The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-09
Continuation of the Inquest on the
Post Office Victims.
THE UNSUPPORTED TRUSS.
Shifting the Blame Around-The United
States Grand Jury Presentment.
ARCHITECT AND INSPECTOR CENSURED

Tho iEqucs, the bodies OF those who woro killed
by the falling OF the roof the northeastern wing OF
the new Post Once continued yesterday by Cor.
oner Elingcr in the Equity Court OF tho Federal
Building Only three witnesses were examined.
These were James G. Hill, Supervising Architect;
Francis shumann. civil engineer In the architects
office, and Edward Dougherty, foreman OF tho work.
The following IL the evidence
MR. HILLS TESTIMONY.
Mr. James O. hl supervising Architect testified that
no resided IN Wash,n son D. g.; was the Supervising
be-. been n the e sS' tie
charge M So nearly ten when Witness took
q Once building Supervising inspector a%sss
the the Sss we're 70 no
ss o. a ,s n;,s s ss
one OF witness visits his attention drawn TO weakness
ss a 'i o ma ss
bearing TINS subject the fault in Tho
,ho weigh, q the wall Itself =. vol as BY sSs weigh.
the the upon sen. an convinced %ne
Of an inoraina.e amount Of concrete In the
was the most natural support
support the roof wa. coyrscsy appsa the srnss WA.
erected before the accidents this was completed work.
proper fastening ends the truss should haSs been
IN the wal. ,0S 'a
49, THE FATAL TRUSS.
The security Of the formed by two channel
bars rveed 20 beams; Also eight roller beam rv
also. the plan showed the channel bar rvetsd to the
plate Of roof; all these conditions not
we're entirely omitted. All Sosns truss 70 tie
also omitted the certainty ought have been
whether or not such examination made; there
cpa Of the accident was faulty construction in
supporting portion Of the truss tho fastening above
tendent would be responsible this; onkshott did
rot receive new appointment when witness into
omce the iron work used in the building dcsgned by
MI. shamann under the guidance OF Mr. ulet;
sdscs Of ' mr. Sas Il. a"s sss,n%s ~
witness explanation Of the duties Of the sSpsrv
Ing Architect that il is absolutely impossible 10 superin
he
MI oakshot TO properly carefully examine tho
rass before permitting us erection In regard to examin-
ntendent to examine the work finished In another
The old wall stood Which had been @ NO 81.
son proper o. inc were maze on 'A'' ''eA
Mr.. sHuMAsS's TESTIMONY
Francis Shumann testiHed-Am civil engineer In
,a. q had
Sc WI. With the pSoposa Of the las, truss which gave
carrying capacity submitted to witness; had
nsd the truss question though not critically rs
omission Of strut which In the old truss now in place Is
ing Of the cord entirely omitted consisted OF
thrd!v thar the load acting eccentric upon the
torsiona movement the cord which again
transferred to bending movement acting the up-
right previous examination OF the truss must have
revealed these dehccnces there similar trusses
doing duty In various VI tho Post Oce the speinca
lions AL proposals call for tests Of the material to be fur
nised the specification OF the acceptance oil the
cred the specifications made In amply SUFFICIENT
after Examining tho subsequent its fall witness
found sghtneh omitted that should be actn
Asupport; witness educated In Virginia by Professor
Hendricks had designed the and thought they
amply sufficient to do work they supposed
do; In the making out OF the plans OF the building Mr.
Muctt exercised general supervision OF the
Of work. witness could not whether Mr. Mulett
examined his (witnessD mHthemHtcal sh had
only incidental knowledge OF the OF the wall In
the foor his duties OF technical
turc.
rOREAAN's
Edward d. Dougherty testified that he resided In Jersey
CITY; foreman OF NIL the work in tho Post Office
had held the position for fourteen months previous to
time witness employed in the Treasury Building for
thirteen fourteen witness FIRST appointed
foreman by Mr. Steinmetz In the Appraisers Ohce In
porting the roof the floor OF the accident IL
by the shores which done by eight
inch tmbers resting the floor beams witness directions
the timbers nearly correct possible
to wedges the truss then placed In
position Ap III Mr. Haven had charge OF erecting the
truss witness business to the roof which wit
did and removed the shores aftcr the completion
the work Informed witness specially Of the compile
ton Of the work. but witness reported to Mr. oakhot IRON
time to time.
At hafpast one tho inquest adjourned till to- day.