The Washington herald., 1908-06-12
Continued from Page One.

crash The brickwork. he said. was per-
feet, even to the mortar.
Il have never known of any crack or
accident previous to this accident he
said Il had never heard any laborer
speak Of the unsafety Of the building"
When asked how the accident occurred,
he said he knew nothing about II.
The beams were not anchored in the
walls, he said, before leaving the stand
Mr.. Warren recalled him and drew
from him that no beams on the build.
ing were anchored.
Richard Wheeler a laborer, said he
was grading concrete on the fourth
floor when ii fell Il had finished RAM
ming and when a wheelbarrOw Of liquid
cement came on the concrete. the floor
fell, and ! grasped a scantliug 10 keep
from going down
Il considered Il safe 20 work on the
building. and had never heard men say
il was dangerous" he added.
In answer TO the coroner witness said
he had no warning and couldn't tell
whether the fall was due 70 a bulge in
the wall or the weight OF a beam.
Richard L. Humphrey. consulting en-
gineer, of Philadelphia, said he read Of
the accident and looked over the build
Inc.
Consulting Engineers Opinion.
TO my mind" he said. "the building
was constructed hastily. The law should
prohibit that kind Of construction. The
concrete used was atrocious. They used
ashes, utterly unfit for such cOnstruc-
ton The pier was too thin. and the
whole structure himsy. I think. especial
ly in Washington, the building regulations
should be model
In reply to Coroner hewitt he said the
bearing character Of the walls was too
light to hold the structure.
81 think" he added. If the walls had
been allowed to stand a little longer no
trouble would have ensued.
The dirt in the concrete said he.
would retard the hardening Of the sub
stance. In the erection OF that building
the construction should have been in
spected by the District authorities IL Is
possible the design may have been
passed. but / should have made use Of
steel piers instead OF brick. To my mind
the adoption Of that construction was
taking chances.
Work Rushed Too Much.
Considering the character OF the struc-
ture. the work was rushed too much. ]
think. building Of that kind should
have been more closely inspected. A
casual inspection would. TO my mind.
have prohibited several operating faults.
like the cinders In the concrete
Mr.. Turner asked the witness II he had
noticed whether the beams were bolted.
Il didn't notice" he said. IAN ener-
getic man fired me out
L attribute the accident to the weak
ness of the corner pier. and there should
have been some competent superintendent
there at all times"
Mr.. Warren. representing Barber *
Ross. then cross-examined Mr.. Hum
phrey 10 find II the responsibility rested
on the District building officials or care
less work on the part OF the contractors.
Witness would make no statement in
eliminating any persons, but criticised the
brick work on the building.
''The building Of the pier and two walls
At center is what l consider the cause Of
the accident" he said. In fact the
brick work seems to have been carelessly
put up"
Too Much weight for walls.
What would cause brick work to
buckle?" asked the coroner.
Il should say too much weight on the
inside"
Would II be caused by the floor load?''
That would require calculation"
IF the beams we're rigid, would the
weight be thrust on the walls?'
No
Before leaving the stand, the witness
said the building regulations in all cities
are defective and unsatisfactory 10 a GER
tain extent. Requirements in Philadelphia
are the best so far. Washington has poor
building laws.
L. r. Whitted, a structural engineer in
the office of the supervising architect of
the Treasury, said:
TT struck me that the workmanship
was very poor on the pier, the steel work
was not first class. the beams were not
anchored In many places. II was evil
dent from what ! saw that several things
may have contributed TO the fall.
think unanchored beams. poor brick
work, and DETECTION OF the steel bars
might have caused the crash.
Il wouldn't have risked my reputation
by designing an isolated pier without an
chOred beams. The pier should also have
been constructed with cement mortar
SOmerviIIe Gets Poser.
Mr.. somerville, computer OF the build
ing inspectors Office, was called to an
swer why he did not require speclfca-
tions showing the depth of beams into
the pier. He considered the point OF
vital Importance, but said 1t was over
locked.
when you passed upon this pier. why
didn't you require the beams to be an
chored TO IT." said Mr.. Turner.
Il didn't compute because the building
regulations specified this. and the in
spectors should have seen they were car
ried out"
While cross-evamining the witness the
assistant district attorney was interrupt
ed by Attorney Hoover for asking hypo-
theticaI questions not based on facts
from the testimony of witnesses.
After a severe examination by Mr..
Turner, the witness said he disagreed
with the two preceding witnesses in re-
gard 10 anchOring beams into the pier.
plans for the building were Of decid-
edIy poor work." he said. Architects
for this building submitted drawings in
secOnd-class shape-indehnite in several
ways. 1 made them change several de-
tails in the concrete"
"No Safe Building Here"
In reply to the coroner's question as
TO the safety Of the building, witness
said: IL don't think we have a safe
building Of any type or shape in the city
Of Washington"
Mr.. Turner then handed Somerville a
piece OF the mortar taken from the pier
of the building. and asked him what he
thought of t. II being three weeks old