280 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Senator Stennis. "Well, if it had been constructed as you designed 

 it, you "SYOuld not have had that much motion, would you ? 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. That is right, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Therefore, it was either faulty construction or it 

 was due to the wear and tear from the motion of the sea. It had to be 

 one or the other ? 



Mr, RuTLEDGE. It was construction different than specified, or wear 

 and tear ; yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Now, as the designer and as one who is familiar 

 with the subsequent difficulties, aren't you able to say definitely 

 whether it was constructed properly ? 



POSSIBILITY THAT CONSTRUCTION JIAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPER 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. We had no part in or responsibility for construction 

 supervision. Our contract required us to advise the officer in charge 

 of construction at his request. 



Senator Stennis. Yes. 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. And we didn't have any people looking to see 

 whether the fabrication and the construction was in accordance with 

 the plans and specifications. 



Senator Stennis. WeH, I do not want to belabor this point, but it 

 seems to me that it is a major one. 



The only information I have about such matters arises from the 

 fact that on one occasion I built a house, and the architect followed 

 up on his blueprints and his desigTis to see that the house was properly 

 constructed. 



Mr. Rutledge. We do that, sir, on, oh, perhaps half or three-quar- 

 ters of the jobs that we do, primarily for private industry. 



Senator Stennis. Yes. Well, that is a very reasonable part of your 

 obligation, if it is in the contract. 



Now, why didn't you do it this time? It wasn't in the contract? 



Mr. Rutledge. Because the standard practice of the Bureau of 

 Yards and Docks is to do construction supervision themselves. They 

 have a very competent staff for this purpose. 



Senator Stennis. All right. So it wasn't in your contract, and 

 you therefore had no responsibility at all to follow up on this and 

 supervise the actual construction ? 



Mr. Rutledge. Except for the two items I have testified to. 



Senator Stennis. Those excepted? 



Mr. Rutledge. Yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Now, you must have something rather concrete 

 and tangible in your mind as a basis for saying that this construction 

 might have been improper. Now, what was it. Dr. Rutledge? 



Mr. Rutledge. I have no specific information about this construc- 

 tion. I simply state this from experience in checking up other struc- 

 tures. We frequently find individual points or certain details that 

 exceed the specification limits, because it is almost a physical impos- 

 sibility for the people who are supervising construction to check 

 absolutely every detail. 



Senator Stennis. You are familiar with this matter. It became 

 a matter of concern to both you and Mr. Kuss, and attracted con- 

 siderable attention before it fell and, of course, after it collapsed. I 

 imagine you discussed this matter considerably. Based on any re- 



