The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-09 00:00:00

HERRING v. CHA7 WOOD.

Since writing on the great international Safe con-
test, papers bearing on the subject have been
forwarded to us. From these we have obtained the
facts and fancies which have hitherto enabled the
committee to withhold its award. The special
correspondent of the Daily Telegraph groups them
together with others pure inventions of his own in
his letter dated Paris, August 21. It is alleged
that the test of the trial was erroneously supposed
to be the first extraction from either safe of the
sealed block placed in each—that the tools used by
HERRING'S men were heavier than those used by
CHATWOOD'S, that there were errors in the drawings
of the safe banded in by Mr. HERRING, that the
HERRING'S safe was forced in front, while CHAT-
WOOD'S was stripped laterally ; but the gravest
charge, was that made against the secretary, Mr.
HovLE, who though an English gentleman of high
character, knowing nothing personally of Mr. HER-
RING or his safes further than is known to the world
of any eminent manufacturer, is stated to have
displayed a very marked bias in the American interest.
Nor does the correspondent hesitate at much graver
insinuations against a member of the committee
than marked bias. Mr. HoLmEs is accused of en-
deavouring to influence M. DouLlOT's award by
suggesting a distribution of the prize, so that a
thousand francs should go into his pocket, which, the
correspondent hints, had so strong an effect on the
eminent French engineer, that the English members
of the committee, Messrs. MALLETT and FAIRLIE,
knowing how the PRESIDENT'S decision would go,
and alleging other than upright and honourable
motives, formally withdrew from the committee.
On the strength of this statement a Message was
despatched to New York alleging bribery and cor-
ruption. The resolutions of the committee furnish
a conclusive answer to the first allegation. The
members decided that the test of the trial should
be as follows :—A marked block of wood being
given to each of the competitors, and deposited
by them in their safes, it should be deemed con-
clusive evidence, when produced, that the safe from
which the block was, taken had been opened ;‘ that
the attack on both being commenced simultaneously
shall be declared ended, as soon as either safe has
been opened. Two better defined resolutions could
not have been framed. What was to be con-
sidered as positive proof is distinctly stated. What
was to close and decide the result was so plainly
laid down that it appears almost impossible a
dispute could arise after terms so clear had been
complied with. Mr. HERRING produced the scaled
wood, deposited by Mr. CHATWOOD in his safe, at
7.20 p.m. on the day of the trial, while CHATWOOD'S
men were still at work on HERRING'S safe. Here,
then, was the conclusive evidence in the terms
of the resolutions framed by the committee, and
according to those resolutions the trial then ended ;
yet the Daily Telegraph asserts that the production
of the sealed block was quite erroneously supposed
to be the test. After this simple statement we may
leave our readers to judge of the truth and fair-
ness which characterise the correspondent's let-
ter. It will not surprise them to learn that the
weight of tools instead of being, as alleged, in
favour of the HERRING party, was in favour of the
other side, being 10711bs. against 10G—the tools
used in stripping the side of CIIAT WOOD'S safe. The
statement that the drawing of HERRING'S safe was
Incorrect may be refuted by reference to a work
termed " Fighting Fire for Twenty-six Years,"
comprising a history of HERRING'S Patent Cham-
pion safes. Those who can put their hands on
this book may by turning to plate 16 see a
drawing of the box tested, with dimensions given.
It is a fire-proof safe with a cash-box
inside very different to his banker's safe, expressly
made to resist burglars—the one he intended to use
in the trial, but which Mr. CHATWOOD would no
allow, as, being accidentally detained at Havre

. - it was not on exhibition. While barring HER-
RING from the use of his true burglar safe, the
two English members of the committee availed
themselves in their lewd of every defect in the
HERRING'S fire safe tested. By the correspondent
it is alleged that there were two safes, oue inside
the other, and Mr. CIIATWOOD appears as if only
aware of this after the terms had been agreed on.
But Messrs. MALLE're and FAIRLIE complain that
Mr. HERRING proposed at first to leave the outer
doors open, but afterwards rescinded this intention.
They condemn the construction of the outer doors
in two leaves, with a meeting joint in the centre
as extremely weak, and rejected by all safe
makers. Now, Mr. HERRING intended this
outer case simply as a protection against fire, and,
when his challenge was accepted, urged Mr. CHAT-
WOOD to permit his burglar-proof at Havre to be
substituted, when he would stand on equal terms—
a request denied him, though it was on that safe he
issued his challenge. Yet, the defects of a con-
struction intended only to resist fire are made the
groundworks of a report against the competitor
whom these very men had denied the use of a safe
constructed to defeat burglars. The weight laid by
the English portion of the committee on the fact
that CIIATWOOD'S safe was stripped laterally, and
not forced in front, only shows how men will seize
on all excuses, if resolutely bent on defeating
a fair award. Whether a fortress is carried by a
gate or breached in its weakest part will little avail
the garrison who fall victims to the defective
construction. The crew of a ship riding out
a gale may be assured that the strength of
their cable is equal only to its weakest part. Mr.
CIIATWOOD can scarcely be under the impression
that the quick-witted and skilful burglar is going to
waste his means in following his ideas, and effect-
ing the breach at the spot rendered impregnable by
all Mr. CHATWOOD'S ingenuity. It matters little
to him whether he penetrates in front or in rear, so
long as his object is attained. But if the door of a
safe is to be the test, it would only have been fair
at least to have given Mr. HERRING'S burglar-proof
safe the opportunity. It was, however, not so decided,
and it is manifestly unjust to take a third-class
HERRING'S safe, and maintain that on all points
t was equal to an extra quality of safe manu-
factured expressly by Mr. CIIATWOOD as a chal-
lenge to the burglars of the world. All Mr.
HERRING contends for his firm is, that with
an inferior safe he has beaten, according to the
terms of the Committee, the best safe CHAT-
WOOD could manufacture. It is amusing to see
how the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph shifts
his ground when it suits his book. It was unfair in
the HERRING party to strip the CIIATWOOD Safe,
batter in its side, and knock out its top—but see !
he exclaims, the HERRING'S Safe literally torn to
ribbons, and scarce a feature of its original con-
struction to be recognised. " Was this done
without manual strength, and without an amount
of noise no burglar in his senses would dare to risk ?"
On one side we are informed of the skilful and cun-
ning devices of the Germans—on the other atten-
tion is directed to the huge sledge hammer used
with such unsparing strength. However they acted,

it was clear the HERRING party could give no satis-
faction to their opponents, whether deftly insinuat-

ing a chisel, or peeling the safe before the

eyes of its astonished and dismayed maker. But
all these are objections easily answered, however
unfairly advanced, while the real malice and venom

of the defeat is seen in the attack on Mr. HOYLE in

his alleged bias, and against Mr. JOSEPH E. lIoLmEs,
who gave his opinion as to a fair remuneration for

professional fees to the civil engineers employed.

Mr, HOLMES, as perfectly justified, took HERRING'S