The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-01-08

T, = So SuiIeu Tor It's purpose
a a'iHcais from an examination az The
'a.ol aAs after II Is put into the van 70
am whether the exacf anassr. ~
esaasnt REQUIRED has been used. ana yo,,-
coniihaltee recommend that the s,...a-.
sntenosnf be Instructed 10 he verx Co..
~. % see BY measurement and s,,en
osner means as may be AT his .ss~v~s.a,
that TIE amount OF csrnent cal,a,s e.
% tne specifications is being used frar,
day to day. A1oss'
sar- Carkeek In his report r%earu q,
ia1tsIs not embraced In the written
-. FIRST az to the projection a.
A "aai over the footings In one place
ua second. as 90 the wall in one piae~
neing signify out OF line. We eoncrr
IN ms report and adopt IL "a our cur,
aaning. however. that we find ou~ ar<.hi.
tect and superintendent kneyy na.bsny :.
this projection OF the wall. ana W. 80,
~ eViaence showing that the contractors
" the same. We found that said
pioSection resulted from mistake OF a
aoflner foreman Of the contractors. and
tns ceiectswas 50 covered up at the time
OF the commencement OF our fnyestiSa-
tioh tnat II WAS net visible until the
earth had been dug a~ay. We will
further add. regarding the piece of wall
Out OF line. that the wall In question 1.
one OF the interior basement walls ami
that the portion gu. Of line OCCURS IN
the pressed brick lining OF one OF the
basement corridors, ana that the Same
Is so slight as to be OF no practical con-
sequence, either In point Of appearance
Or strength.
To SUM the whole matter I'm. tha onyv
defect we found that Ia in any degree
serious IL the matter of the s-e;ection Of
the wall mentioned above, and we ree-
onimend that this be rsmetiied BIZ placing
q proper footing under the projection
We believe that the work on the building
- being well done by the contractors
and that they are furnishing excellent
materials.
All OF which is respectfully submitted.
GEORGE III. PRESTON,
''WM. d. WOOD,
FRANK ALLYN.
Committee"
Mr.. Carkeek's Eepari.
accompanying this report was the
Following communication from Mr.. Car
keek TO the committee. which explains
Itself and completely refutes Murray's
charges:
At your request. went TO the Uni
versity building now In course of erec-
ton and --lade an investigation OF the
work as constructed and the material
now being used In the construction OF
said building, and also examined the
work and material with view OF in
vestigatlng certain charges made against
the contractors by Mr. Il. w. Murray.
In reference TO the first charge.
would say: The foundations ard foot
tngs have been dug to the proper depth
On examination Of the same, find that
the contractor in making excavation for
the building excavatel one foot too deep.
and therefore did not dig the trenches for
footing so deep below the other excava-
ton by one Cd foot. so as to retain the
proper depth for the footings In refer
erce TO the same. would say this would
not In any way impair the building with
the footings provided for in the speciflca-
tons, or reduce the cost to the contrac~
tors In any way. In fact, IL added 10
the cost of excayating for the building,
by reason OF going one foot lower than
was necessary.
In reference to the second charge.
j submit for your Information herewith
sketch OF sections OF the walls as shown
IN the plans. also a section OF one wall
as built, as nearly as can be seen.
could not discover the discrepancies in
the walls that are charged. fou will
sec from the sketch that the stone wall
shown In the plans. Including lining Is
so IL inches in width. Stone wall as
built Is of the same width; but find
from section OF stone wall on plan the
lining OF wall is two Inches, while on the
wall as built the lining Is four inches.
find that section of brick wall as shown
on plans Is twenty-five inches, while the
contractor where he has buift stone wall
face tashiart with brick backing, has
made the wall twenty-elght inches wide
] cannot see that the contractor has re-
duccd the strength or durability OF the
wall or the cost 10 himself In making the
change. but think on the contrary that
the cost was increased. / find that the
brick lining did In some places project
beyond the course below. This should
not have occurred: hut IL canact be said
to have seriously affected the strength
OF the carrying walls. But in one In
stance / find that the wall over the foot
ing has been built projecting out over
the footing about six go or eight f0
Inches for length OF eight or ten feet
This. the architect informed me. had
been done by mistake; and II clearly
appears TO have been so, for the footing
extends out on the other side more than
enough to make up the projection on
the inside referred TO. This should be
taken care of ard II can be dene Ia
the way suggested by fl.e architect.
Il also flnd that In bonding the brick
lining to the stone wall. wire and nails
have been used rs Is noted la the charges.
In regard TO this should say thar I
prefer the anchors thus used 20 having
the brick lining built into the stone vail
AS 10 the charge preferred against the
mortar used i'm the brick work. or that
had been used In the foundation. can
say that examined the mortar now be-
Ing used and could rot see that any
objection could be sustained agalns. IT,
That which had been used In the fouads-
ton. tested In several places and found
II we'll set ard hard.
ssIn reference - the wall being cns Of
line. while this Is trase. II cannot be SAID
that IL Is caused by the wall Gripping
In any way. The brick were laid in the
way they now are and the mistake Is so
trifiing that no GRE bur the closest o.
server could detect or notice IL.
yours respectfully.
MORGAN ]. C,agKEEH. ;,
SIM anotaer Inves,isasloa.
While TIE regea,s Mere satisfied