Evening star., 1922-02-05

papers, F00ruary 4. and attributed
to a decorator whose identity is
cutting attorney, that three cracks
existed in the roof Of the Knicker-
booker Theater of sufficient width to
permit three fingers to be placed in
them. 1t is alleged that the deco
rator in question was called in to flll
said cracks and paint them over three
weeks ago. This statement is un-
qualifiedly and absolutely false.
Ceiling and Roof Separate.
on the Knickerbocker roof at the
time alleged and certainly we would
not have the roof decorated. If the
decorator to whom the statement Is
attributed refers to the ceiling of the
theater, that was a separate structure
from the roof and removed from 1t
BY a distance of approximately ten
feet. No work had been done on the
ceiling Of the Knickerbocker since
last June. when the house was closed
Tor full week to permit the erec-
tion of scaffolding which is the only
means by which the ceiling Of the
theater could be reached for repaint-
ing. This was done as a part Of the
complete redecoration Of the house.
No cracks were found to exist in
either the walls or the ceiling of the
house ard the roof was not at any time
invoIved in this process of redecora-
ton: II such cracks as are described
by the decorator had existed in the
roof OF the Knickerbocker the leak
age during transforms would have
oeen such as to drown out an audi
ence sitting below and would have
come at once to our attention.
Tnero were no cracks and there
was not called in any decorator sub
sequent to the complete redecoration
or the kniokerbocker last June"
robert Etris, the manager. con-
nrmed MI Crandalrs statement, and
or suspicion OF any danger Of the
building falling pointed out that he
ana his family lived under that same
roof. He said:
Etris Aso Denies Cracks.
my attention is called to published
reports that a decorator was called
20 the knickerbocker Theater to flI
ano PANT over three cracks alleged
booker roof three weeks ago. This
statement, which is attributed to a
decorator whose identity is known
only 70 the prosecuting attorney. is
.siDsoiuteiy sioa false and without founda-
Had three cracks of spa7c,.r+
wiath to permit three fingers to he
paced IN them existed in the roof The
| leakage would have been anna rent ut
once curing rainstorms. If the deco
hs ta.or IN question refers to the ceiling
facts. There have been no cracks 'i1 in
elener the walls or the ceiling of tha
hn1ckerbocker, nor has any Worl, Of
any Kind been done on either since
me sne complete redecoration of the
ceiling could be reached was ~ the the
erection of an interior scaffoidine,
which necessitated the closing of the
tneater to the public. There was no
crack and no decorator was sum-
Had such cracks existed as alleged
ana mad felt no concern for the pub,
!ic welfare, still should have taken
immediate steps from purely selfish
motives: since the living apartment
was located in the KnickerbocSas ,as
Theater building proper"
Three Inspections Made.
Mr.. Crandall explained at length the
exacting routine through which a
tneater owner or manager in Washe
lngton must go to get a license to
to dodge any responsibility himself,
he pointed out that before he could
open his doors the building had to be
approved separately by an electrical
inspector, Dy the lire marshal and by
the building inspector-all of whom,
he said. were very strict. Then the
license is issued only for one year and
subject to having the theater shut up
at any time that any defect to war
| rant such action is discovered 1t was
only day or two before the roof fell
that the authorities in the District
building had notified Mr.. CrandalL he
said, that the knickerbocker Theater
had been o. KID for a renewal of the
license. The license was issued under
date of January "a.
Mr.. Crandall laid stress on this
point-that the theater owner has
q absolutely nothing to say regarding
the strength of walls or kind of roof
that snail go on his building. He
hires an architect, who must make
his plans conform to the building
regulations. When completed the
building must be examined and ap-
proved by the building inspectors
office, while the architect guarantees
to the treater owner that the con-
tractor has completed his work ac-
cording to specifications. So that, ac-
cording to Mr.. Cranda1l's argument,
the owners assurance regarding
proper construction of the building
comes from the architect and from
the building inspector and other Dis
trict officials. Mr. Crandal insisted
that he must not be understood as
trying to place any blame on any
CpEHTAf N0T1rFC