fire departments were undergoing reorganizations, and the science of extinguishing fires was under great scrutiny and debate.
The fire service in the year 1877 was on the cusp of the modern firefighting era. Before this backdrop Peter Y. Everett and Clifford Thomson walked onto the stage of fire service history. For it was in 1877 that these two men published the first national fire service journal in America, “devoted to the interests of the firemen of the country.” They called it, appropriately, National Fireman`s Journal.
Everett and Thomson, both New Yorkers, were no strangers to the media. Everett was described in a review by the New York Express as having “many years` experience on the New York press,” and Thomson, a Union Army officer, had been an editor for the Evening Mail. More important, they were “Old Vamps”–volunteer firefighters for New York City before the city organized a paid full-time municipal service in 1865; Everett, in fact, had a long association with the old volunteer department and retired as an assistant engineer (assistant chief).
So it was with a passion for firefighting that the two formed the “Everett & Thomson Co., Publishers” and, as co-editors, produced on November 17, 1877, their first effort. This passion shines through their writing, even as they professed to being hesitant at taking the great leap into the untested waters of fire service publishing. They write in their inaugural issue,
We commence the publication of the JOURNAL because we believe such a paper is needed…. Recognizing that the duties which [firemen] are called upon to discharge are among the gravest and most important that fall to the lot of any citizen, calling for the exercise of a high degree of intelligence, courage, skill, fortitude, perseverance and endurance, only to be found among the highest types of manhood, it shall be our aim to… impress upon them the bright examples of many noble ones who have traveled the same path before them, and, to the extent of our ability, instruct them as to the best means of doing their work and bearing their burdens.
Thomson, in a brilliant oration entitled “The Literature of the Fire Service,” given at the 1878 convention of the National Association of Fire Engineers (an organization later to be known as the International Association of Fire Chiefs), noted that, despite the firefighter`s growing status and importance in American life, fire service literature was as yet “an unknown quantity.” He said,
[O]ur firemen need a more thorough and complete technical knowledge of the art (for it is an art) of extinguishing fires. Where are they to obtain this subtle technical knowledge?
…Our service has no literature–no written history, no scientific treatises, no text-books, no manuals of drill, no standard of rules and regulations…. While the losses by fire in the country are equal to $100,000,000 a year, who can say how much this might be reduced if every fireman had a scientific knowledge of the best means of extinguishing fires, as well as the practical experience gained by running with his company occasionally? To the end that our fire service may attain the highest possible degree of efficiency, I hope soon to see our fire literature largely enriched by the printed contributions of many able and experienced firemen.
No doubt heartfelt as Thomson was–and, as history attests, successful as the progenitor of national fire service literature–he was also a shrewd marketer, as his considerable first-year success would show; after this speech the National Association of Fire Engineers named National Fireman`s Journal its “official organ,” so-named on the paper`s masthead. Together with official imprimaturs from state firemen`s associations, this carried considerable clout, and coincided with an abrupt increase in paid advertising space, as manufacturers began to realize the benefit of marketing through a sponsored national paper that people read.
That is a tribute to the editorial quality of National Fireman`s Journal. A 16-page weekly, it crammed numerous features and articles into each issue, including an array of lead stories, correspondence, news items, editorial commentaries, technical papers, and interesting miscellany, appealing to both wide and narrow fire service interests. It was successful, ultimately, because its mission was to advance the fire service, and to its mission it was true and pure.
BUILDINGS VS. FIREFIGHTERS
The great dynamic between fire, gravity, and buildings was no different in 1877 than it is now. Little control was exerted over construction methods and materials, fire loading, and occupancy loads; and the editors of National Fireman`s Journal quickly identified the building and its contents as the enemy of the firefighter and of life safety in general. In the inaugural issue, they write,
Not the least among the many dangers which Firemen are called upon to face is that which results from the erection of improperly constructed and insecure buildings…. There is scarcely an account published of serious fires occurring in our large cities that mention is not made of firemen killed or maimed for life by falling walls…. In most cities there are building laws which are supposed to govern the construction of buildings, but these laws are ignored to a great extent, or enforced with the greatest degree of laxity….
