The New York herald., 1875-02-27
Duane street.

Duane street
The straight lines in the above diagram repre-
sent the new jOists being put In, and the dotted
lines the old jolsts, partially burned. to remove
which it was necessary lor the masons to cut out
the brick work is A. NJ Titus, and for the carpen-
ter work Dever Coddlngton, OF No. Duane
wall between which the break occurred. the
distance Is ABOUT thirty eet and about eight icet
thai q Considerable portion of the wall had lallen
into the aleyway. The neavy body OF 1t, Including
an iron shutter. fell upon ana crushed through
the roof and iell into the gallery OF the churcn
between A and b. The rear wall extends up for
two stories above the tenement, and Is liable to
fall upon the occupants should heavy wind blow
+ ON the south. Up to three O'Clock no steps had
been taken TO remove the tenants nor to brace up
the rear wall Dy means OF timbera.
. THE WORK OF THE CoNTR ACTORS.
1t is not true, as was YESTERDAY stated IN some
day OF the accident The joists MARKED on the
diagram as new ones on the upper story had been
Just put In: while those on , the story Immediately
with the order OF the superintendent OF Buildings.
The work being done py the masons on Thursday,
up the walls. was simply cutting out the charred
beams and making holes ior the new ones upon
ing preparatory TO removing the walls or the Two
upper stories.
J. b. Snook, the architect employed by Mr..
Shaw VINO is spoken or by rival architects as ana
able and cQreful man, stated To the Wllter tnat
Mr. Shaw desired TO have certain alterations made
in the building and consulted him on the subject.
He looked at the burned building. and assured
him that II he entrusted the work OF repairs to the
insurance companies they would probably charge
very largely iOr the alterations desired. He.
therefore, ADVISED q money settlement with the
Insurance companies and that Mr.. Shaw let Ou:
the repairs and alterations TO contractors. Mr..
Snaw approved OF TINS course settled with the In
surance agents, and Instructed MIR. Snook to pro.
ceed with plans and specifications Tor the work.
In the meantime. on the 10Th oi January, Mr. Snaw
q DeDartmeut
Buildings which Will be found elsewhere
Upon the reception OF the notification Mr.. Snook
reports Mr. shaw referred 1t to him, and on the
same day Mr. SHOOK notified the department. that
the building would be put IN safe condition.
Messrs Brown and Adams were at once Called In,
ana they shoi ed up tae building as the architect
directed, anc the east wall especially. Mr.. SnooS
says they put In ali the beams ne thought ueces-
sary to strengthen the walls, which they intended
to at once tear down 10 the fith story ioor cer-
cracked He stated that althouah there was
during the progress OF TINS work almost oally
an oicer OF the BUILDING iSan Department.
at no time was 1t intimaIed 10 them that they
should put in braces from the roof or the church
tenement house against tle walls to prevent
them Ialllng outward. II IL had been 2 new wall
he would nave treated 1t in a different manner,
but the wall being DID, he considered 1t safe. He
ala not want TO reflect upon the Building Depart
ment as he did not know whether tney mad failed
IN any particular, and die not know what is ex-
pec.ed OF them. Alter the walls mad been shored
he ordered the carpenters to put beams across
and strene Een the walls, wnlca was done. In
answer to the direct question whether In his
opinion the accident would nave been prevented
had the walls been braced from the church. he re-
piled In the Affirmative but doubted whether the
church cor, or atlOn would permit Ii.
WHO Is RESPONSIBLE AT LAwY
Mr.. Snook states that in the contract both con.
tractors are bound to make good all losses that
may be Incurred to lie or property. but he says 1t
occurred from neglect On the part OF one or both
the contractors, or whether the wind did not
cause 1t, In his opinion the accident was entirely
due TO the severe lorce OF the wind.
MIR. Snaw with whom the writer covered. ex-
pressed his deep sorrow at the casualty, and said
he would not care SO much lor his loss mao lie not
been sacrificed. He trusted the work entirely to
his architect, who stood nigh IN his procession.
AN ARCHITECTS OPINION.
The writer called upon John q. Prayne, an archi-
tect In the Bible House. who stated Inat IN many
cases Of thi. kind architects neglect to exercise
control oyer workmen, merely preparing the
plans. &C.. and allowing the owner TO have the
wofK executed by any 'lunknead' he chose 10
grooves in the walls 10 remove the burned beams,
instead OF merely removing the few bricks mme-
grooves invariably weaken a wall. Mr.. Snook, he
stated, was very able arcnitect and no ed Ior
his caution, and he could not think he was to
blame. Mr.. Prayne stated that he did not believe
the accident was due to tne irost and ice, as had
been suggested. They might affect a new wall and
cause IL TO crack, but an OLD wall ike this,
that mad been up fourteen or fifteen years, would
only be affected by irost about an inch from the
surface. He referred TO many Instances OF the
careessness OF workmen, and especially 70 case
Oh Beekman Hill some years ago, where excava-
tions were being made Inc contractors men, IN
blasting rock, sent a blast into an adjacent wall,
making hole pig enough TO drive morse and
wagon through and SCATTERING the party wall or
the next house, fortunately without lnjurng the
occupants. building ike this should have been
at once braced botn inside and out. TINS could
have been easily done. Certainly the Department
OF Buildings should nave mad tue walls braced
from the outside, so as TO render 1t impossible for
the walls TO lall out.
cuLPABLE NE6LIGENcE SOMEWHERE.
Every builder In the country knows that the
only way TO secure wall alter u IRE so as TO pre-
vent ~ laling outward and cfushlng In adjacent
buildings or upon pedestrians IA tue streets s by
Draclng oy means OF long timOers put up against
the dangerous wall. There, ior nearly six weeks,
has lowered an immense wall, three stories above
a churcn, daily crowded with devout and unsus.
pecting worshIppers and over q crowded tene-
Inent mouse, llaoe to oe topped over with any
stin WIND aud crush them. let the lacts are, not
an order was given oy the Building Department 10
nave these braces, the cost OF which is a mere
bagatelle. put up. thus rendering sncn q catas-
trOphe as has Just occurred impossible.
II tue Building Department are Dlamaole
the contractor and arcnltect VINO must
have been aware OF the uapger, cannot escape
censure on the plea that they we're nOi specifically
ordered 10 put IN outside oraces-tney nave COM
piled with tue law and are not fesponsiDle. But
tnis IA a matter lor the Cofoner's jury. Tney can
not well avoid fxing the responsibility In the
premises.
one would think that the oflclas would now be
more cautious, out IL seems not. The rear wall,
weakened by the break on the side, yesterday
stood niRh above q crowded tenement, yet up TO o
late hour no order had been issued 10 brace u UP
o. remove the tenants. another severe wind