The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-10-14
The Explosion on the Concordia.

lduC Otl ~Asb Is tOliOWllS
That the 10Th 18th ut, the steamboat Concor1ia
Captain Pease master and John Ienz chief engineer
her passage up the river Mississippi when lust above Pa
quemine' bnrSt her boilers killing and dangerously
as deponen is Informed and verify believes the same to be
true AND deponent further says that as be Is inloea anu
verify believes from the character of said boat and the GU
cnmsances of said explosion of her boilers there goo
reason to believe said explosion was caused by te go
criminal negligence and carelesneSs OF SAID chel
has wifuy and maco1sy caused the death of the perlons
aforesaid against the peace and dignityof the State"
The prisoner pleaded Nor GUILTY
Neither the Attorney General, the District At
tornev. orsany other counsel was present to repre-
sent the STATE. Mir Thos Hart appeared for the
prosecution, but we understand only at the request
| of some friends of persons whose death had been
caused by the explosion. Mr.. VIM HINT was
counsel for the accused.
Forw-eght witnesses had been subpenaed, the
greater number Of which were in court The court
was crowded with spectators, principally persons
engaged, and interested in river navigation The
fast witness called was Charles Petrie He was
not in court when called, but was subsequently, and
was not examined. As his testimony was alto
gether hearsay, however, his evidence could have
had no weight
r, Grinnel S1D0rn.-FIas served an apprentice
ship as an engineer; has not been in the business
for several years has been for the Hast six years
foreman in Leeds Foundry; thinks his apprentice
ship and experience in experimenting the consiruc-
zion and repairs of boilers constitute him a pract-
cal engineer. Was one of the Committee which
examined the boilers of the COncordia after the ey
plosion. Has no knowledge of the explosion having
been caused by carelessness or done intentionally;
only knows the boilers were burst examined them
here. Does not know when or where the explosion
occurred. His opinion is that the explosion was
caused by the water in the boilers being too low:
.he fact that the lue collapsed was strong evidence
of this, very strong; has no knowledge of any other
cause that would collapse the hue butinsuficiencV
OF water in the boilers; fresh supply of water
coming in contact with heated boiler causes an
explosion Does not know LentZ. From the ap-
pearance of the boilers they must, at the time
of the explosion, have attained $50 degrees of
heat: does not know this altogether from his
own experience; more from scientific authority
Has heard the boilers in five or six wears
they bad very good appearance for that age /:
could not see any difference between the exploded
and the other boilers in the quality of the metal Ii is
only the opinion of witness that the boilers explod
ed from an insufficiency of water; does not know
If there was any other cause does not say it is i'm
possible for boiler to burst when full of water; if
the tlues perfectly sound is of opinion it is i'm
possible. 1t the first fue that was collapsed
the other flue on same boiler was not collapsed but
had appearance of having cone in contact with |
Thinks the fue collapsed in the side
horizontally. Does not call the iron of the hue |
bad, although some engineers might. Some of the |
iron had the appearance Of isingglass; good iron |
has this appearance some times. 1t was portion |
of the after head of the boiler that exploded The
boat has one safety-valve does not know the size
Of it did not measure it, but in case of this kind
would not consider it of sufficient size. In the two
boilers that did not explode there was no indication
Of extreme heat; if the boat was listed the upper
boiler would naturally be more heated; when the
boa. rlghted the water came in contact first with
the fue which collapsed. The water ought to have
been sixteen or seventeen inches from the top of the
boiler, with the boat rghted and ought never to be
less than three inches above the hue; did not OBJ
serve this was the ease in this boat considers, from
examination of the lues, they We're sound.
A. Michel, refused to be sworn was affirmed. y
Was one of the Examining Committee The por-
lou of the fue submitted to his examination he is
Pretty well satisfied had been mp to temperature
II 80 degrees, and ifit had been immersed in water
could not have obtained that heat; does not CON
lder over $50 pounds pressure ito the square inch
e 367 degrees of heat, safe. With a temperature of
S0degrees thinks there must be pressure of about
w pounds to ascertain this requires calculation
you'd not speak positively, therefore, as he had no
7bles with him. Did not observe any thing bad in
be ron Of the iue bis opinion is that the ue was
ound before it collapsed. Never saw the boilers
etoFe they were examined by the committee. The
oHapse was caused by pressure of steam. The | I
ortion of the collapsed fue shown him was taken
ON the boiler head, and the portion of the boiler
ear the flue, showed the same heat Is positively ,
lere was sufficient water in the boiler that is his
Dinlon; does not say an explosion from other 1
luses is impossible, but thinks it improbable
You'd not say the explosion would not have taken
ace If the boat was perfectly righted had heard
e boat was listed when the explosion took place. I
I'd when rghted the explosion occurred, hence his
Union that scarcity of water was the cause this
fair inference. The guage cocks were one or
le and half inches above the fue the lead in n
e chock joints, near the guage cocks, was melted
one of the sound boilers. The heat necessary to
cit lead, according to experience of Witness is $50
grees; the lead might have been Oxydized. Has {
lown an instance in which engineers were totally
loss to know the cause of an explosion; the
use was conjecture, as in this instance. Has c
amned the boilers, especially where ruptured and
w nothing bad in the iron. Opinion of witness -
incides, in the main, with that of Mr. Grinnell.
" Armstrong SlCOrn.-ls a boiler maker Is not
practical engineer, but being engaged in making ~
Tiers ought to know something about them =
onion Is, that ueAcOllapsed from nsufficency of
liter seeing the flue collapsed Wasseyidence to
m, and based his opinion on it. Was one of the
,amlnIng Committee. Did not form an opinion ~
to the degree of heat when the boiler exploded +
examined the iron of the COLLAPSED fne: il | il
been burned; could not tell when lit was Is
rned; 1t was defective from the burning there n,
seven Of the hues not collapsed one sheet of VI
n in the collapsed fue was split; considered the &
'et bad iron NJ was split In rolling and might bl
We beenput insthe flue without being noticed |
split could not be observed until the iron was &c
ated. 80 ed
Robert Douglass s'oorn.-lsa practical engineer:
IS one of the Examining Committee The cause .
the explosion, in his opinion was deficiency of pa
Lter There is no other way the hue could have. Fl
m weakened but bE heating it; the quality Of Pl
IRON IN the tlue must have been very good ma
re was Splt N one sheet of the iron but where -
Hue collapsed the iron was perfectly sound, la
served the chock joints thet afe En- the second W;
eet from the front of fhe boie they were not so Nj
cI exposed 70 IRE as The top of the fiue. The
OF the chock joint was on level with the Ton
the ue in this instance the lead on the ton If str
chock Joint was notsneted it was affected bv ne
explosion. Does not think, even if the boat
s perfectly righted there could have been sufTi.
mt walar IN the boilers. So far as his experience in
alwaysable to assign a cause for an explosion. f,r
eFeis always difference of opinion as TO the i0A
Use OF an explosion among engineers, but witness
distinguish by the appearance of rupture, M,
ether theiron was cold or hot
~ fqnfeUlHdy SJCorn.--Is a practical engineer =