The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-27
Damaging Developments al the
Coroner's Inquest.
CONFUSED WITNESSES.
Responsibility Of Proprietors, Contrac-
tors and Superintendent.
NORTHAMPTON, Mass. NAV 20. /

and negligence on the part or proprtetors and con-
tractors and builders Which it IS almost lmpossi.
Bile to believe. Thus far every witness examined
has given testimony which goes to prove almost
cOnclusively that the whole structure was nothing
but frail sham, and the great wonder is that it
was not swept away before. 1t appears that the
reputed superintendent Of the work was only
myth or an ornamental official at the best, and
that the contractors went ahead win the work in
the cheapest manner possible and without much
regard 10 the specifications of the contract
sPELLMAN, OF TUE RESERVOIR COMPANY.
When the HERALD's report closed last evening
the examination OF Mr.. Spellman, one of the chief
pr0prletors and officers OF the Reservoir Com
pany, was IN progress. HIS conduct on the stand,
and the confused, incoherent and nervous man.
ner In which he made his contradictory state
ments, made most unlavorable impression upon
the spectators present, and probably his evidence
Will be regarded with good deal OF d,scrlmina-
ton by the jury. Mr.. Speman is an Ola Hamp-
shire county button manufacturer. aud an admra-
BILE specimen OF that class OF ewEngland Yankees
whose chief ambition is to make money and save
1t. All through his examination az the inquest he
has betrayed
AN UNwILLINCNESs TO TELL
what he Is generally believed to know about the
nmsy manner in which the dam was constructed.
Towards the close Of his testimony yesterday alter
noon he was called upon to produce the books OF
the company and read the records in order TO
show VINO were the building committee and who
was IN charge OF the work; but out OF mercy for
Mr.. Spellman's evident inability to do it Mr..
Deano took the book and went through
the records Including the act OF incorpora-
ton, constitution and bylaws or the CON-
pany) from May, 1885, to May, 1870. without find
ing any appointment OF building committee,
though ne found an entry stating that Joel Hay.
den was added to such committee. Mr.. Spell
man said ne knew OF no record on the subject;
did not know who were the building committee,
but believed that Mr.. Dimock, Mr.. W. NJ. Clark
and Mr.. Hayden was subsequently added; the
CONTRACTORS ala tneir work on specifications; he
,s SpselITan) ,s himself a%n bought the reservoir
preparations made for building before that;
ne was up there perhaps not as often as three or
Jour times week, but was there very olten he
had nothing to do with the contract with Mr..
Bassett and Mr.. Wells. but understood that they
were bound by specifications; he almost always
met the contractors there; the work was begun
early in the summer OF 1885, and completed either
IN January or February, 1856. he thinks; he was
owner, and he had an interest In it because he
needed the reservoir SO much, Tor before 1t was
built he had no power at all in the summer. This
long roll Of answers was In continual attempt to
avoid the suspicion OF having had any special au-
tnorty OF responsibility in the construction OF the
dam.
TUESDAYS pRocEEDINas
the nrst witness called at the session to-day was
Mr.. isaac Stone, ofNorthamptOn, clerk OF the old
MIL RIVER RESERVOIR Company. since consolidated
with the Williamsburg Company. Mr.. Stone said
that in 1873 the late Lieutenant Governor Hayden
ing iip-rapping, but he did not give him the idea
that the reservoir was unsafe. The chief part Of
Mr.. stones testimony had reference to the moor
poration OF the company, the amount Of capital In
vested, &C., and was not OF puolic interest.
STORY OF ONE RESERVOIR CONTRACTOR.
Joel Bassett OF Easthampton, one OF the con-
tractors for the building OF the reservoir xt
called. Mr.. Bassett read the specifications and
contract under which the reservoir was built. adj
ding that the only Supertn tendent OF the work In
behalf OF the company was Mr.. Fem, and after
ward committee OF the company consisting OF
anerward another contract submitted which he
refused tots to sign and for reasons which he
to be Is feet high. Ni feet Wide on on
top and ieet inches wide at the bottom.
narrowed and reduced the strength OF the wall,
and he would not sign 1t Tor fear his reputation
as a builder OF q reservoir might be affected after.
contractor will explain at future session.
-, THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY:
vor Company, testified that the work as done
by the contractors differed very materially
TONS The further testimony went to show
that various plans and estimates were submitted
besides those adopted. Those who looked alter
self, George Hayden, Mr.. Dimmock, Mr.. Clark and
Mr.. Spellman, the latter gentleman Offering to
account OF Living near the dam. Mr.. Hayden also
offered to look particularly after the work but Mr..
Clement said that himself and all the gentlemen
he mad named were, above all others,
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK
He himself was not present during the construc-
other business. He said that there were several
complaints made by him and the other gentlemen
while the work was going on, but ne could not
give any definite statements or particular COM
plants except In one instance and then ne
thought that complaint was uncalled for. The
complaint came from the late Mr. Clark, aud was
to the effect that the contractors at one point were
building on the soil instead OF on hardpan as the
contract required: the contractors offered to
Clement thought It was not necessary.
The ground, he SAID, was very firm there,
the west side of the dam the soil was hard but on
the east 1t was soft and mucky but the contractors
went down TO hard pan for the foundation Mr.
Hayden, he said, occasionally expressed doubts
about the tnoroughness with which the contractors
were doing their work, but his fears were general
faults. The witness said ne had large amount Of
business on hand at the time, and he could not
remember about events SO lar back. He wished 1t
understood, however, that he had
NOTHING TO CONCEAL.
When the dam was completed there was some
the work, but It was on account OF some little de-
tails about how the work should be paid for.
whether BY the day or by the piece, and not on &C
count OF any Incompetence OF the work. Mr.
Clement said that ne never knew OF the County
Commissioners examining the dam except by
what he had seen In the papers. once, when at
the dam, he saw water oozing out from two or
three places In streams as large rs q mans arm,
and 1t seemed to come from the bottom OF
the dam or artificial embankment; at the time
the dam was built springs were found, but he did
not remember whether any pains were taken TO
divert the streams running from them, so that
they would not operate upon the walls or embank-
ment; he never heard any mill owner say that the
dam was unsafe, and six months before his death
he heard Governor Hayden express himself better
satisfied with the dam than at any other time
since 1t was built; the superintendent OF the build
ing OF the dam was there only portion OF the
time and the reason OF this he explained was the
general confidence Of the prOprietors IN the aith
fulness and honesty Of the contractors; as
the ruins OF the dam look now, 1t seems to him
as II the stone was never laid down to the hard
pan as 1t should have been, and, furthermore he
thought that tine cement that was used was not
what iC should have been. II he had seen and
fully understood how the foundation was laid he
never would have approved 1t for moment.
Some OF the cement used appeared to him TO nave
been mixed with six parts OF sand, and 1t never
ought to have contained more than two parts:
Even though the cement had been properly mixed
ne did not regard the dam as sale with