St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-11
THE JURY'S VERDICT.
Fixing the Responsibility For the
Bracket Block Disaster---The In
quest Concluded.
Inspector Pardee, Architect Orf and
Contractor Putnam Guilty of Gross
Negligence"
George A. Bracket, Owner of the
Block, Exonerated After q Care
full Investigation.
The Last Days Testimony and the
Statements of Mr.. Bracket and
Architect Orff.

The coroners jury in the inquest over
the victims of the Bracket block disaster
met yesterday morning, and made another
examination of the ruins as preliminary
to the days work. When the iurymen had
assembled at Connolly's morgue Coroner
Hill stated that the county attorney had de-
cided that the jury could legally pass upon
the death of j ohn Simmons. who died from
injuries received by the same accident since
the jury was impaneled. Frank Chabat,
proprietor of the French hotel
at 261 Island avenue. identified
the remains of man who had applied
for accommodations the day before the ac-
cident. Later on Rev. Father Petrus Dag
nault testified that the deceased before
death had told him that he was unmarried
and hailed from Three Rivers, Canada.
The investigation of the cause of the
falling building was then taken up. W. j.
Larkin, the stone contractor, was recalled
and was first questioned concerning Hans
Peterson, who is about to commence suit
for damages against Mr. Bracket. Mr..
Larkin stated that the man was not en-
plOyed by him about the building and he
knew nothing of him. Continuing. Mr.
Larkin testified that he had called MI.
PeterSOn'S
ATTENTION TO A SAG
of about three fourthS of an inch on each
floor, but was told it was only the settling
of the josts into the false work. He did
not remember seeing Architect Orff on the
roof, but thought he must surely have
known of the plling of the brick upon it.
He supposed also that Mr.. Orff knew that
the battering ram was to be used. He was
positive that none Of the stone removed by
the ram were in contact with the joist
The testimony of Messrs. Orff, Larkin,
Putnam and Seebar was then read in the
presence of the expert witnesses, suisse
quently to be called. The first of these
witnesses was B. w. Fisher, the architect.
who, in answer to hypothetical questions,
stated, among other things, that if each
floor had settled three-fourths of an
inch there must have been some
thing wrong with the false work,
probably with the 'keying" and founda-
ton of the piers. The settling of three
fourths of an inch to each floor would tend
to cant the 2X14 plank set ON edge, throw
the posts out of plumb and let the floor
down. He thought the footings should
have been made at a lower point than the
stone foundation. The principal cause of
the accident he attributed to the removal of
the foundation WALL but there could have
been no settling of the floors if the false
work was properly put in. The supports
were sufficient in size if properly used; the
use of a ram would have tendency to
shake the building. The witness also
thought the use of pine shingles for wedg-
ing purposes was wrong.
IN THE AFTERNOON
the hearing of expert testimony was re-
sumed.
Fred Reyes, the architect, testified that
from his examination of the building that
he did not think Mr.. Putnam had obtained
as good foundation for fOotings as he
might have. If he had any doubt as to
what was wanted of him as an architect he
would have inquired just after drawing the
plans
L. S. Burlington stated in reply to inquiry
as to the sufiiciency of the false-work that
he considered the upright timbers plenty
large enough, sufficient timber in the grid
erS if properly constructed, the footings in
sufficient and not large enough, being sim
pie Okla tinbers placed on AKA sleepers,
twenty inches from the center
He thought the girder should
have been solid piece or else bolted to-
gether. If the battering ram was used on
the walls below The joIst the stability Of the
building would not be affected. The build
ing probably was also overloaded, the piling
of brick on the roof and floors helping to
break 1t down. The snoring was strong
enough to have held if the brick from the
fire-wall had been removed and the brick
piled on the floors.
W. P. Schaffer, carpenter, who was
employed in the construction of the false
work, gave description of the work which
did not differ essentially from that of pre-
viouS witnesses. He had never heard any
one say anything about danger of the
building falling because of the settling.
Coroner Hill stated that this concluded
the testimony with the exception of that of
Chris Gallagher, Assistant Building In
specter Hazen and some witnesses that
Architect Ortf wished to have introduced for
the purpose of showing the nature of his
instructions. Mr.. Neil stated that he did
not see the necessity of hearing the testi-
mony of Mr. Gallagher and Mr.. Hazen, as
neither had any personal knowledge of the
cause of the buildings fall. Mr.. Bracket
stated that he had requested Mr.. Gallagher
to be called for the reason that he had eX-
Dlicitly stated at public meeting that the
building was poorly constructed by cheap
workmen. If this was so he thought the
jury ought to know it. However, he had
no idea that Mr.. Gallagher knew from per-
sonal observation what he was talking
about. The jury decided not to call these
witnesses. and it was decided to conclude
the inquest with the testimony of Messrs.
Bracket and Orff.
WINDING UP.
Mr.. Bracket repeated forcbly his testi-
mony concerning his instructions to Mr..
Orff, and said: my understanding was
that he was to have entire charge through
out l expected that he would bring in
bill for experimenting the construction as
well as for drawing the plans. l am en-
tirely unacquainted in the details of build
ing and could not even decide the strength
of a single timber. All bids have been
addressed to him, and 1 relied upon him
solely. Mr.. Orff suggested that Mr.. Put
nam should go ahead with his assistance
and superintendent. l am entirely salts
fed with Mr.. Orff as an architect. and think
if he made a mistake it was because he like