Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-11-28

The major said he believed the indorse-
ment made after the accident &C.
CURED.
DO you mean to say that could happen
in your Office
Yes
"Whatf Can any one in your ONCE
get mt those reports nnd put on them
anythins they w"nt:"
.'Nell. what good In your ofice:'
The reports indicate no permit. but a
permission. The reports indicated also
to Mai. Curtis that permission had beer
granted and that Isham had been as
signed 10 the work.
He was asked whether there was any
thing In the reports which would cause
llim to report to Nh Ashford. He said
his duties did not cover that.
80. K" Put on Afterward.
Questioned by Mr.. Proctor, from the
district attorneys ONCE. he replied that
put after the accident, Gin his
opinion
The reports in evidence were dated from
November IA to November % one was
marked Special Permission and an
other Permission Special. by Mr. Ash
ford"
c. w. somervilIe. who delayed coming
until the last moment. tried to gain
further delay without success.
Not His Handwriting.
His first answer threw a bomb into
the Jury room. He declared cmphntf-
cslly that "O.k. SOmerville" on the In
spectorS' report was mot in his hand
writing.
After this statement the coroner switch
ed off to the question of his investigation
OF the steel in the old train shed. the
material to be used in the fated building.
He said he figured the trusses and found
them to he within the regulations. gen
orally, but reserved the right to amend
his decision later.
Contradicts Isham Again.
Somerville said Isham had gone to look
after concrete and that Isham had later
told him of his interest in the steel work.
He contradicted Ishams testimony that
he had asked Isham to Q. X. the work.
Although ii had not appeared who APP
pointed Isham as inspector of the steel.
Somerville said lie told Isham the iron
I..t,a, marked.
Il told HIM If he was inspecting the
Iron il must he marked
Il knew 1 had approved the iron. he
continued. but as to permit. l had not
given II a thought. l told lsham il they
were putting UP iron work 1t was all
right. according to arrangements / had
made
that Ishan had found differences between
Scnerville's figuring on the trusses and
his own. He said he did not mainta in
In..I trusscs were perfectly safe. and
said II they had been put up according to
his instructions. given at the Pennsyl-
vania train shed, there would have been
a difference.
Not a Graduated Engineer.
He said he was not a graduated engi-
neer.
Il never asked Isham to forget any
thing that occurred in connection with
this matter. ! did not
Isfam said yesterday that Somervile
had told him they must work together.
Did you make any error in your strain
sheet?'' .
II did not"
This was a contradiction of lSham
sworn statement
Questioned by his own attorney. Mr..
Somervil.e made long statement of his
extended experience as craftsman, arch-
tect, etc, for thirty-fire years
His attorney brought out the state
ment that the inspection of steel or iron
at the Pennsylvania station was, in his
opinion. sa isfactory. He had in evil
6ence a piece of steel which had been
condemned. The witness held it to the
jury as condemned by him, but still
good quality of metal.
Somerville said he made but one inspec-
ton at the site of the building, because
1sham was looking after ii.
NOL Ouc TO oau 4IO1, ne says.
He said the same accident would have
occurred even If new metal had been
used. Without having seen the wreck he
gave the opinion ttet If the trusses had
been vertically placed the columns the
collapse would not have occurred.
Questioned by the coroner Somerviile
said he had been out at the building
once. Also he stated that he believed Sub
contractor Newman competent man ana
assumed the steel was being put up
right
He said he had nothing to do with the
method OF construction. and he was not
supposed to go and see the building as it
went up.
Sonerville said that Isham had called
his attention TO weakness in certain ma
terial, and he had replied that certain
methods OF erection would overbalance
that.
Denies Isham's Testimony
Cross-questioned by Attorney Clagett
representing Contractor Newman, Somer-
willie contradicted nearly everything Isham
said YESTERDAY
He declared Isham had Inspected the
trusses but did not know who gave
Isham authority to INSPECT.
The coroner read from Wednesday s
record the testimony, which stated that
Hill and Donaldson got verbal permits
sion from Ashford In Somervilles pres
ence.
That portion of the testimony is to the
effect that a verbal permit was given
about November Is. and that Somerville
said
SO far as l am concerned. you can put
IL up: and Ashford said, when questioned
about permission. Yes, go ahead
SomerVille said he meant as far as his
official capacity went the iron was all
right If put up right.
Sonnerville said that when the steel or
iron taken down his intention was
TO inspect the girders, etc, in groups of
six.
''rhcn." said u juryman. lyon were
going to inspect the trusses six ut n
time. but you have said you only in
rpected one truss and then you told the
builders, ~ far y6u were concerned
II was all right tn go ahead
Coroner Calls for Order.
Nearly every attorney in the room be-
gan 20 talk at once at this point. The
coroner called for order.
Somerviile then went over the }listory
OF the material. as far as he knew
The jury wanted to know all about the
inspection, il any occurred 1sham's name
was mentioned frequently. but no one
could find out who gave Isham any au-
thority TO inspect the steel.
Son.erville explained the testimony Of
fered by 1sham yesterday that he had
asked Isham to 20. X" certain material