The Washington times., 1902-07-13
of En-.
gineer Officer to the
Commissioners.
QUESTION WITH CONTRACTOR
Considerable Discussion Between the
Builder and Municipal Authorities
Recommended He Be Required to
Furnish Proper Material.

between lllt tulAI ANNbl anu tli' MUM
cipal authorities over the specifications
OF the inside work on the rear wing
of the male worlihouse building on the
grounds of the Washington Asylum
Recently there was a hearing as to
the kind of ceiling to be used, and the
attorney for the contractor presented his
views at length to the Commissioners
upon the subject.
Mr. c. w Somerville. the computing
architect of the Inspector of Buildings.
and Capt. Chester Harding have sub
mitted reports on the statement of the
attorney. In his report Mr.. Somerville
says:
LAS to the history of detail drawing,
dated April 13. 1901: This drawing was
made by the architect and submitted tc
this department by him complete. with
out prior consultation as to the dis
position of the various sections or
weights of structural material used
therein. 1t was duly examined and ap-
proved having been found structurallF
correct and in accord with the intent of
the drawings and specifications. Later
q blue print copy of this drawing was
handed, by request, and in this office. to
Mr.. John Schneider. of the firm of c. A.
Schneider Sons, of 212 Twelfth Street
northwest, that gentleman representing
himself as Mr.. Speir's duly authorized
agent.
No other detail of this roof was fur
nished this department By the architect.
and no detail of this was made by this
department to supplement the roof detail
above mentioned and dated April 13,
1901.
Question of Bars.
Second. As TO the question of Z bars
1t is stated that after thus dispensing
with the channel beams it then, Of
course, became necessary that the
trusses be braced and tied together. and
z bars for 'bracing and tying the roof
pose In answer to this l have to state
most emphatically that the roof trusses
hips and rafters are so designed and
rigidly framed together that there Is not
the slightest need of either channels or
z bars for bracing and tying the roof
together. They could have been entire
ly dispensed with, were it not that they
were there for the specific object of
fastening ceiling to. 1t is perfectly
practicable TO iasten securely and eco
nomically a corrugated iron ceiling with
the length of plate and corrugations at
righ: angles, or transversely to the line
of z bars. ceiling joists, with clips on
the lower fiange of Z bar, without drill
ing or punching the same. These clips
being fastened in all instances with
block tin riyets to the crown corruga-
tions of corrugated metal plates. It
h.,- 10 10 Il.
these plates into position on the under
side of the 2 bars. the clip hooking ever
the upper side of the lower flange of
same.
Practicable to Do Work.
After a careful examination OF the
drawings before mentioned l find it per
fectly practicable to do all this work
with the use of swinging scaffolds, thus
afording all the foothold necessary for
the erection Of the work and the sup |
port OF men and material. The ceiling
could thus be put up rapidly. expedite
ously, satisfactorily and without danger |
The z bars being placed five feet on
centers would give an opportunity for |
the use Of ten-foot corrugated plates. |
the plates being thus fastened at their |
end, and in the centers, thus affording |
ample support for the entire ceiling con- |
structiOn."
Captain Harding. in his review of the
statements presented at the hearing. |
says:
Part l of the brief of the attorney is
concerned mainly in proving that the f.
ceiling is not described in the text Of
the specifications. and in reiterating his
former gnnfqnfinn that fbarafpra ba /
ceiling is not included in the contract
In my report on the previous hearings
stated that the paragraph Of the origi-
nal specifications describing the CORFU
gated iron ceiling was enormously and
accidentally omitted in compiling the
new specifications from the old and in
various reports l have called attention
to the fact that the specifications are
silent as to the ceiling. The arguments
OF the attorney IN proof OF the fact
granted by me at the time of my pre-
yious recommendation have no weight in
my further consideration of the case,
nor do see any new facts brought out
ct the second hearing which lead me
10 change my recommendation that the
ceiling be required OF the contractor.
The attorney argues, in effect. that any
thing shown on the drawing may be ig-
norcd by the contractor unless II is also
required by the text Of the speciaca-
tions, and | hold that under section
of the specifications the drawings and
specifications are supplementary and to-
gether described the work to be done
under the contract. The drawings that
were in the hands Of the contractor at
the time of his bid clearly Indicated
the ceiling, and / base my recommcnda-
ton on those drawings and not on the
supplementary drawing received by the
contractor after the contract was signed
fail 10 see anything forced or uu-
in the construction placed
on Article " of the specifications. or
any conflict between that article and
Articles III end Y.
Essential TO Stability.
I'm part OF the attorneys argument
le makes the assertion that Z-bars re-
erred TO in my previous report are es-
,ential to the stability Of the ROOF. and 1
hat the ceiling cannot be secured to
hem without The reintroduction of the
,hannel irons as shown on the original
Ira wing. In reply. / would refer to the
accompanying reports OF Mr.. somerville
md of Mr.. Ashford and TO the drawing I
IN which the Z-bars were introduced i
where they are referred to as ceiling /
)urlins' | would also again give il as [