The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-24 00:00:00

THE GREAT SAFE TRIAL.

There was a time when England boasted, above
all things, of exhibiting a spirit of "fair play." A
reputation for any virtue must be maintained by
acts, not by mere professions and assertions. Whe-
ther right or wrong, Americans believe—a belief

daily growing stronger—that in international com-
petitions in Europe they meet with but scant jus-
tice. 'they consider that all who present themselves
to the public, be they artists, sailors, manufacturers,
or pugilists, are not justly estimated, but harshly
criticised, and in any competitive trial, even the
broad rules of fair play are frequently infringed.
This was notably the case in the celebrated fight
between HEENAN and SAYERS, and this appears now
to be even more strongly exhibited in the interna-
tional trial between the great safe-makers, HERRING
and CIIATWOOD. Last month, as our readers are
aware, the meeting of these eminent manufacturers
led to a challenge, the terms of which were settled
by a committee, before whom the operations were
conducted to decide the result. A fire and burglar-
proof safe is made with clear, well-defined objects.
On the one hand, it is designed and framed to resist
fire, preserving the property which it encloses till
picked up from the debris of the consumed building.
No safes have been exposed to a more terrible
ordeal of fire than those of HERRING. In America,
where so many houses are composed of wood,
fires are more frequent, more general and destruc-
tive than elsewhere. The ruins of the city of Port-
land, in the State of Maine, last year almost totally de-
stroyed by a conflagration,f urnished proof of the value
of these safes, freely acknowledged by merchants,
whose books and papers were then preserved wholly
uninjured. Although one of the most destructive
fires on record, Portland is but a single instance
of the incalculable benefit conferred on his coun-
trymen by the science and skill Mr. HERRING has
brought to bear on the construction of a safe.
If fire be the greatest enemy that those en-
trusted with the custody especially of valuable
papers have to guard against, there is another
scarcely less dangerous, and in England perhaps
even more so. We refer to the skilful appliances,
reduced to a science, which burglars bring to bear.
Against the former HERRING'S safe had been fully
tested, and ha.d come out victorious ; against the
latter the trial in Paris was intended to decide who
could claim the championship. No safe is impreg-
nable, as time and opportunity, it is thought, will

enable burglars to effect a breach in any. The
question, then, is the length of period it can resist.
We cannot imagine any other, and this was evi-
dently the one that suggested itself to the
committee, who resolved, first—" That a marked
block of wood about 6 inches by 2 inches by 3
inches shall be handed to each of the compe-
titors to be placed by them in their safes,
and that after the safes have been closed by
them, the production of either of these blocks
shall be deemed conclusive evidence that the safe
from which it has been taken has been opened ;"
and finally, "That the challange trials as to open-
ing shall commence simultaneously on both safes,
and shall be declared ended as soon as either safe
has been opened." The trial was made on the 13th
August in the English test-house of the Paris Exhi-
bition, in presence of a committee cf five engineers,
111. DOCLIOT, chief engineer of CAIL and Co.'s works,

Paris, acting as chairman, and W. J. HOYLE, secre-
tary of WHITWORTH and Co.'s works, Manchester,

England, acting as secretary. The terms had been
agreed to, and the attack was made on the CHAT-
WOOD safe by three Germans, and on the HERRING
safe by three Englishmen, the tools being proposed
by CHATWOOD and accepted by HERRING. The
simple test of victory was the production of the
block of wood, handed by the committee to each of
the competitors. Whichever safe first yielded up
its block was defeated in this contest. In two hours

and fifty-four minutes after operations commenced
the block was extracted from CHATWOOD'S safe,

and the trial then, in the terms of the resolution,
ceased. On the evening of the 13th' August Mr.
HERRING stood (one would suppose) indisputably
the winner. The committee, however, adjourned,
and on the morning of the 14th the attempt to open
Mr. HERRING'S safe was resumed. This they ac-
complished, counting both days, in four hours
fourteen minutes, adding nearly an extra third to
the time occupied in opening CHATWOOD'S safe. In
acting thus the committee may have been actuated
by curiosity, or may have desired to furnish burglars
with the assurance that no safe was proof against
their attacks, but it is clear that by the terms of the

resolutions they had no right to carry on the

operations against Mr. HERRING'S safe after the
block had been extracted from Mr. CIIATWOOD'S,
which they did, not only without his sanction, but
against his protest, he himself being denied
admission to the scene. That a trial admitting
of so simple a test could afterwards give rise
to a dispute may surprise our readers ; but '
although the contest ended on the 13th of
August, the day it commenced, the award cer-
tainly up to Tuesday last had not been made. Mr.
CHATWOOD'S friends attempted to make the trial
a drawn fight, and on failing framed a report,
which they endeavoured to make official. We may
conjecture its nature, if the statement be correct,
that Mr. CIIATWOOD, who had staked £5O to £5 on
the result being in his favour, claimed and obtained
on this document the stakes from the holder. On
the 21th ultimo a telegram was despatlhed to New
York, stating that " the English competitors in
the recent trial of safes in Paris deny that the
HERRING'S safe was a success. They openly charge
that the decision to that, effect was brought about
by bribery and corruption. They will immediately
ask for a new trial." Now it is of this that we
complain. An American gentleman, the senior
partner and representative of a great New York
firm, arrives in Paris too late to be present
on the examination and awards of the jury on
safes in the manufacture of which he claims to excel.
His safe on exhibition—one of four forwarded by
the firm from New York—being locked, and the
keys kept by him, the jury could not examine
it, and thus he was barred from a fair trial.
In consequence he issues a challenge, which
SAMUEL CIJATWOOD, of Bolton, noticing on
this safe, accepts. Mr. lIERRING intended in the
challenge to pit his banker's safe, accidentally de-