While the Journal called for greater fire service involvement in code enforcement, from published correspondence there was little evidence that fire departments were quick to seize the opportunity. Most inspectors were city or state building department employees, and, while the Journal on occasion applauded notable efforts, it was not shy in exposing building departments as breeding grounds of corruption. About the New York City Building Department, Thomson writes,
Rings within rings are said to exist between builders and contractors and the inspectors of buildings, whereby only such builders as comply with the department`s demand for blackmail are permitted to erect buildings unobstructedly…. It will take some terrible calamity, involving great loss of life, to arouse our people to a just appreciation for the criminal recklessness that characterizes the flimsy construction of many of our new buildings, and for which the Building Department should be held responsible.
It was incomprehensible to Clifford Thomson that American ingenuity in this time of amazing new inventions was not applied to building construction. Articles railed against combustible buildings framed with cheap, available wood; designed with numerous void spaces that allowed for hidden fire spread and combustible partitions that could not long-enough contain a fire to its room of origin; and built high, promoting auto-extension. He writes,
It is about time we, as a people, should cease to talk about our engineering skills or our manufacturing resources, until we are able and willing to construct some fire-proof building which will afford security to the owners of real estate, and do all we can in this way to prevent ruin and poverty in many a home.
Insurance companies, too, were quite high on the Journal`s hit list. Thomson maligned the common practice of overinsuring property against fire, which promoted arson-for-profit. “The Insurance Companies,” he said, “must be regarded as the most dangerous incendiaries in our midst–not the persons who actually apply the torch, but furnish the motive to the perpetrator, and are accessories both before and after the fact.” Thomson called the insurance companies enemies of efficient fire departments. “We don`t want to make Fire Departments too effective,” he quoted the president of an insurance company. “If they become so, citizens will rely upon them to save their property rather than pay us premiums for insurance.”
But the editors did not aim their sights strictly on the Establishment, for in human behavior there was much to be corrected. The Journal carried numerous articles designed to persuade readers in and outside the fire service of the negligence and folly that characterized a decidedly un-fire-safe America. It rued the practiced in the Deep South of parents locking their children “safely” inside their shacks with matches while they went to work in the fields picking cotton (“Last season, no less than fourteen negro cabins were burned up, together with some twenty children”). It poked fun at management of a factory that devised a 50-foot-high paper chimney treated with chemicals to make it “fireproof” (“They say it works satisfactorily. If this be so, why not building something besides chimneys of this wonderful paper?”). It called for laws requiring specific fire tests to measure the suitability of kerosene for home use (“We have laws controlling the storing and handling of gunpowder and other explosive materials, yet, the records show that hundreds of persons are killed or maimed, and millions of dollars worth of property destroyed, by kerosene”). It attacked the practice of hiring incompetent and unqualified “bummers” for a weekly pittance (“whereby they can secure their daily allowance of whisky”) to oversee the operation of steam boilers (for heat), the main reason, it was said, that in New York City alone “during the past year there were 111 boiler explosions, involving the loss of 154 lives, the wounding of 167 persons, and the destruction of hundreds of thousands worth of property.” It called for greater measures to prevent the large life losses occurring in theater fires throughout the world.
The Journal recognized the America would not reverse its fire record without a wholesale commitment to fire prevention. Thomson writes,
Foreigners are in the habit of saying that Americans are the most reckless, regarding human life, of any civilized nation, and point to our numerous railroad and steamboat disasters, fatal conflagrations, etc., as proof of their assertion. Should they add that our national recklessness involved both life and property, they would not be going away from the truth…. $100,000,000 are annually offered up [to fire] as a sacrifice to our national characteristics–recklessness and carelessness.
