COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 39 



Mr. Anderson. I think Mr. Miiinich was there. 



Mr. MiNNiCH. I was there. 



Senator Stennis. This was a change of responsibility, was it not? 



Mr. MiNNiCH. Yes, sir. It changed the understanding somewhat. 



Senator Stennis. Well, it changed the understanding. Did you 

 not question the reason at that time ? 



Mr. Anderson. Well 



Senator Stennis. Pardon me ; my question is directed to this gentle- 

 man over here. 



Mr. MiNNicH. No ; I do not believe so. 



Senator Stennis. Wliy did you not ? 



Mr. MiNNicH. I don't laiow. 



Senator Stennis. Vf ell, there was a change in the division of work, 

 and later there was a change in the basic design, as I understand it. 

 Ultimately, there was used a patent which belonged to an employee 

 of the other firm. I cannot understand why it was not questioned 

 more than it was. 



Mr. MiNNiCH. Well, let me attempt to answer it this way : 



This was in the feasibility study. This was not in the design part 

 of it. It seemed reasonable, or fairly reasonable, that it was an 

 expediting matter, that if we arbitrarily made a division of the work 

 at one place, that it would expedite the feasibility report. 



I did not consider at that time it was a commitment for the same 

 division to be carried on into the design. I thought that probably 

 would be reconsidered in due time. 



Senator Stennis. Did you think they would revert to the original 

 proposition and not have the same division of contracts as to design ? 



Mr. MiNNiCH. No. I mean that I did not think the line of demarca- 

 tion at that time was necessarily the same one that was to be later used 

 in the design phase. So for that reason I did not particularly question 

 the assignment of work then, because I believed that it was a matter 

 of expediting the report. 



Senator Stennis. As a matter of fact, was it not more practical, to 

 recognize that this was actually a division of the contract and a 

 division of the work, and that you were out of it from there on, so 

 far as the design of this structure below the water was concerned? 

 Isn't that correct? 



Mr. MiNNiCH. Well, not only below the water, but below the deck. 



Senator Stennis. Yes, below the deck. 



Mr. MiNNiCH. Well, as far as the feasibility report, that certainly 

 was true. 



Senator Stennis. Wasn't it also true as to the design of the struc- 

 ture itself ? Didn't you consider, when you left that conference, that 

 this was a definite division and would be followed in the future ? 



Mr. liliNNiCH. Yes, I thought it indicated that might be the 

 trend. And I reported to Mr. Anderson what was done at the con- 

 ference. And I didn't think it was my prerogative to make any 

 statement at the conference — that is, that should be made afterwards 

 by Mr. Anderson. 



Senator Stennis. All right. That is your answer. You made that 

 clear. Mr. Anderson, you heard the answer. What did you do? 

 Did you realize that this was a definite division of this matter and 

 did you protest it? 



