The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-05-28

WUUTI NINT 70 10 IU5IUVI VIITVU-H y """NT"-
got the contract. In answer to Mr.. Wall witness
said he bid for the construction at $500. lie
considered the tie beam was to be L by 8 ms.
when he made the bid. 1t was at that time that
he stated III Mr.. Walls Office that the roof was
not safe.
Geo. Lucas examined. Is a master builder
and carpenter. Inspected the remains Of the
building the day it fell down. Was one OF the
tenderers for the work. In his opinion the
cause of the fall was the expansion of the build
ing. Could not say if all the materials named
in the specifications were put in. In his opinion
the roof was of too light construction. At
witnesses request Mr.. Wall stated that he was not
always present, and could not say whether all the
timber specified was put into the roof. The tie
was to be of 4 pieces, ] by S ms lin the middle,
and of 3 pieces at each end.
Marshal Parke G. There is only one l by 5 at
any place"
Witness continued The tie rods, if sufficient
in number, would have kept the building from
spreading out. The plates were , by q ms.
Had there been q rod to each of the rafterS,
clamped on to the heels Of them and sufficient
timber IN the roof. the building would not have
spread. The walls were strong enough TO bear
the weight. The iron ties were light and had
only one thread instead of two as Is usual, and
they were put round the plates. The l by 5
boards should have been bolted together instead
of nailed.
L. Way, examined. Is a builder. Had seen
remains of building. Concurred with previous
witness as to the cause OF the accident. At the
places at which the iron ties were put IN he
thought the plates would have gone if the ties
had not. The weight of plaster added to the
weakness of the roof. Thought the specifications
contemplated plastering. otherwise the building
would look unfinished.
Geo. Harris. examined. Is a blacksmith.
Made the rods for the College. The order was
given by Mr.. Chisholm. Supplied four rods,
each i'll two pieces, with a turn buckle. Re
placed one ON Thursday morning. Made eight
bolts for the ties but they were never put in.
Had the bolt been in this producing the broken
end of the tie) it would never have opened, it
would have pulled the plate ont or held the
building together. Iron that size would, before
bending, bear a strain of 1000 lbs. The bending
would reduce the strength about one-seventh.
The rods were frightened up straight. and had
to bear their own weight instead of being
supported by hangers. Was astonished they
could get them so straight with such a span.
They must have put a strain of 3 or / tons on
them. Did not know who put them up.
Robt. Sterling, superintendent of Public
Works, examined. Had seen the remains of the
building that day. Had not seen the place
before. Attributed the accident to weakness of
the roof caused by want of ties. The method of
its construction was inherently weak. The
collar tie which was 40 fit. long was pieced. The
principals were also pieced. They would have
been very much stronger If bolted together
instead OF nailed. In green timber if nails only
ore trusted TO-, the timber shrinks and when Il
strain comes on there is a want of rigidity.
III nun ION "NIt NtIN utiCA ollcuBtI lutn III
plate itself. The way in which the plates were
nailed to the s%tudding was defective. In some
places only one nail, III some three, and where
the plates butted together there were half a
dozen nails, which only tended to split them and
gave no strength. In reply to Mr.. Wall witness
said he did not think that the timber named in
the specifications, viz rafters 4 thicknesses !
by s, and the other parts 3 thicknesses l by 8,
would have made Il strong roof if simply nailed
together instead of being bolted.
T,I, Cl;.I,I,, -o,.,.1 L -.1.4-
and worked on the job at st. Louis College for
his cousin the contractor. Thought the building
was carried out to plan and specification without
material alteration. Did not recollect the time
allowed for completion. The work was pushed
on, and they worked till six O'Clock on two
evenings. Did not think the principal
rafters were strong enough. Thought the iron
rods were put in by the architects orders. The
rods were put in after the place was finished
after it was pIastered. The contractor and
another man put them in. Helped to raise one
or two of them, and then, being sick, went away.
y mistake was made while the rafters were
being put up. They were found not to be
plumb. Thought the principals were put to-
gether on the wall-plates a stage was put up.
E. Treadway examined. Is clerk with Mr..
Burrows. Was at St. Louis College 10 or -
minutes after accident. Helped to break up the
ruins in order to find the missing boy. Some
people at mauka end of building called out that
the boy was there. Helped to get him out.
John Bowler examined Is a %plasterer. Did
not plaster this building. The men who did ii
volunteered and he paid Il man to do two days
work on his behalf. Was a concert given before
the building was completed. The props which
then supported the building were not put up for
the occasion, they were what had been used III
the ordinary way during the construction of the
building. Made a remark then that he did not
think the ceiling was strong enough for that
span and that the walls would go out. Said this
to his partner Duff and to O'Riley. Did not adj
dress Father Larkin ON the subject but he was
standing near at the time.
Thomas E. Wall examined. Is Il carpenter
and worked for Chisholm on the building. Did
not think the work was done quite TO the plan.
The diagonal bracing of the walls was not put
in except at the corners. Did not know why
unless because they were in a hurry to finish the
building. Thought some of the bracing was left
out of the roof also. There was only one thick
ness in the lower brace where there ought to
have been two or three. Took orders from both
the ChishOlms.
John Chisholm recalled. Was only foreman
with his cousin not a partner.
Charles J. Wall examined. Is an architect.
Was called upon to make drawings and s~pecifica-
tons for the College building by Father Larkin.
Tenders were called for and Mr.. Chisholm got
the contract. Superintended the erection OF the
building. The work was not all done to the
plan; some of it was done in first rate style; the
foundation and the s~tudding were well done.
There was some sighting in the roof. The roof
was not executed according to plan. The prin-
clpalS were formed on the ground. 1ncy were
made up entirely of l by 8 stuff. Only "a portion
of each was put up on the ground. The work
as done is altogether different to the plan. The
amount of material called for is not supplied.
This occasiOned weakness in the roof. Did not
exactly pass the work. The building had to
be occupied before finished. There was no
cause for any alarm up to that time because of
the temporary braces used in construction. Two
or three days previous to the accident, Father
Larkin sent for him and told him one of the
tension rods had broken and that he had got it
repaired; also that there was going to be a meet
ing in the hall, and that he wished him to ex-
anime the building and see if it was perfectly
safe to have dancing in it. He asked if Mr..
John Chisholm were in town. Said he thought
he was, and said he would go for him, as having
been working on the building, he would under
stand matters better than n stranger. Brought
him up there ON Friday morning at z o'clock.
They concluded to put braces on each side Of the
building, down to the ground. Advised that
this should be done, because he saw that the
building was unsafe. Was there about three quar-
tiers of an hour. Told Father Larkin to get the
lumber, and he would come and see that it was
placed in position. Fixed a time to 20. and
va,+ In+ II I,,y,Iar ha1 mot c~.;-11 m -