THE OLD VOLUNTEER
New York City`s was not the first fire department to go paid–Cincinnati claims that distinction–but National Fireman`s Journal, its editors themselves former volunteers, gave vivid glimpses of the changing of the guard in the cities. In New York, the excesses and abuses of the political system by Boss Tweed, a former volunteer, and others had a deep impact. Although Tweed received accolades for his firefighting prowess with the Americus 6 Fire Company, his political depravity was linked to a political abuse of the volunteer service. In fact, political abuse of the city volunteer systems seems to have been common across America. In an address to the Michigan State Firemen`s Association, published in the Journal, F.H. Seymour, the organization`s statistician, spoke,
Hardly 30 years have elapsed since the invention of the steam engine, and it seems but yesterday since the principal cities of this country emerged from under control of the volunteer departments, which had grown from being organizations of public-spirited citizens into gigantic political combinations, corrupt, inefficient, and expensive.
It was apparent that Clifford Thomson shared this opinion. However, even as cities were enduring the growing pains of the switch, P.Y. Everett` s column, “The Old Volunteers,” a prominent first-page offering, reminisced about old jobs, current social gatherings, and historical fire company minutiae.
It is impossible to say if this information was well-received, as the Journal received no published correspondence about it (though the Journal periodically published information on the New York State Volunteer Firemen`s Association, which appeared to be alive and well, as many rural communities retained volunteer companies–and with honor). However, it likely that Thomson and Everett strongly differed on editorial thrust and focus, because when financial circumstances of the paper changed, so did their professional relationship, and quickly. The December 22, 1878, edition announced, somewhat cryptically,
The sudden death of one of the gentlemen composing the firm of Everett, Thomson & Co. has made a change in the proprietorship necessary. Mr. P.Y. Everett, so long and favorably known in connection with fire matters in this city, retires from the firm.
Everett wrote just a few more columns. By March 23, 1878, his name never again appeared in National Fireman`s Journal. No explanation was ever published. Possibly, the parting was not as amicable as the readers were led to believe. The dream now was Thomson`s alone to forge, and forge he did.
THE CUTTING EDGE
As the Journal evolved throughout the year, more and more emphasis was directed to fire science and the nuts-and-bolts of firefighting. Topics such as hose threads, extinguishment methods, flow testing, nozzle and hose types, new tactical variations, combustion physics, water supply, equipment innovations, and lessons from fires breathed life into this new venture, and its “open door” policy created a partnership with its readers, drawn to this new fast track of fire service learning.
In Thomson`s editorial, “Too Much Water,” firefighters were reminded of what today is still the preferred method of interior attack, and historians may pick up what in embryonic state constitutes the basis for what has evolved into what we now call “critical flow rate.” He writes,
The extinguishment of a fire does not depend so much upon the quantity of water thrown by the engines, as it does upon the application of a requisite amount to the immediate point of combustion. It is the direct application of water to the base of the fire that tells the tale. It is therefore of the first importance that the exact location of a fire in a building should be ascertained before the building is deluged with water…. Go to [the source of the flames] and extinguish them at the fountain head. A gallon of water there is worth a million gallons thrown at random in the air. `Hold the nozzle low,` and seek the source where combustion is going on.
In “The Hose Question,” Thomson opens a debate that, as indicated by a flood of correspondence that lasted throughout the year, was a burning issue of the time. Thomson, to his credit, refused to reveal his preference (as he would occasionally for other products) for leather, rubber, cotton, or linen hose, but he was free with attacks on disreputable manufacturers who foisted burst-prone hose on fire departments and on fire departments looking for the cheapest way out–and getting burned by it, literally, on the fireground.
The hose debate, of course, was resolved over time; the same cannot be said for the debate over a methodology that continues today. For it was on March 16, 1878, that Thomson reprinted an article from the Little Falls Journal and Courier, in upstate New York, written by one Charles Oyston, entitled “Extinguishing Fires,” and the Great Nozzle Debate was begun.
Oyston was not a firefighter, but by his own description had interviewed firefighters from the U.S. and the U.K. and had studied the science of fire extinguishment. In 1863 he received a patent for his “spray nozzle” that churned the water passing through the nozzle into finely divided particles, which when played on the fire converted more readily to steam. This, he claimed, made more efficient use of the water, and was far superior to attacking the fire with a solid stream, the accepted practice of the day.
