E.—2

13

243. Yv'ould that have the effect of increasing the tension upon the flange ?—Tt would have a very great effect. 244. But you could not make any accurate calculation of it ? —No ; so far as it operated, it would tend to increase the tension. 245. It would do that?— Yes. 246. Dr. Knight.'] In fact, the rod would act as a lever?— Yes; tending to burst the castings. 247. Mr. FitzGerald.] I conclude those holes were accurately shown in the drawings?— Yes. 248. I suppose where the moulder went out was in putting in the cores ?—Yes. 249. Mr. O'Connor has handed in a description of the accident, and accompanied it with a facsimile drawing of the face of the flange. Have you seen that drawing ?—Yes. 250. Do you observe that the drawing is in accordance with the drawing in the plans with respect to the arrangement of the holes ?—lt is slightly out. 251. Do you observe that upon the two ends of the anchors, two of the holes come much more nearly opposite one another in the casting than they do in the original drawing ?—Yes. 252. Is it not the case that the fracture in both eases has taken place where the holes came opposite to one another ? —Yes. 253. "What did you estimate to be the breadth of the flange in applying the formula for determining the strength of the anchors?— Eight inches. 254. How much of the iron did you take inside the line of the holes ?—Four and a half inches. 255. On both sides?— Between the two rows of holes. 256. You take 1$ inch inside the holes ? —ln taking the strain out, I took 8 inches as the width. 257. That would be taking the holes as 2 inches wide ? —Yes, it would be that. It is taking the whole width of the casting, and deducting the holes. 258. What means did you adopt to judge that a beam of that breadth which you allowed would be equivalent to a beam of the whole width perforated ? —I took the ordinary formulae in use. There is no reason to believe that the holes would have any influence beyond their own area, as there was a broad web between them. 259. You think that the beam, as cast, ought to have been as strong as a beam 8 inches wide, without holes ? —Yes, quite. 260. Dr Knight.] The actual width of the beam was a foot ?—Yes. 261. And you have taken only 8 inches of it as effective?— Yes. 262. In consequence of the holes?— Yes. 263. Mr. FitzGerald.'] The fact that the beam did break at the place where the two holes were opposite to each other would seem to indicate that the iron between and outside the holes must have been of material assistance to the beam. It broke, in fact, at the weakest place, as regards the holes ? —Yes; undoubtedly it was the weakest place through the holes. There is no question that the iron outside the holes is effective. 264. Have you made any calculations of the actual strength since the fracture of the theoretical strength of the girder at the point of fracture ? —Yes ; it is greater compared to the weight than at the centre. 265. You have satisfied yourself of that ?—Yes; I have satisfied myself of that. The weakest point is not the point that was broken, relatively to the weight. It is stronger at the point of fracture than it is at the centre. 266. Not stronger, but stronger in proportion to the weight ?—Yes; that is what I mean. 267. Dr. Knight.] Then, do you not consider that was the weakest place where the fracture actually did take place ? —lt was actually the weakest place, but where a girder is on the point of breaking, it very seldom yields at what is theoretically the weakest point. 268. But in this case both the anchor-plates broke in the same place, where the holes were opposite each other? —I dare say that had some slight influence ; enough just to define the point at which it would break. 269. Mr. FitzGerald.] You observe that they both broke in the circumference of a circle, of which the centre is the opposite bearing ?—Yes ; but I do not think that has much influence. 270. It is very curious how true they are in both cases, is it not ? —Yes, it is. 271. Have you thought of assigning any reason why they both broke in the corresponding places as nearly as possible at the opposite sides ?—No; except that the holes are just opposite each other. 272. Dr. Knight.] Are they opposite each other in the original drawings? —No. 273. Mr. FitzGerald.] Do you suppose that it was the moulding which was wrong then? —Yes, of course it must have been ; but in making the casting, so far as the holes were concerned, the moulder would not be altogether guided by the pattern, because the cores for the holes would be put in separately after tbe pattern was taken out of the mould. 274. Dr. Knight.] I observe that the holes are not opposite each other in the drawing ?—Yes; it was so planned designedly, with the intention of increasing the strength. 275. That object is lost in the casting ?—Yes ; it is not a very important matter. 276. Mr. FitzGerald.] Not until it came to the very last; then it became of importance. 277. Now, with regard to these chains, there were thirteen of them, each upon a separate screw bolt ? —Yes. 278. To what extent could you secure that they would bring an equal strain upon all the ropes ? —As long as the deflection of the ropes is the same, the tension would be the same. They could not bring an uneven strain upon the casting. 279. Would that be the case where the ropes were made of different material ?—Not unless of different weights ; but if the specific gravity was the same, the strain would be equal. 280. The ropes, I understand, were clipped together every 10 feet ?—Yes. 281. After the ropes were clipped together, and if some of the ropes had given out any, might not an unequal strain be brought upon the screws without its being indicated by the rope ? —No ; it would be indicated, because the wires would slip through the clips. The clips are not bo tight as to prevent that.