New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-05-09
THE COURTS.
THE FATAL TRUSS.
ppFsFNTMRNT Ky THE GRAND JURY

PPFSFNTMFNT w uishND '''''
The United States Grand Jury when ha9
been investigating the Post-olce disaster made pre-
scptmcpt Of the matter before Judge Bcncdic III INC
Ir, states Ccuit Court Yesterday, but brought In no
pdictnents The Jury found from the testimony OF tnc
witnesses that the truss ordered to be duplicate OIL
one already in place and which asconsderch au'q'o
The truss indicated a model was maintained IL posi-
ton at IT'S northern extremity both by perpendicular
support aud by connection through riVets h" HcS "
one Of the inclined raers Of the mansard and was also
botel To The transverse beams OF the roof white c ne"
truss was supported neither by rafter nor 9y Doing
riyeted 70 hs beams above t. "Ihe professional V'
mony" continues the report "c0ucurs that the ta OF
the roof WAS occasouod y these deficiencies Nhcher
or not the dcIcction was on the part Oh 'ue
contractors the jury Is not oh'''V 'i''''
but IL finds that the defect was obvious
10 n competent and experienced person y suSge"''o"
had been made to Supervising Inspector Oaksh0tt 10y
Mr. Haven, one Of the contractors Tor tHc Hvt t','
another truss placed midway between that li'neu "a
his firm and tho western wall OF inc D.lmE va 80
10 insure the safety OF the roof, but TINS SUGGESTION va"
dineearcd The jury learned from the testimony Ua
Mr. OabshOt ard that OF Mr. D0uehefy foreman y, ht
mechanics that neither OF thom was lroIrs-i9' ~
tcct engineer. or capable JUICE or tne Suyy ",
the truss and II is recommended hat ine ,H
Architect cannot personally Superltchd tho "U,t, -
OaEshotts place shouid be flied by crsoh Oh p''{S
CiOnal a'tanncntS superior 70 thOse Vi clo po, ,;,
crnibcnt The report concludes with the Observation
that the supervising Architect put cohilohcg III i'
OahsHott TO which lle was Eoi cht,l,i wa, ~, IL g.
shott ovcrrat Mr.. DougEorys abilities, ana t"t o
i'm the peSnu selected for the Office OF supervising A
tcct or mad imposed upon BIN IN excessive GUY Ine
change I'm the original plans ~ TIE huldinS ny ""ch M
PARTITION wall removed rom the con- tiu0hi by 1'
biuIlot, without proyidug adequate support i"F iH
wall resting TIC ceiling above ID, l. cnpAattiiy con-
dcnucd. ,..... rr;,i
Before the coronrrs jury, Supervising ArchIeci IN
testified that tine specification providing Tor tic a"tU''-
O, the truss y eight inch roller b.up Hb ~ D'.' ''
the boiling Of . truss 10 the plate had MOI Dti con-
plied with ana the not of tho required dtPh
The truss certainly OugHt 10 nay" been CNiiIhu "iCI
il ,as pat a. place. The main cause OF the ar eil wis
FAM, : construction IN supporting portion the truss
lie d,d not tnk Mr. OihshUtt iuCOhiptlcu hut II WAS
an oversight on part lu not examining thc uL'' %
forc pcrlatiing ifs erection. Francis ~cnUmauu WHO
drafted the plans FOR the truss. and Edward H. Dough
crty, foreman OI tine mechanics were also tatu' pu'
ther testimony elected no important iaci5 ,
\. b. Nulrtt, CNSupcNienS Ir"hiieci VINO Iciu'eI 90
aUppor in Dersan before the commission apponcd Nv
po,tmasfer James, sent in long written communication
,yHic Tie cguu. sion refused receive lie haa been
sl.,rnlucd before the cOluuoIs inquest, nut las ot
-