The evening times., 1896-10-06
EISEMAN Bros,
Corner 9Th and E SITS. N. w.
No Branch Store in Washington.

thermere, the mortar used had no cement
in twas just lime and sand.
Mr. Beatty said lie had photographs of the
building showing tie conditions he asserted.
These were produced. AS lie was pointing
out the alleged defects Mr.. Brown, the
architect, made some 5reruark.
Il am testifying here" said NJ. Beatty,
land you Will please not interrupt
Mr.. p. II. Mclaughlin, thirty wears u
| carpenter and tuilder here, said he Con
| sdered the walls lady constructed. He
| examined the building Saturday after the
| storm. The walls were not properly bonded.
| This made the brickworIi poor job. Be
low the fourth story he counted fortys six
courses of brick. About twelve c CURSES up
there was tie. but for tie remaining
| thirty-two courses there was 10 tie le-
tween the wo parts Of this eiGhteen-inch
wall; nothing at all in sight.
Mr.. Mclaughlin said he was an in
| spector at the new pos,office building
He was sure the work on the Albert build
ing was badly done. lie did not know
| that part of the wall was there for 0fna-
ment.
Mr.. Cissel asked, through the coToncr, a
question regarding the wall, but Mr.. Beatty
! objected Oh the ground that his attorney
had been refused the same privilege.
W. II. Emmert, OF EumerG x Heis!ey.
fine brickla yer; he does not know a better
He had employed him. he did not see1lat
| the piece OF wall Mr Mclaughlin was
| asked about had anything to do with the
| strength OF the building.
| He said the anchors as shown by the
| specifications were sufficient to make the
| building safe in any ordinary storm.
| He had seen storms here when the wind
was as violent. but it only lasted ten OF
l ntas
| hours. lie never saw such destruction.
| Frank l.. Hanvcy said he had examined
the building. He was a builder here Of
much experience. He found tie construc-
tiun all right; the brickwork was very
firm. lie considered Mr. Cisscl one of the
best hrickiayers in the city. He said the
wall criticized by Mr.. Mclaughlin had
| nothing to Go with the strength of the
structure. He Inspected the building yes
terday evening. He found no anchors, but
there were hides i'll the beams If they
had feen there.
Might the anchors have been taken
away" asked Mr.. Thomas.
| Yes; the holes were left there"
I'VE usually leave the holes" rejoined
| Mr.. Thomas.
EXCELLENCE OF THEw WORK.
John l.. Smithmeyer, a architect of George
town College and other important build
| ings, testified that he had observed the
| work on the Albert building as he passed
| two or three times a day. He congratulated
| Mr.. Albert on the excellence Of the work
| The foundation was unusually well done
He said the wall criticized by Mr.. Nc
Laughlin had nothing to do with the
| strength of the Albert building
Mr.. Thomas asked whether the build
ing was destroyed by reason of the violence
| of the storm or defective construction.
| Mr.. Smithnieyer said he would have to
10. Ue "a a.
pend upon whether there were openings
by which the wind could get in aud could
not get out without breaking down the wall.
He considered the whole work very eN-
cellen:.
| Mr. beatty suggested that Mr.. Snrithmeyer
be ask d il he kne W the building regulations
| Il am not So familiar with them WAS
| the answer. good -natuTedly, las | should II
we had had more business the Sc past TWO or
three years
The work, he said, was In accordance
with the regulations 30 far as he knew.
Mr.. Brown, upon a question as to the
distance bet tween anchors according TO
the plans, said there were TO be anchors
every twenty-five feet. A question as to
| whether the regulations required anchors
| every ten feet was reserved for Inspector
Brady to answer.
Mr. George W Hcisley said the work W as
very good. The only failure to follow the
building regulations was that anchors were
placed every twenty-five feet apart in
| stead OF every ten feet
Does that refer to wooden anchors or
does il mean iron anchors" asked Mr..
| Thomas.
"The regulations do not specify which
kind
..Do you know any building where
anchors are put in every te e feet where iron
anchors are used?"
Yes: we put them in SO in the Loring
building
We're these all iron, or wooden anchors
| between the iron?''
| They were wooden"
In answer TO other questions he said the
regulation as to anchors every ten feet had
never been enforced where iron was used.
His firm put them in because they had got
into the habit of it. They considered these
anchors necessary. The anchors certainly
added to the strength of the building. He
could not say the building would not have
fallen if it had been SO anchored.
FOUND NO ANCHORS.
Mr.. John II. Hewlett, an experienced
builder, said he looked at the Albert wall
after the storm and was astonished to
find no anchors.
1 He was accustomed to anchor his build
ings both ways. He had not been in the
building; did not think he would be allowed
| to go in. He examined the work with an
opera glass from an adjoining building
| and found no anchors or ties.
When shown the plans he said the an
| chorage was not sufficient. He would call
| it moderately fair.
Asked by Mr.. Thomas as to bias in the
matter. he said he had not known who were
owner. architect or contractors. He saw
| the work, and noticed the lack of anchors
He heard a man had been killed and he
got TO thinking this sort of thing ought to
| be stopped. He had nothing against Build
| ing Inspector Brady.
He had been friendly to Mr. Brady and
had been sorry that Mr.. Brady had got out
| with him about this thing. If he had know n
all this trouble was coming of it he W ould
not have said anything about it.
Mr.. Thomas questioned Mr. Hewlett as TO
his writing to the Commissioners and for
the papers regarding this matter. He said
he had written and submitted to inter
views. He had written that if he were
building inspector several buildings would
he condemned He was asked to snpcify and