Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-21
AN EXPERT OPINION.
What an Architectural Journal Says About
the Disaster.

What an Architectul al journal Says About
the Disaster.
An interesting account Of the Ford's Theater
disaster, illustrated by drawings and photo
graphs, appears in the last issue Of the Aneri-
can Architect and Building Ne,rs. The article
is from the pen Of Mr.. Glenn Brown, the we'll
known architect Of this city. Mr.. Brown says
This accident has brought to light customs Of
the War Department, which, IL practiced by an
individual or q corporation, would not only be
considered criminal, but would render them
liable to prosecution and conviction for man
slaughter 1t seems that in work Of this char
ac.er, where the lives Of many people are at
stake. it does not employ proper expert super
vision, and further. that it does not even get
expert advice as to the proper methods Of con-
Quoting such an important undertaking as un-
derpinning a series OF piers on which
rested columns supporting two stories
Of brick and iron floors. 1890
square feet loaded with men. desks and papers,
The methods adopted in carrying this work
show an entire lack Of comprehension Of the
matter in hand. Each pier had. at low esti-
mate, 81. 900 pounds resting on il when the
earth was taken from beneath. leaving q bond
Of about three feet Of brickwork to support this
great weight above. Curiously, this method
was successful until they came to the last col
umn. This pier had wall bonding into it only
on one side. hence they were depending on the
strength Of a brick corbel with only the coun-
terbalancing weight OF three feet in height to
support 81 900 pounds.
THE INEVITABLE HAPPENED.
They 1--WE might say aculously) accom-
pished this feat at the back PIERS but at the last
pier what might have been considered inevita-
BILE happened. The brick corbelling and the
little support which was obtained from the
earth. mixture Of sandy clay, gave way and
ported collapsed 1t does not seem to have oc-
Cured to the contractor or any
Of his supervisors to have shored
up the story above. The ease and
slight cost Of such snoring the cross beams by
temporary support one would think would
have commended itself to the moat ob.use rs
well as the most penurious person, whether 1t
was a department chief or a contractor. 1t
appears from the assertions Of those who made
estimates the job that no specifications.
drawings or directions were given for the work
The contractor making the above statement
declined to bid, and hence, presumably, the
crude specification and drawings (Which have
seen since writing the letter. which are stated
to have been prepared, mot by a regular archi-
tect or builder" but by "steam engineer"
l. e.. the man who attended to the boiler for the
heating apparatus. The estimates and contract
were made on such an Indifferent basis as this.
NO SPECIFICATIONS NEEDED.
no specifications were needed, all they wanted
was that the dirt should be dug from beneath
the walls and the space bricked up. That was
the quality Of expert direction as to how
the work should be DONE The supervis-
lon consisted in Col Ainsworth (,nedical col
onel). chief Of division the man who attends
the boiler dubbed engineer and the con-
tractor for the brick work examining the work
daily and asserting that everything was all
DIR nd rbr
let out the contract, assert that this is a COM
mon way Of letting ont contracts for the War
Department, and the supply division quar-
termaste-'s department. which has charge, of
course. know little il anything. about how the
work should be done, hence they depend on the
contractors.
This is a sorry confession from the depart
ment which Inns the whole engineer corps of
the United States army at its command. To
what better use could the engineers be put in
times of peace than computing the weights and
size Of shores to resist them. and specifying
the necessary precaution, that should be taken
in such cases as this? 1t seems as though such
trifiing affairs are not worthy tire attention of
even "a lieutenant in the engineer corps.
1t il a serious question to decide which party
Ia the most to blame. the contractor. Dant, who
should at least have known q little about re-
lieving the piers from the weight above before
UNDERMINING them, or the army officer, Dr.
Ainsworth. who should have obtained expert
DUE ENTIRELY TO THE UNDERPISNINa.
The walls seem to be strong. The Aoor
beams are lighter than would be used in ordi-
nary practice, being nine inches for a span of
Lit tie over twenty feet. Beams about four
feet four inches on centers. This would be
81 fe. but would give more detection than
would be considered agreeable. The collapse
evidently did not occur from che condition Of the
building, asmany suppose. The daily papers
and the clerks make quite point of the door
(which was temporarily supported by the
sleepers and roped off while the excavation was
going on) shaking when walked upon. but Of
course this had no bearing upon the accident.
1t was simply carelessness in preparation for
doing and supervising the excavating and
underpinning Of the new work that the i'm
mediate carse of the failure.
The accident also brings forward promi-
nently the notoriously unhealthful and reported
unsafe condition Of the government printing
Office as well as other make shift buildings
which the government occupies in this city,
and again calls attention to the fact that
many such buildings are overloaded.
and an entire lack OF knowledge as to
what the floors we're intended to carry. All
such buildings should have their capacity COM
puted and posted every door. as the docu-
ments ard other matter which tho government
stores away. increasing daily. are a menace to
| the stability OF the buildings and the life of
| their occupants.