New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-06
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE MAp1soN-sQUARE CALAMITY.

TESTIMONY OF BUILDERS AND EXPRhTs A. 10 The
CAUsE-CONFLICTING OPINIONS.
A number of builders. both masons and carpenters
testified yesterday before the Coroners Jury owmcn
is investigating the cause Oh the M"uiSon-'quai0
Samuel Lowden, a mason, said that he had IN
spected the walls twice since the accident, and was
OF the opinion that the cause of the disaster was the
breaking of tbs tie-beam. The beams were joined
together with ordinary spikes. lie Thought thaI
the separation of the timbers might have happened
a week before the accident. The ,ibratiOn caused
by dancing might have strained the wall aItcr IL
had been made weak by the separation OF me I'm,
bers. If the heat very great as Nau Deen
testified to he thought the tar on the ROOF Woniu
have melted. The trusses in the roof were faulty
and were not able to stand the weight OF the 1907.
Alfred G. Hoe, carpenter, said II SpTuife s
straight grained and well seasoned THINK II Las US
good white or yellow pine for S truss nm int
prepared to say that the wal was strongly sup
ported If the eight inch arches had s1,llicfh e
false think they would be strong enongh OF a'e
windows AS timbeIs shrink l think splklhS IS
more secure than bOlting II truss snotu , ue ~
constructed that the weight comes on tiie S
any work such as building an arr ealiety Eo
putting an opening in the top so as TO give Tree
James Webb, mason, testified that he believed
the heat under the ceiling was 50 gre ro o'C ,ie
wood hs shT91 he wall IF the teScam had been one
niece I feel certain it would not have been broken
BY the heat. The tie-beam was faulty that's piaih
Thomas J. OConnor, the contractor for tho car
ncnter work, who has been i'll business Tor
twenty-five years, SAD and t ae tH except in
one particular did not have the tie-beam Ill one
piece because / could not get the tlinDeriI m l.,
alteration was made with the knowledge, OF inc
building Department. consider the WORK Just Us
good as if the tie-beam had been III one piece MY
candid opinion is that the wall gave away over inc
windows in the old wall think the walls were III
sufficient 10 sustain the weight lthnk the arf T
over the cast iron circular heads were weak. Nc We
c;rrnor heads were'mOre for ornament than use. we
had TO get the job done in a short tlme 1 Knew
that the walls were being constructed contrary 10
fhe buldinC law. My theory is that the arches
fnrned over the windows were not strong enough
to resist the heavy pressure, and thus gave away way
think the walls ought to have been taken uoWh
as far as these arches before new wall was begun
If the wall fell first and then the roof, the tc-
beams would break by the fd aid hG 1d Of see nv cid
break in the beam. always considered tlnC p TIi-
ton of the wall above the windows as very weak,
tied the beams together with siXty-penny SPICES
Which wore five and half inches III length inney
were eight or nine inches apart. am saisllcu
now and always have been tnat ' T6s wan ann TS
was partly formed during the construction OF tile
building. l did not then think It was UNSAFE , out
Thought it might be stronger. Since the accldehI
feel positive that the weakness OF the wall eauSeu
Thomas Little, an architect, said: ~ attribute nut!
the cause of the disaster to the faulty construction
of fine truss The entire strain was OH the nails
Joining the timbcrs of the beam The, yielding OF
the tic beam was the of the cracks that were
noticed before the disaster. The moment tlc tie
beam separated the wall and roof fell together. i
think the wall was pretty good one: because It
must have resisted very severe strain don't think
that twelve inch wall that height and length was
insufficient to stand the strain The beams should
have been botcl instead of nailed, and jointed i'll
stead of butted" .
lanes NJ. Macgregor ex-Supcrintendcnt of
Buildings said :" l examined the scene of the dis
aster and think the accident was caused by the
giving way Of the wall. think the west val SINK
and kept yielding. and finally the truss tcl!. Inc
wall should have been sixteen inches thick. instead
of twelve inches. think it is SO required by the
law If one OF the truSscs were put up to-day ana
subjected to even a greater strain than II llad to
carry at the Madison Square Garden it would bear
the Meipht.V