36 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN ARCHITECT ENGINEERS 



Mr. Kendall. And the original agreement of division of the work 

 was that you were to have everything above the floor of the sea; is 

 that right ? 



Mr. Anderson. That is correct. 



Mr. Kendall. This was a matter of agreement between you and 

 Moran, Proctor? 



Mr. Anderson. That is right. 



Mr. Kendall. Now, when was that changed, and by whom ? 



CHANGE IN DIVISION OF WORK 



Mr. Anderson. That was changed at a meeting held in the offices 

 of Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge on July 22, at which it was 

 stated by then Commander Albers that for the purpose of further 

 expediting the work, caisson legs and main truss system would be as- 

 signed to Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge. 



Mr. Kendall. Excuse me. Do I understand that Captain Albers 

 intervened and dictated a change in your contractual relationships 

 with Moran, Proctor ? 



Mr. HoLBRooK. Mr. Counsel, does this call for his direct knowledge? 



Mr. Kendall. If he has any knowledge ; yes. 



Mr. Anderson. Sir, I cannot give the reason for that. 



Mr. Kendall. Well, is it a customary thing for a naval officer to 

 intervene in your private contractual relationships and tell you how 

 you must change it? 



Mr. Anderson. Well, it is a bit unusual, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. Do you have any idea of why that came about, or why 

 it was done ? 



Mr. Anderson. Personally, I do not have, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. Do you have any opinion or judgment ? 



Mr. Anderson. I do not, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. But in any event, thereafter, and as the tower was 

 actually constructed, your responsibility was only for the platform 

 layout, the housekeeping portions of it ? 



Mr. Anderson. That is right. 



Mr. Kendall. And you had nothing to do with the design of the 

 legs and the supporting structure, is that correct? 



Mr. Anderson. That is correct. 



Mr. Kendall. If you had participated in the design of the legs 

 and supporting structure, would you have made any changes in the 

 specifications ? 



Mr. HoLBROOK. Is Mr. Counsel calling for a professional opinion 

 as to scope that Mr. Anderson did not have ? 



Mr. Kendall. I am asking what he would have done if he had been 

 in that position. 



Mr. Anderson. Well, sir, in answer to that, I would say it would be 

 very difficult for me to say to what degree we would have done things 

 differently. 



inadequacy of design 



Mr. Kendall. Well, do you have any opinion as to the adequacy or 

 sufficiency of the structure as designed ? 