Oyston`s painstaking, mathematical presentation of the physical phenomena of water expansion and its theoretical effect on fire was new and radical. The fire service was willing to tolerate these theoretical discussions, but when Oyston attacked solid-stream methodology as ” barbarous” and “positively murderous,” he crossed over the line. In the next issue of the Journal, Thomson remarked on the controversy stimulated by what he called Oyston`s “pet theory.” First out of the blocks was Chief Engineer Martin Cronin of the Washington (D.C.) Fire Department, who complained that Oyston, “with the fervor of all inventors… reaches a conclusion eminently satisfactory to himself” and took umbrage with Oyston`s assertion that “the present generation of Fire Engineers” was “ignorant in the chemistry of combustion.” Cronin counters,
The only useful purpose to which his nozzle can be applied, and for which I have used it for several years: to clear a room of smoke or slight heat, thus making a way for the men with a solid stream…. The advocates of the spray system, or theory, can, of course, make a good showing on paper, and if fires were all confined to closed rooms, or slight heat, their position would be unassailable; but they forget that heat travels in the order named, by conduction, irradiation, and convection, and that when it attains large proportions, the induced current (to say nothing of contingencies) will whirl off their vapor with far more celerity and vigor than it does the heat in medium fires, and timber and other material in great ones.
The Journal in its inaugural editions was full of new and interesting ideas on fire extinguishment; in many ways, it was the modern fire service unfolding before our very eyes. It planted the idea of using large-diameter hose in water supply, as Thomson in a short piece referred to “a gentleman” who wanted to know
why it is not feasible to make hose play the part of street mains…. why it is not possible for a steamer to couple on to a hydrant, and, by the power of suction that is in her, get water enough to fill a 5 or 6 inch hose for a distance, say, of 1000 feet; then to a coupling having three or four outlets, attach short lines of 2 1/2-inch hose, and play through 1 1/4 inch nozzles. Certainly the idea is a novel one, and might be worth experimenting with.
While the question of LDH was not addressed fully until well after 1878, the idea stimulated scientific research. In the article “Advantages of `Siamesing,`” a civil engineer demonstrated that a single line from a steam engine supplying two 212-inch attack handlines through a gated wye produced more efficient engine performance and greater flow rates over longer distances than two separately connected attack lines, as computed both for rubber and leather hose (with rubber hose producing slightly better results).
The experimental mood of the fire service manifested itself in many ways: in the refinement of the “Little Giant” chemical hand engine into a steamer that threw large amounts a chemical compound on fires, hailed as “a long step forward in the science of fire extinguishment”; in a variety of new chemical agents for that purpose, one that, it was claimed in a reader testimonial, extinguished open-air fires 600 percent faster using 84 percent less manpower; in the Jersey City and New York friction loss tests that were a hot item in 1878; in a patented “ring” nozzle that allowed firefighters to adjust the range of their solid streams without having to substitute another nozzle; in computations of nozzle reaction; and in new innovations to the 35-year-old steam engine, to the point that the U.S. was the recognized worldwide leader of sophisticated apparatus.
However, the fire service still had not caught up to the high-rise. Thomson called it “the most notable deficiency in modern Fire Departments.” There were a few 100-foot aerials on the market at that time, but they were dangerous and their operation resulted in at least four firefighter deaths.
So fire departments looked for other means to get quickly where they wanted to be. After the tragic Southern Hotel fire, which killed and injured dozens of residents, the St. Louis Fire Department adopted a page from the European fire service by establishing a pompier corps, whose equipment, in addition to the scaling ladders, included canvas rescue flumes and lowering baskets. The first use of pompier ladders in the United States was in December, 1877, when a St. Louis firefighter, to the amazement of 2,000 spectators, scaled to the fifth floor of a burning building. It was said that “considerable excitement was manifested at the display of agility and coolness” of the firefighter.
TO THEIR HEALTH
Firefighter safety as a philosophy–as a way of doing business–was 100 years away from how we perceive it today. The basic fireground objectives of today were required of the 19th-century fire service, but they had to be accomplished with cruder and less reliable equipment and limited means of personal protection. Nineteenth-century firefighting was more physically demanding in many ways, and the fact that more individuals were needed to accomplish simple tasks simply exposed more firefighters to potential injury. And though it rarely showed in the pages of the Journal, the old social order at some level equated extreme risk taking with courage and manly honor.
