◆ SpookStack

Son Francises Filo $#62-2812 . (5). Whether the builiing was of the somo size and kind 7 : as thet under construction on March 26, 1946; GE: «01.3 thet he himself had injected this question pre into the case and that nothing had been introduced on this point at the time of the first hearing. It subse- quently developed that there were two ohanges, one as to matcrial used an2 one os to the aize. He stated that at the outset the construction was to be of lattica steel and was later changed to reinforoed concrete, The Commis- sionor felt, however, thot this was o change from a more critical te a less oritical mtcrial, and should nct pro- jucice the Respondents. He stoted that in regard to site, the building actually being constructec was determined to be ‘scme 7,000 squoro fect less than that shown on the plot plan of Jsnucry 12, 1946. Ne felt thet this chango also resulted ino conservation of materials and thus wes not in Violation of any CP. order. Ne stated that he had ruled that the vlot plan tated March 22, 1946 introluses into evi- dence as Exhibit 4 was tho "“efinitive Jocumcnt as to sizo, and construction was in close conformity to this vlan". -_ lc state! tht while thcro wes testimony by a br . other witnesscs for tha icsponients at tha firs earing that the plan of January 12 was the basic plan, he folt yO there wis no mitcricl 4iffercuce betwoon the two plans which mo would tnfluence his decision, tho chiof differcnee, he felt, es being that the March 22, 1946 plon was smallor in size. oy The Conmissioncr felt that there was no evidence of mis- ~ 4 roprosontation ang stctea *hat nono had been offerod the Goverment. eed uc stgtes th ait mot testify an’ he thousht opresonta- od tin 126 only cone building wos being built was mroly oa con- } 2 clusion lie state thet he felt that the Respondent's testimny p 7C 3 at the first Moartng, that tunncls continucd under the entire “horseshoe" = wos also only the conclusion of the witnesses, and their idea of the tunnel, which they had goine? from hoving talke} to the architects, and did not fecl that they were materially mis-stating the facts. He stated that he weet "tasse: the tunnels out” in making his decision, giving testimony regard- Poe ins tho tunnel‘s weitht snly in connection with cther evijenes showing a =a physical @onnoction botween the Duildinzs. Tle felt that really material witnesses in the case were the architects who rostisic: iy the CPi Investigators. Me felt that the Government had not sustaine! the burton cf proof that the buildings were separate. He thought that the