Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-08-04

fi,HNht' ~ NY request ne, too,
looked through the instrument, and then
ana tnere pronounced the corner tn be
absolutely plumb according TO the civ
engineers instrument, and said tbSt
either mot instrument or his own was
wrong.
Mr. Chambers, the foreman of Tho
carpenter work of the building. held a
plumb-line reaching from ton to bottom
OF said building, and pronounced il moi IN
be over half an inch out OF plumb. tho
walls leaning slightly In instead of o,t. os
claimed by the committee making the re-.
port TO Capt. Martin.
?. The committee saws the southeast
corner ovcrllangs Fourth street "about
three inches, and that the entire building
Is forced south aud west owing tn a de-
iective foundation, ns shown Inv thr
settling of the columns and bending OF
the sill course.n
rms Is al false. In the first place, the
southeast corner is pi,uRb with the ex-
cepton OF Il tendency TO the east of about
hree-qndrters II az Inch. The foundation
Is not dcfecftce, as can he proven by
proper examination; the walls being two
leet six inches In thickness, and built i'm
the very best limestone laid in cement
mortar.
The building is not forced south and
west, as can he readily seen from the fact
that the north wall Is perfectly pl,,i,b and
the east wall overhangs about three-auar-
tiers of an inch to the east. The instru.
ment Of City Engineer King was held on
these corners, and they were also prOren
by plumb-line in the hands of Mr.. Cham
bers.
As TO the bending of the sill course.
this was affected by carelessness In the
bedding by the masons. who got a little
too much mortar under the center of
the sill, but which does not af-
feet the sWbstdRtjdbUity of the building I'm
the le0St.
3. The committee say the "hoor ioists
OF the second, third and fourth floors are
resting on wood lintles, in place of being
supported on sustaining arches, the arches
shown on the walls only supporting
the brickwork under the window stills"
This is also false, as the Joints rest
only partially on the pood iiittes and por-
tioUy on the brick arches, the HatIeS,
however, being of sufficient strength to
carry the load calculated TO be- placed on
the floors. The statement the 'arches
shown on the walls only support the brick
work under the window stills" is true.
The arches were built for that purpose
erdctIy.
(. The committee says; ave consider
IL bad arrangement to place the girder of
the second story on di eight-inch pier,
and the girders of the third and fourth
stories resting on the boz mtdli0H Of
tripie frame.
The girder of the second story rests on
tlrO piers, each RiHe by eighteen inches.
The girdcrs of the third and fourth sto-
ries are carried on heavy lintle built in
the wall and resting on four heavy brick
piers, there being no triple frame in that
part of the building.
8, The committee says: "The joists of
each story are resting on wood lintlcs
placed on top of ,giDdO,r. frames, and not
calculated to sustain much weight. The
storing of heavy goods on the several
floors would have Il tendency to increase
those defects we have noted, and would
in our opinion cause the building to give
way"
With regard 10 the statement that the
ioistS Of each story rested only on wood
lintlcs, have already shown this to be
false Hand will say that the wood lintles
are not placed on top of the iriRdOir-
frames but on brick piers at each side of
iHcheS dbOce the tops of said frames
They are calculated to sustain as much
weight as the center girders in proper
ton TO their length.
As TO the storing of heavy goods on the
floors having tendency to cause the
building to give way, will state that
the floors are calculated TO sustain from
six to seven hundred pounds per square
foot as safe load, which is about two
thirds Of the breaking weight.
FORT WORTH TEN, Aug. 3, 1885.
w \. Huffman, Esq, City:
DEAR SIR-llaving tested the walls of
the four-story building, corner of Fourth
and Main streets, with my transit, lind
the southeast corner of said building alb
SOlUteIy trte: also the northwest and
northeast corners the Sdne but find the
southeast corner about threc-quartcrs to
one inch ont OF plumb. Yours truly,
w. Is. KING,
City engineer.
FoRr WORTH August 3, 1885.
! examined the same walls with the
transit of j. j. Kane. That transit may
have been out of adjustment. Neither Of
che transitS have been accurately tested,
but in my opinion the transit test on the
second examination, agreeing with the
plumb test, is the more reliable
We, the undersigned respectively con-
tractor and foreman in constructing the
Huffmn-Simpson building, hereby certify
that the above statements of Mr.. Sangui-
net are correct.
T.. :. TOWNSEND, Contractor.
j. +, CHAMBERS, Foreman.
This answers the report in its entirety.
wish now to say something in regard 10
the committee itself:
Maj. s. b, lIaggart, the first on the
committee, submitted c0mpetitice plans
for the said building with me, with the
understanding that the best plan would be
adopted. Nine was adopted, his rejected.
AS TO Mr.. Kane, have nothing to say,
except that cannot see how a competent
architect could sign his name to report