In general, the fire service in 1877 looked more to equipment innovations and improved firefighting methodologies as the ways to better safety, rather than changes in the firefighter`s attitude. However, Thomson`s editorial, “Reckless Driving,” not only identified a major safety problem but contained a broad admonition of reckless fireground behavior in general:
There is no necessity for recklessness in the Fire Service–on the contrary, it cannot be too severely condemned, whether it be found among the Drivers, the Pipemen, the Ladder-men, Officers of Companies, or under a white hat….
The men who exercise cool, deliberate judgment, good sense and great prudence, are the most efficient Firemen, for they are prepared for any emergency, and ready to aid those who are less clear headed. Reckless men never win the confidence of those about them. Men may admire that class of physical courage which impels a man to rush into danger, but they place their confidence in and reliance upon the man whose cool judgment and moral courage will enable him to avoid danger, and to accomplish the object sought without periling either his own life or the lives of the men who are subject to his control.
In terms of safety, though, 1877 would be remembered for the invention of the Neally Smoke Excluding Mask, a breathing device that advertised “perfect protection from smoke.” Thomson thought highly enough of this device to run a picture and description of it on page one (rarely did he give products such treatment), with the title “A Valuable Invention”:
The invention consists of a novel combined mask and cap of suitable elastic material, that fits tightly to the head. The eyes of the mask are furnished with mica or glass, to enable the wearer to see, and the mouth is furnished with a mouth piece of tapering shape, having a hinged lid which is under the control of the wearer and can be opened to speak through. The mask protects, when the lid of the mouth piece is closed, the eyes and lungs against smoke or any other irritating vapors or gases, while the air is supplied by two rubber tubes which are connected with a single or series of air filters. The filter or filters are perforated and filled with sponge or other porous material, which, when it is saturated with water, the air, in passing through the filters, is purified.
This improved on the even cruder canvas bag-type respirator, developed some years before by Lacour, consisting of a large air pouch strapped to the firefighter`s back, connected to a flexible breathing tube. It may be inferred that the manufacturer of this device was moved by Thomson`s unqualified endorsement of the Neally apparatus to seek some equal time, and Thomson later included at least two references to New York City`s mandate requiring that a Lacour unit be carried on every hook-and-ladder company.
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Many issues confronting fire service managers in 1877 were similar to those of today. Not surprisingly, the staffing dilemma reared its ugly head in many cities, as government officials tended toward a slash-and-burn mentality that threatened smaller companies–and threatened firefighter safety. The fire departments fought back. Some were successful in gaining a measure of legal protection for firefighters` rights as employees, precursing organized labor unions.
The duties of the firefighter came under scrutiny; many city officials felt they could achieve more bang for the buck by creating the “fire-police men.” This did not sit well with the fire community, which was reestablishing it credibility and realizing newfound acceptance from the public. Like government efforts to do the same some 100 years later, these efforts failed.
In many communities, fire department funding was a major problem, and some taxpaying bodies refused outright to maintain a fire department or buy fire apparatus, playing Russian Roulette with fire, instead. A large portion of the city of East Newark, New Jersey, was burned down because they had no apparatus with which to fight the fire, and mutual-aid efforts by the City of Newark were required to thwart a major conflagration.
In a time of organizational infancy, the Journal served as a “chat room” for chief engineers. But the infant was growing quickly through organizational inventiveness. In 1877 we see not only the fire departments taking the familiar shape of the present day; we also see such notable developments as the first statewide Department of Public Safety, in Pennsylvania, which placed the fire and police departments under a separate body charged with overall life safety in the community. Thomson viewed this as a positive step toward ridding the fire departments of overbearing local political corruption.
GIVE US THE ALARM; WE`LL PUT IT OUT
According to Thomson, the three “heads” of the fire service were prevention, detection, and extinguishment. Once the fire started, many fire departments in this brave new era were confident that they would promptly extinguish or contain it, so long as the fire was detected quickly and they were notified immediately. Therefore, great emphasis was placed on inventive systems that cut seconds and even minutes off the time from origination to receipt of alarm.
