St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-12
FIXING The BLAME.
Coroner's Jury Disagree on
Their Verdict in the
Wall Disaster.
Over Half Exeulpate the Own
er and Contractor From
All Blame.
Others Say the Men Should
Not Have Been Allowed
to Work.
Organized Labor Roast the
Building Inspector in
Royal Style.

/ ne coroner inquiry TO locate the re-
| sponsibility of the death of the nine
men killed in the falling of the wall of
! the Shepherd building Dec. 4 was re-
sumed in the municipal court room in
the city hall at o'clock yesterday. The
first witness called was T. J. -Steiger,
who stood within a few feet of where
the wall fell, and who afterwards as
sisted in removing the bodies from the
ruins. He heard no cry of warning, and
saw no way they could have escaped.
John Lauer. foreman of the gang of
men, was next called. There were sew
enty or eighty men working in
the crew. He was standing in
the alley in the rear of the building,
when he looked up and saw snow and
dust whirling from the top of the build
ing. In half minute he saw the wall
topping over and yelled to the men to
get out, but it was too late. He had no.
ticed no cracks or flaws in the wall and
no one had suggested to him that they
were in a dangerous condition. He had
examined the foundation and it was I'M
impaired. The walls were five stories
high and no attempt had been made to
brace them. he thought the heat of
the great fire and the water that was
poured OH the walls, with the changes
of temperature, had weakened the wall.
When the wall toppled eastward,
the weight pushed a part of the wall
which fell west into the other building.
He thought the high wind was the i'm
mediate cause of the wall falling He
had Identified six OF the men at the
morgue. Under like circumstances in
the future he would not allow men to
work
Ia Such Place.
Officer John Voigtler and J. E. Vie
pom, who saw the accident. were called.
but testified to nothing material.
David johnson was working in the
GrIggs-Cooper building at the time of
the accident. lie heard the wall lum-
bling, but no cry of warning. He coli
SideIed the wall safe and was not afraid
TO work there.
Gates Johnson, building inspector,
was called, and stated the nature of his
official duties. Had examined the walls,
and considered them in fairly good
state OF preservation. No one had
asked him to prevent men from work
ing in the building, and he had no
power TO do so. He had power to con-
denim the walls of a burned building,
but had not done SO in this case because
he didn't think it necessary. The i'm
mediate cause of the fall was the wind.
lie had never heard BasSiord say the
building was unsafe, bat if he had had
the contract of removing the debris he
would not have allowed men to work
while high wind was blowing. No
braces could have been put in with
out first removing debris, and
that was what they were doing.
10 hnI a,.i%i IL
after the fire, and found the brick and
mortar in good condition and the wall
standing plumb.
Daniel Barnard, from the trades and
labor assembly committee. had exam
ined the wall on both sides, and any
man who would say it was safe must be
insane.
An adjournment was taken to the
building.
Joseph Burrls, a contractor, was after
wards called. He thought the action of
the fire and water contributed TO weak
ell the wall, but the immediate cause of
the fall was the high wind. The wall
would have been safe under ordinary
circumstances, but the wind was too
much for it. ANY wall would have been
unsafe in such wind. He would not
have permitted men TO work there
In Such a Wind;
Martin How, engineer of the Griggs-
Cooper building, was talking to the
foreman when the wall fell, killing the
latter. He tried to phil the foreman out
of the way when he saw the wall COM
ing, but could not. He knew all the
men who were killed. The men had no
warning when the wall fell. There was
no time to warn them.
Isaac Bowers was employed on the
building when it was erected. 1t was
built of good brick and good mortar.
Some of the brick bought for the wall
were condemned as too soft, but those
used were good. Great care was used
in soaking the brick so that the mortar
and brick would season together. He
was superintendent of construction, and
knew that the wall was well built. He
was sure the wind and nothing else was
the cause of collapse of the wall. No
wall would be safe in such a wind.
Samuel Il. White, of Bloomington,
ILL.,, contractor and manufacturer of
building material, who had been called
here to examine the walls, to estimate
the amount of damage TO them by the
fire and consider the necessity for tear
ing them down, had examined the walls
very carefully with the eye of an eX-
pert and found them standing plumb,
with no cracks or flaws visible. Water
could not have caused the fail, because
no streams played on that part of the
wall, and the cOmmOn-SenSe verdict
must be that the wind caused the col
lapse. The adhesion of brick and NOR
tar was perfect, as could still be seen
by examining the debris.
Timothy ReardOn and James Burke,
builders, were called, and agreed that
the wind was the immediate cause of
the fall. The latter thought the weak
point in the wall was where the jOiStS
entered.
The case was then given to- the jury,
| who, after considering the evidence,
rendered two verdicts, three jurymen
signing each.
The Verdicts.
The first verdict read as follows:
Under the testimony we believe, first that
| the death was caused by the falling of the
| wall.
Second, That neither the owner CT the
building or the contractors in charge of the
men at work on the same were to blame
CHARLES ls. j. MCCARTHY,
S. B. WooLwoRTH.
The second verdict, signed by T. F.
| Martin. Charles PaSSarant and Charles
! (. Pusch, reads:
Deceased came to their death on account
OF the falling of the partition wall between
the building Of Griggs, Cooper d Co. and
! FarveL, Oman, Kirk & Co., the two upper
! stories of said building being unsafe and
! that the immediate cause of The falling of
| said wall was the wind, and that the men
| who were killed should not have been al
lowed TO work in said buildings.