Evening star., 1896-10-06

marked that the force of The wind. he
thought, had no special bearing ID lne
case, as the formation of the vacuum de-
scribed was responsible for the faH Of the
wall, as II permitted an expansive force
of the air within much greater than the
power OF any wind This pressure could
reach 1000 pounds to the square foot
3 When asked to explain why the east wall
did not collapse. Mr. Brown said II vas
probably due to the fact that no vacuum
was formed alongside the east wall, as was
the case on the west The difference be-
tween the anchors used on the building
and "star" anchors, said MIR. brown, was
in effect that the anchors used were .isi naiI d
dozen times stronger than the star
anchor.
Brick and Wood Work.
Mr.. David T. Cissel the contractor for
the brick work of the building, explained
that he has had an experience OF forty
years. In his opinion the building was
constructed properly and in accordance
with the building regulations and the an
chors were set firmly The plans We're fol
lowed closely, said Mr.. Cissei. anl lime
and mortar cement was used. witness
ouarreIed with his workmen continually in
order to make them put in a full supply OF
cement If anything, the mortar was 100
rich. The witness characterized the wall rs
A No. in every respect.
. George w. Corbett, builder and the con-
tractor for the wood work of the Albert
building. testified that the brick work was
orally. the witness stated that IL Was puilt
as substantially as any structure in the
city. Witness thought that all the window
frames and cotton batting were In place
when work ceased Tuesday afternoon last
Wednesday morning it was found that the
frames had been blown out and the cotton
batting torn TO shretis. Witness before the
storm had noticed no defect whatever IN
the building. The storm, he said, was the
worst he had ever experienced.
Mr. Charles Schneider, the contractor for
the iron work of the Albert building. tesn-
fed that he furnished the beams :or the
building and explained the manner in which
they were placed in position. The beams,
he said. were secured to the brick WORK Dy
anchors. Such a course was the Usual
mode followed in such construction. MI
Schneider considered the building con-
structed exceIlentiy and sufficiently strong
to withstand the force of all ordinary
storms.
MIR. Beatty Testifies.
Mr. Charles l.. Beatty, the occupant of
premises 1913 Pennsylvania avenue, next
took the stand. He stated that he had oc-
cupied the building for about two years,
and had carried on a wine and liquor busi-
ness there. During the storm Tuesday
evening last he was in his room. He
Slounted step-ladder to secure transom
when the crash occurred
One life was lost in his building, said Mr..
Beatty. that of James F. Fitzgerald.
never entered the building prior to the ac-
cident, and he was not expert in mat
ters pertaining to building.
Have you any complaint to make re-
garding the cons trjlcIion of the Albert
DuIding?" asked Mr.. Thomas
Il have" responded Mr.. Beatty. Il claim
th-t the building was not constructed IN ac-
cordance with the building regulations of
the District of Columbia. Those regula-
tions require that walls snail be anchored
every ten feet. while intervals of twenty
two feet existed on the west wall CT the
Alert building
Mr.. Beatty charged further that no ce-
ment Used in the mortar used in the
wall. and he said lie had proof to substan-
tiate his statement
Are you an expert in mixing mortar?
asked Mr. Thomas
L am not" replied Mr.. Beatty.
Mr.. Beatty produced number Of photo
graphs of the collapsed structures, which
were placed in evidence.
Mr. Brown at this point interjected a
question and Mr.. Beatty replied sharply:
Il am testifying. You have no right to
interfere, Mr. Brown
Attacks the Bri,-75r->=,z
Mr. p. H. Mclaughlin. -. .,oi.ter arC
builder. the next witness. He testi
fed that he Inspected the fallen wall anG
found The same to have been poorly con
structed, and added that it was not prop
erly bonded. A portion of the wall spill
away from the inside wall. From forty
eight courses witness counted thirty-tw,
that were rot bonded. He could see N
archor.
Witness stated that he is an Inspector OF
the new city post office building. He va
sure that a portion of TIE work on tbs
Albert building was poorly done.
Mr.. Cissel, through the coroner put sev
eral Questions to the witless which
tended to show that he possessed hut sligh
personal knowledge of the manner in which
the wall was constructed.
y object 10 these questions interrupted
Mr. Beatty The coroner declined to per
init my attorney to interrogate witnesses
The witness was thereupcn excused.
For and Against.
w III. Ermert of the firm of E,mmert
Hcisley. builders. testified as to the repu
taticn of MIR. Cissel as a bricklayer Ac
cording 10 the witness, the portion of III
wall referred to by Mr.. Mclaughlin did no
affect the strength or weakness of the wall
Nr. Emrnert thought that the wall wa
sufficiently anchored to withstand any or
dirary storm.
Mr.. Frank l.. Hanvey a builder of man
years experience, testified that, in h:
opinion. the Albert building was properl
constructed. and able to withstand eve
an extraordinary storm. Witness saw n
anchors when he examined the ruins YES
terday. but the holes in the beams to re
ceive the anchor fastenings were in evi
deHce.
Gould not the anchors have been re
moved since last tuesday, asked MI
Thomas.
Oh, yes replied Mr.. Hanvey
Mr. James L. STnithmeyer. the well
known architect. was next called Afte
stating his experience and naming som
of the prominent buildings he has planned
Mr.. Smithmeyer stated TO the jury tha
the Albert building was as solilIy sui
stantiaiiy and carefully constructed as an
of which he had knowledge. There was n
question as to the suftcency of the al
cho-aSe and the manner in which the wa
was tied. Witness said he congratulate
Mr. Albert few days before the accideT
on the excellent way in which the buIdin
was put up. Witness said he was not tho,
oughly familiar with the building regul,
tionS.
Mr.. Beatty asked the witness to staf
whether or not the wall had been lie
every ten feet. and Architect Brown voluI
teered the information that the wall W.
tied at intervals of twenty-five feet.
Mr. Beatty then wanted TO know if II
building regulations required that wal
be anchored at intervals of ten feet bI
it was decided to hold the question uni
the inspector of buildings took the stand.
George w Heislsy of the firm of En-
inert * Heisley said that so far as
could see the construction of the Abe
building violated the bIIiI1ipS repl,Ia-Inr