Evening star., 1922-02-14

He asserted that he left the investi-
cation of the steel work to Mr.. Davis.
Mr Davis report has been made.
w nat does that report show2"
asked Maj. Gordon.
1T Is about the same as Col. Kellys
ana Mr.. AHderson's report"
Is 1t the same as both?"
1t is little different from both"
He said he would furnish copies of
these reports and was excused to get
them.
Salaries Of inspectors.
John Richie. chief clerk of the
building department, identified speci-
hcations for the Knickerbocker sub
mitted with the plans, which were
handed to him by Ringold Hart as
sistant corporation counsel.
Frank Hogan. an attorney, asked at
this point that in the public inter-
est the witness be questioned as to
the salaries paid inspectors in 1916.
Then followed a conference of some
minutes between Maj. Gordon, Hart
and Coroner hewitt, after which Mr..
his office and bring back a copy of his
specifications.
Mr.. Ritchie then testified as to sala-
ries at present. The principle inspec-
tor. ]. P. Healey. receives $4,000; the
principal assistant. John w: OH
r. H. Davis, $4,000; another engi-
neer, ]. r. bowman, s1.S00; third
engineer r. H. Lewis. $500.
The one assistant inspector, ]. W.
Downing. $500; inspector of fire es-
capes. J. P: Perry. s1.4oo: W. 1. Evans.
vators. s1.400. The rest of the as
sistant inspectors, 1880 each. All
receive the S240 bonus. At the time
the theater was erected. the salaries
were the same, except those receiving
s1.360, who were then getting $1,000,
without the bonus.
On Per Diem Basis.
Mr.. bowman was on the per diem
basis, he thought, at IS day.
Mr.. Selden was getting $1,000.
He was here excused and Mr.. Healy
returned to the stand with his re-
port, which he read.
1t was a technical explanation of
the wall construction, which, he said
was good masonry, well set
wall he described in detail and re-
ferred to the lack of a bond" be-
tween the Columbia road and stage
walls.
The cracks, he said. could not be
to any the OF ,ead
on the wallis at three and 9one-half
tons per square foot.
The report then took up descrip-
tion of the roof framing. already
testified to many times by the expert
and other witnesses.
Parts OF the steel work have been
submitted to the bureau of standards.
but the witness added that the tests
had not been completed.
The fanheuse. his report said. was
located near the center of the roof"
The ceiling below the roof was OF
nm ,inCh nla and concrete
Lead Placed at 36 Tens.
The total superimposed load, in
cluding the snow on that night, was
estimated to be thirty-six tons, the
witness adding that this does not
take into consideration any bank
ing" of the snow.
He said he was unable to deter
ure." The roof fan should be elm
mated as a factor toward the fail
ure. he declared, but the witness ex-
pressed the belief that the snow was
a factor. The roof slab was un-
doubtedly overstressed, he. said.
terial at the bureau Of standards. he
said.
ExaMination RecommSnded.
Revision Of the building code. he
declared, should take into considera-
I.tion the information brought out by
the investigation. He did recon-
mend that all builders should under
go an examination to determine their
fitness before they were issued any per
mits to build.
He then read the report of R n.
Davis, computing engineer. This re-
port. made to him, said that the
structural plans showed the loca-
tion of trusses and beams with no
dimensions to show length and spac-
ing of trussea and no details of the
truss construction.
Beam II. the report said. was over
stressed, and was but half the
strength required by the regulations.
in length than it should be and nine
inches shorter in height, the report
said.
The upper joints were not properly
strengthened. Other trusses were
from two to three inches less in
Of proper height at one end. Mr..
Davis reported.
Bolts OverstresseA.
Although four holes were provided for
as many rivets or bolts for attaching
truss No II to the column, only two
were used, the report continued.
"Bolts in some instances were over
stressed about 30 per cent" said the
The Clinton wire which was used on
the roof to reinforce the concrete was
substituted for ''leose three -eighths- Inch
rods" the report said. ';as provided in
the original plans" Truss No. IL was
overloaded. the report said, but not
to the point Of failure.
Percentages Of ''underriveting" OF
truss No. II ranged from to 80. On
derriveting II the use of fewer rivets
than required for safety.
The ends Of the columns were not
'tnined" or smoothed Oh, as required
by the building regulations, Mr.. Davis
report went on.
Overlsads were present In truss Is.
and as high as SO per cent r1yets were
lacking in Joining the various members
/ OF this truss.
Likewise truss No. 16 was nearly
so per cent overloaded on it's various
members, and in this case as high as
81 per cent fewer rivets than re-
quired. and ranging between 23 and
81 per cent for the various members,
the report stated.
The trusses were not detailed" in
a accordance with standard practice
and not in conformity with scaled
plans"
The steel framing was overstressed
about II per cent: wall connections
bad, steel insufficient. The steel was
~ per cent lighter than specified. The
4 roof slab did not have sufficient bear
ling in walls, and the whole not COM
ipletely put together.
, "'WhUye business YVES IL TO nnu these
Idfscrepancies?" Coroner hewitt asked.
ssTf waa the business of the In