Two practical, fire-specific inventions in particular were given prominence in the Journal: Prior to the invention of the Tooker Keyless Door, street boxes were opened by a key kept in a remote location, usually a mercantile occupancy, to prevent false alarms. Thomson threw his support for this mechanism, believing it to be well worth the cost of the occasional false alarm, citing as an example for his rationale a Chicago fire that destroyed a museum, at a loss of almost $100,000, in which “the man who discovered the fire spent twenty-five minutes in hunting a key, without success, and finally sent a man to the nearest engine house to give a still alarm.”
The first automatic detection system, developed by the Automatic Signal Telegraph Company, also found favor with the editor. This employed simple thermostats, mounted on ceilings and connected to an alarm telegraph, to notify instantly the central dispatch office of a localized fire. The invention was slow to catch on outside of the industrial sector because, as Thomson lamented, its installation in public and residential occupancies was seen as an added expense to be borne by individual taxpayers. He argued, however, “Its general adoption would not be so costly as many imagine, as the insurance companies give lower rates of insurance upon building provided with it.”
As supportive as he was for faster alarm delivery, Thomson was, in equal measure, suspicious of automatic fire protection and privately maintained manual suppression devices. Perhaps he was in lock step with the proud firefighters of the time; regardless, Thomson made plain his reluctance to accept the automatic fire extinguisher [sprinkler]; he felt that manual fire extinguishers were a waste of capital and that private apparatus purchased by industrial facilities with the expectation of mobilizing an internal brigade just a scam to reduce the rate of insurance.
Today, Thomson surely would raise the hair on the necks of many firefighters with his lukewarm attitude if not outright rejection of automatic sprinkler technology, then in its infancy. While Thomson admitted that, in several mills, the “Parmelee extinguisher”… “on several occasions has not been found wanting when the time of testing came,” he opines,
We are not so prepared to accept the automatic Fire Extinguisher so enthusiastically lauded by Mr. Grinnell, as the infallible remedy against fire. Water is as great an enemy to mankind as fire–both are good servants but bad masters.
As history bears out, it was a long time before the fire service accepted the automatic sprinkler for what now seems to us its obvious advantages.
* * *
We look back with pride and awe at the birth of the National Fireman`s Journal, and dare to say that Fire Engineering has not failed Clifford Thomson. Yet, the fire service has grown and changed, and it is obvious that its needs cannot be served by a single source. We therefore embrace all the fire service publications in solidarity of purpose and exhort them to set their sights high in serving the great fire service, as was the want of the father of American fire service literature. In the meantime, Fire Engineering will continue to be the standard against which all others will be judged, the way Thomson intended it and the way it will proceed into the next millennium. n
 |
At right, Volume I, Number I. The very first issue of the National Fireman`s Journal, November 17, 1877. Little could its founders have imagined that their paper would become the Fire Engineering we know today.
 |
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE FIRST OF ITS KIND
The Fire Last Night
By Fleta Forrester
Ding! dong!
Ding! dong!
The alarm flashed over the wire:
The quick horses sprang
To their places and–clang!
The steamers rolled off to the fire.
Fire! fire!
Fire! fire!
The heavens grew red
with its light;
The sparks sifted down
O`er the slumbering town,
Asleep in the dead of the night.
Bright! light!
Bright! light!
The people they waked;
they came
And some of them thought
That the world had caught,
When they saw that leaping flame.
Hiss! hiss!
Hiss! hiss!
The steamers they all
worked hard
Till the flames grew slim,
And the sky grew dim,
As the fire and water warred.
Ding! dong!
Ding! dong!
Came the signal toll,
And the people said,
By their change in tread,
“The fire is now under
control!”
Out! out!
And they wheeled about;
The last faint gleam was dead;
And from the smoke
and damp;
With a hurrying tramp,
The world rolled back to bed.
THE FIRST WORDS FROM
NATIONAL FIREMAN`S JOURNAL
