Part 605: The Wonderland Disaster Investigation in Detroit, 1898, first section
I have been exploring the Temple Theatre in Detroit and Detroit’s “Wonderland,” an entertainment company that offered everything from live theatre and minstrel shows to moving pictures and vaudeville acts; from aerial acts to talking dogs, everything was part of the vaudeville mainstream. From the time it opened in 1901, the Elks Temple theatre hosted the Wonderland Company, offering four vaudeville shows every day. Ticket prices included admission to the show, as well as a visit to see the oddities in the curiosity museum. In later years, Harry Houdini, W. C. Fields, Buster Keaton. Jack Benny, George Burns, Fred and Adele Astaire, were included among the stars that appeared on the Temple Theatre stage. As Vaudeville fell out of favor, the Temple closed about 1930, other than showing a few fly-by-night films.
The original Wonderland Theatre, known as Detroit’s “palace of amusement,” included both a variety show and oddities museum. Founded by Enoch “Pop” Wiggins, the Wonderland Theatre started on Woodward Avenue in 1886 in Merrill Hall, later known as the Avenue Theatre. Its popularity caused the company to move further up the road to Campus Maritus. Unfortunately, disaster struck on Nov. 5, 1898, when the roof of the theater collapsed during construction, crushing 12 workers to death and injuring nearly 20 others. In the end, fifteen lives were lost. The company temporarily used the Detroit Opera House until the new Temple Theatre was completed.
There is an interesting article about the Wonderland building and theatre architect J. M. Wood after the roof collapsed. It puts theatre construction within a historical context. Due to the length of the article, it will be posted over several installments. Published in the “Detroit Free Press,” the article “Positive Denial!” detailed the description of events surrounding the Wonderland Disaster investigation (2 Dec 1898, page 2). Here is the first section of the article:
POSITIVE DENIAL!
—
COL WOOD FLATLY CONTRADICTS SCOTT BROTHERS’ TESTIMONY.
—
DID NOT HAVE CHARGE OF STRUCTURAL IRON AND STEEL WORK.
—
SIMPLY HAD TO LOOK AFTER THEATRICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
—
THINKS THERE WAS A GENERAL WEAKNESS IN THE ROOF.
—
ALSO A GENERAL LACK OF ATTENTION TO DETAILS.
—
THE FIVE-INCH ROOF BEAMS WERE OVERLOADED.
—
Arthur Scott Concluded His Testimony Yesterday Morning.
—
“Col. J. M. Wood. The theatre architect was the main factor in the investigation yesterday, and he was on the stand nearly the entire day. He entered a positive denial of the statements of John and Arthur Scott that he had charge of the work, designed the truss and was responsible for figuring loads. Col. Wood stated that he had not only not designed the truss, but that he had not paid the least attention to it, being out of the city most of the time when it was being constructed and erected. He also displayed plans of every truss he ever used in fire proof theater buildings, showing that they were of the suspension type and nothing like the one used in the Wonderland building.
At the request of Prosecuting Attorney Frazer, he calculated the load carried by the Detroit Opera House truss, which weighs over eight tons, showing that he had figured many tons within the safety factor. He also showed that be computing the truss of the Wonderland building by the same method as that used for the opera house truss, the former, which weighs over eight tons, showing that he had figured many tons within the safety factor. He also showed that by computing the truss of the Wonderland building by the same method as that used for the opera house truss, the former which weighed three and a half tons, carried forty tons, while the eight and a half ton truss in the opera house carried forty-eight tons for the safety load. He indicated at some length the designing he did for the Wonderland building, stating that he had nothing whatever to do with the steel work, but had to indicate the lines of vision and general lines within which John Scott & Co. would have to keep the steel work.
Col. Wood testified that in the first interview with John Scott, the latter told him that his firm would insist on having control of the construction of the building and would consult with him regarding the arrangements of the theater. The witness had a book showing a record of all material used in all the theaters he had built of the fire-proof type, and he was able, without any hesitation, to answer any question regarding them. His answers were all s direct and positive that there was no chance to quibble with him. He asserted that he was employed to look after the stage, the seating acoustic conditions, line of vision, boxes and other matters pertaining strictly to the Wonderland theater, while with the architectural and steel construction he had nothing to do; and paid no attention to it.
Regarding the fact that he had loaned John Scott & Co., a set of plans of the Detroit opera house, he said that he did it simply as an act of courtesy, to a brother member of the profession, thinking that it might give him some idea of theatrical construction. He denied that he told Arthur Scott to follow those plans, saying that he had no authority to order him and had not been asked to have anything to do with the construction of the building. He also denied that he had given Arthur Scott the load the trusses would have to carry, or that he had anything to do with the designing or construction of the roof. Incidentally, Col. Wood stated that the DeMan system was not used on the Detroit Opera House.
Col. Wood showed his willingness to give his opinion regarding the cause of the accident, but Mr. Frazer spoiled a full answer by breaking in with another question. It was his belief that there was a general weakness of the roof and the construction, and he also thought that the 5-inch roof beams were overloaded. As to the truss, he did not feel competent to give an opinion, but stated that an engineering company had given him an opinion that steel members of the sizes mentioned for the Wonderland truss would probably hold the load intended, if properly detailed and constructed.”
To be continued…
