Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-11-12
FAULTY TUNNEL WORK.
Testimony Before the Military Court of
Inquiry To-day.

The first witness called was Samuel A. Har-
per, bricklayer by trade and subinspector in
the tunnel He worked in the west shaft at
Howard University in March, 1885, and after
ward worked in the eastern end of the same
shaft The brick used was of good quality and
the bricklaying was thorough in every respect.
The packing, SO far as he saw, was very good.
The stone was hammered or forced in so that
it was perfectly solid above the arch. There
may have been some vacant spaces above the
key when the packers worked where there was
much timbering. AS far as possible the spaces
between the timbers was filed up with loose
stone. OF course there were
PLACES THAT COULD NOT BE PACKED,
but they were not numerous. Witness was en-
ployed as an inspector in July, 1885, and worked
up to February /, 1886. Work was suspended
then until September. Witness resumed as in
spector and continued there until October, 1887.
MIR. Coryell, then engineer, first appointed wit
ness as inspector. Witness inspected work in
Howard University shaft when he COM
menced. Mr.. Coryelrs instructions were
to see that the work was done prop
erly. Mr. shadwell, whom witness superseded
as inspector, gave him copy of the specifica-
tions, and he endeavored to see that the work
was done in accordance with them. Witness
had to inspect the work of the trimmers, the
bricklayers, and the packers. He had some
times taken charge Of the work in a capacity
other than that of inspector; he did so because
he thought it was his duty to see that the work
was thoroughly done. He knew of no dry
brick-work being done. The packing was solid.
Witness examined the brick and cement. He
went up to the surface twice or three times a
day to examine the material; he
OFTEN FOUND FAULTY BRICK.
He would, therefore, be absent from his duties
below about three hours each day. Sometimes
when he returned to the tunnel he would find
evidence Of faulty work having been done
during his absence, but not very frequently
The foreman of bricklayers was in charge dur
ing his absence on top. Witness used to see
Capt Symons in the tunnel quite frequently.
He saw Major Lydecker in the tun-
mel but twice-onte when he went
through with the congressional committee
and once previous to that occasion.
When witness had to absent himself while the
bricklayers were 'keying OUT he would order
the workmen to do no more than a certain
quantity, and those orders were generally
obeyed Sometimes when the bricklayers were
some distance ahead of the packers the packing
would be done at night. On such occasions
there WOULD be no one present on behalf of the
government. Witness never received any
present from the contractors, neither in money
nor in any other form. He was paid S75
month by the government.
HE MADE PACKERS TEAR OUT DEFECTIVE WORK.
Col. Hodges questioned the witness rather
sharply as to the packing which he allowed to
be done during his absence, and Harper stated
that he was satisfied that none of the work SO
done was done in any other than a satisfactory
manner. He had made packers tear ont some
defective work, but not more than once or
twice.
In response to a query by Gen. Ruger, wit
ness said he thought the packers did faulty
work SO that they might catch up with the
brickayers and then sit down. Sometimes the
bricklayers helped the packers, but only on
extraordinary occasions.
Col. Craighill asked witness if he remem-
bered any occasion when more work had been
done by the night force than could properly have
been done by the number of men engaged, and
witness replied that the force always did fair
amount of work and when he inspected the
work next morning it was well finished and
seemed to be solid.
The cross-examinatien was then taken up by
Capt Chester, counsel for Lieut.. Townsend,
and witness reasserted that he had only seen
Major Lydecker in the tunnel ON two occasions
Witness might have rejected bad brick without
going up to the surface to prevent such defect
thought it best to go up. If the brick came
down some of it might easily have been
worked into the arch.
COULDN'T SEE THROUGH STONE WALL.
Capt. Chester-"Could you tell the quality
Of work done overnight in your absence other
than that visible on the face?"
Witness-'sNo."
Capt. Chester-''Why?"
Witness-.Because I couldn't see through q
stone wall"
AN oyERsEER OF MASONRY.
Jacob B. Masters for the past twenty-five
years a superintendent on the Chesapeake and
Ohio canal, was then sworn. He was employed
he said, as an overseer of masonry in the tun-
mel from March to September, 1887. His duties
called him in both the east and west shafts at
Rock creek. Witness instructions were ex-
plicit, and were to the effect that the packing
was to be laid in cement. He never had
any copy of the specifications in his
possession, but he understood what they called
for. The average amount OF arch constructed
each night was about fourteen feet. The pack
ing behind the side walls was always good, and
a sufficient quantity of mortar was used. Wit
ness often heard Sub-contractor Emery instruct
the masons and packers to do their work prop
erly. Witness never received any present from
the contractors
NOT EVEN CIGAR.
Quite an amusing and confusing colloquy
took place between the court and the witness
on the subject of brick inspection. The wit
ness failed to grasp the meaning of General
huger inquiries, ana IN splte OF the klnuly M
tervention and assistance Of Col. Craighill and
Col. Hodges the needed information was not
obtained
Witness said he sometimes detected poor
mortar, and had it sent up to the surface.
Witness was not discharged; he left of his own
accord. The work was too hard for him. Col.
Kirlin discovered bad work, and told witness
Of it, and witness then said he would "quit."
He had told Representative McComas (who
was his inauence) some few days previous that
he would leave.
THE PACKERS WERE LAZY
and were generally unsatisfactory, and as there
seemed to be no promise Of better men being
employed he concluded he would get out A
younger and more active inspector might have
been able TO get along better, but witness said
he could not move around rapidly enough to
watch men working on four centers ct the same
time.
Lieut. Townsend cross-examined the witness
ct some length, but nothing Of any apparent
Importance was developed Witness said he
had been instructed to discharge any workman
doing bad work, but he had never discharged
any one, although he had discovered bad work.