The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-29

4 slEEERINS gIne % lS & lee.. sir;-Proceed % New
tSS1 % SSs OT s TS Ss Of
navy YARD under this Suissu Goss pricss
You Sd any o. these tools desirable and Of the pro
per price you VIII make a. e. reguis.io,n 70, them and
quired on requisons No 10 and lso Of May TO- 1857,
%er Ssvins made those Ill viii Ps
sumo your +, IsHHRwoob5p Ssisf Il Bureau
ohiei Engin,esr THEopoRE KELLER, U. 9. M, Navy
Q. Did you proceed, under that order to New
| York and examine the tools OF John Roach &
| Son. A. Yes, sir; did examine them; got
the assistance OF Chief Engineer John Long in
examining the tools, and he passed his judgment
upon them. asked him to accompany me; he
| bad been employed as Government Superin-
| tendeDt at Roach Il Sons shop.
=. The order is dated June 10. How soon did
| you proceed? A. Soon afterwards.
Q. How long a time did you devote TO the
examination? A. If remember right / was in
| New York two days; was at the work only one
| day.
How far Mr.. zeller was controlled in the selec.
| tion OF tools by the known wants OF the Bureau
| OF Steam Engineering at the Philadelphia Yard,
| is thus clearly shown by his testimony. 1t Is
true that, in answer to a question as to whether
| he determined the size, length, and swing of
| lathes be wanted by the size, length, and swing
of tools that he found in MIR. Roach's SHOP he
had answered, mo, sir; the plan of the floor of
the machine shop here governed that" How
faithful that answer was will also appear by the
following extract from his eyidcnce:--
q. Had the necessity for these articles been
suggested toycu by Mr. Goldsten or Mr. Roop
before YOU went TO New York? A. No, sir;
went under instructions TO see what could find
and to ,consult and ] submitted these to my
aSsiStant. aud asked if they would suit
Q. You have already sworn to these PAPERS
which show that acquisitions Nos. l79 and l80
we've cancelled by acquisitions Nos. 1914 and 1876.
What requisiton was cancelled when you made
No. 6, under which you made the Roach pur-
chase? A. When requisition No. was made it
n al a a Of hoe
Q. Your requisiton No. 1914 was made June
rs, and took the place OF No. l79; your reQuisi-
ton NO. lS5 was made June rs, and took the
place of No. $50; your reuuisition No G was Jnly
B, and you cay 1t was substitute for another:
| ask what requisition it substituted? A. /
nave made mistake; you have puzzled me in
the whole matter.
z. have placed before you copies OF official
papers furnished from your department; how
have l puzzled you ? A. can give you no
further explanation Of the subject.
Q. Did reQulsiton No. substitute any 9th er
requisition? A. really do not know: don't
remember these things; my clerk eau give you
more information than l.
Q. Are you the chef OF The department, or is
Mr.. Goldstein? A. | am the head of the de.
partment.
Q. Then ask you If ~equisition No. substi.
tuted another or not? A. cannot tell you on
oath, for don't know.
Q. Who can tell? A. think the store clerk,
Mr.. Mum.
Q. Can Mr.. Goldsteln? A. Probably he can.
CDlel EDHlDeer Leler IurtHef teStlaed that he
was not practical machinist and disclaimed any
familiarity with the comparative working of
different machines such as are in use in shops
for the building and repair of steam engineer
superintendent OF the machine shops of the
navy yard TO be familiar with the style and
capacity Of machineryln he said, 81 think not
OF these little details; have never attended to
it in my life." The following portion of his
testimony deserves special attention.
Mr. zeller said that he thought the boring
purpose; the idea OF improvement for the last
ten or twelve years was all bosh, aud no one
could name anything that was not an attach
ment for which extra would have been charged.
The screw. cutting lathe he considered the
bandiest tool in the shop. He did not know
whether the double. headed lathe was so origi.
nally or not; it was double e-headed now, and he
knew nothing whatever about its history.
The response of the chief engineer to the next
question is so remarkable that the committee
will be pardoned for inviting special attention
| 10 It. Every witness whose attention was called
| to this miscalled lathe alluded to the fact that
its centres were not opposite as a defect in the
| tool. The chief engineer, however, differs with
| them all. His answer to the question, Are its
centres opposite /" mo, sir; and never were
| intended to be; but the condition was that the
tools were TO be put in as good order as new
| ones. do not mean TO say the specification,
| but the written agreement OF Mr., Roach con.
| tanned this condition.
@. ITO Mr.. Zeller.) This is your specification,
is it noR Paper examined by witness.l Does
| it not require the tools to be of the most ap-
| proved design and in perfect working order, and
| Is that double-headedla lathe ofthe most approved
| design and in perfect working order? A. don't
know; was not here when that tool was in
spected,
! O. You are the chief engineer? A. Yes, sir.
O. You bought iH A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you satisfied at the time that you
made the reeuisition that II was OF the most
| approved design and in perfect working order?
| A. was satisfied; and if anything was the mat
| ter which did not detect, that it would be made
| good aud put in perfect working order,
| Q. What satisfied you? a. The agreement was
m ade with me in conversation about these
things. 1 said, "should anything be the matter
| with these you must repair them.n He said, II
! will do 1t; | will make it as good as rev.
O. Have Mr.. Roach q Son repaired one of
| the pieces of machinery sold to you and found
| to be detective? A. That don't know; not to
my knowledge.
| detective he would put them in order A.
Nothing but his word; ! took no paper.
| Mr.. Zeller thought that the tools at the
| Allaire Works, New York. had been there forty
| years; these must be little worn, but the worn
| parts could be renewed.
O, You bought these tools, relying on Mr..
Johnson to inspect them closely when de-
| livered? A. ] thought nothing OF the inspection
| at the time because l thought they would be
made right by Mr.. Roach before they cane.
Q. Would you think that an inspecting engl-
| neer had done his duty if he had let them pass
because he knew an engineer had been in New
| York and seen them run, and then had them
taken down and sent here? A. should think
he had overlooked his duty.
O. If the chief engineer buys tools upon the
promise OF gentleman that he will put them
in order, and the inspecting engineer passes
them without objection because the chief engi-
neer has examined them, what is there 10 guard
the rights OF The Government? A. l do not