New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-07
THE MADiSOY SQUARE DISASTER.

CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS OF EXPERTS.
TIE CoRONEE's INQUEST OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
OF JAMES NJ. MACGREGOR, HENRY J. DUDLEY.
AND OThEEs.
The investigation of the Madison Square
GRANDDAUGHTER wa continued Yesterday before Core
ncr Brady Thr principal witness examined was Henry
]. Dudley, Superintendent Of Buildings. Other wit
nrsee, testified as architects and building experts
James NJ. MacgreEor, formerly tho SUPPORT trndcnt OF
Buildings whosr testimony WAS not concluded the day
previous, resumed The stand.
He said that wall Of the Thickness OF that which fcll
CARED TO the hight Of thrt -four feet liable = cct
out of ,,lunb His theory was That thcrc weak
suots in the old WALL on which the new platform was
built aud that these places tic wall gave way ani
bucklcd iu the upper portion being dcpr'cd 81 lis sup
mort fell out The tie beams were not broken until they
fol down with the wall. 1t was not lawful TO build
wall to the height thrtyfour feet only twelve inches
I'm thickness The tie beams had the appearance OF be
ing freshly broken 10y fall. The wall, on examining
ton he found have weak spots He di not hiuk tie
heat from the Gs jets bad any part in causing the acct
dent; It was not moro than enough to cure
the tmbers properly. The dancing could not
have had any pcrcrptiblc effect, the floor beams
did not touch the outer wall at any point Nor were
there any signs OF strain the anchors which were at
tacbed to beams aud secured 10 the wall by star
mates. The signs Of weakness were found IN HAT part
OF tho wall extending from near Twcuyscycnthsl. to-
ward the main entrance taking In five Of The windows.
Tinbrrs shrank III width ana no; from end To end
slrnkasc Of the roof tmhrr in his OPINION caused the
accident. The bacicnI of ~. aths could be accounted
for by the fact that tine chimney was bnilr after tho
erection Of the wall and had separated from it that
smoke c0uli escape from the crack.
john 4. Foley Wh O aCtcl as counsel for the Depart
mcnt of Binding, asked Mr.. Nacsrcgor why he had
taken mucI interest III The disaster The wLrse rc-
ujcd that thought he wUulh be called To testify
and wanted b, able 10 tell the truth. He had made
study OF i accdrnt on personal grounds NJ hr in
crstcd in raIriug all he couldabout weakness IN wallis.
The tnres called was II hrY j. Dudley. SUIT
nlrdcnl OF Buildings lie testified ~ f0 oWF; Ger
tam recommendations were inuc ~ Tue h-prriois who
made the cXamiaatlun AMI these Mr. curtis are 1t 10
carry one Of hrsc va, that tlc alter" shou!d Lr
uUtC"d INTO Inc lie "aih7 ilu "'icu ere was hnlI-
ing in the specifications relating t. The C CtrS eng
! nortrd tina the work advancing properly. a;n IN
| Inc hnht a. passing plans Tor walls OF Tie height AM
lat d. ~ co.s,ruc IT, ~ TIC construction Of The adGi
| ION. WAS not aware thal any Of tIr uu-S"s were
| iItrod over window openings. Had ! known Oi the
ioutrd ti beams would not nave CoLrt,d % their lIs
II ia nv ou,on that the collapse was caused hy The
ir,uklu, I'll Ac bciHs. II they Separated they MAIN
rnlr pushed the wall cut. Probably hIol" first,
aftor another. The craciiIg or tHc pasiriing WIS
ui,haiy caused ~ the shrinking o tIo !ith. The heat
from The - pIialS had az rinI'oat chret on ihr
otnr wood would have produce" The srur SUN Ia iiuc.
ana don't believe there wcr" my 1ur storrne
to the truss ut tni POM rrl'nILhi III H. pace Tht
| inspector IN chargr did nft &" Is huy IN
were constructed property. The inv allowed IA" WALT
] 81.
| dll not know anylng anonl me foundation. but
liCl on the inspectors 10 that II proper
tended tLroign the roof. Bcioc becoming supc,In-
tcntCnt If Building wa IN alrltrCt. came into NY
| present office on December -, 1873.
Al III" conclusion Of the testimony IN" witness said ~
| wiahrd to contradict sttt m"ut male by Mr. Curti.,
10 tnc effect that Mr.. Curtis dd not know why tie plans
were at first rejected. lie had TOLD sir Curtis, IA con-
vcI7alon way me pianf were not approved ANA su6-
| ccsicd certain alterations 10 him.
| IunprCOr MalUy testified that he made the rst cX-
animation of ola wall at the time Ol the proposed
ruargt. He found Zl.ZHE cfHck IN the wall the
Wa,tsUave side and reported II that part was taken
| down he would recommend the approval OF tho plans.
lie attributed the catastrophe TO tbs breaking OF the
| tlusScS. $500, ., .,
! who wascXamncd rs an expert. lie :aid " Thcr. au
no means Of asc.rtnlumI the tensile Ftrrngth tie
mrs three things TO he considered in The construction of
trlsscs. First, the Size OF imhers upon which the tat
crs into the ends OF the DCaIS; third, Keeping the Kong
bolt IN proper position Ay Theory OF tho case that
some defect ~ thc IRON or lrpnI '"c o. GER t"uSt should
this happen, the first Indication WOai he cracking Of
the Mastering Az the beams were composed of section
tAc only resistance To lateral pre- Urc was that OF the
ankles which were probably twisted There might also
have been rupture az the ends where tney rested on
the wall. II would nave Dctn much bclI IL Tue stIuls
had been framed in instead Ui being nailed on as they
| were The fatal defect WAS in having tho tie beans
made oft OF several pieces OF TIMBER ana III relying
enics instead bolts tensile strength Ii pieces
| Ind been used and well bOtrd together they would
| have been sufficiently strong but contracted they
were tic result was inevitable do MT consider that
| the wall built IN conformity with tho building
| iaWs unless there was a saving clause which
| nm not aware II the wall had been three feet
in thickness in the event OF The lru.se8 breaking u
| would have been pushed out. The effect Of the wall
faus first would be 70 part the tru2sea at their weak
cal nOints. Ono piece OF timber Gx0, would have been
sufficient for the ebeans. do not think the heat had
times spruce timber vii twBt, nut they loo nothing
tcnse strength Dancing could have bad edecl from
tho tact that the floor not cOnnecieI with the hail
| The inquest will be concluded todLy