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

these tools was brought officially to the notice
OF the dt tb
speeting engineer and the chief engineer, and
paid fer.
The committee examined at great length Mr..
George r. Johnson, chief engineer in the
United States navy, on duty as inspector OF
materials at the 'PhiladelpRia station; and
though his testimony is uncertain and contra;
proof that one employe of the Government
namely, Mr.. John Rowbotham, the master ma
chinist) sought to protect 1t from the wrong
done by the purchase of these tools, aud that
the engineer department accepted them after
receiving notice from him of their imperfect
In compliance with the request of the COM
mittee, dr. johnson produced a copy of the
instructions issued to him as inspecting engi-
neer. The Instructions are in the form of
circular, issued to the commandments OF the dif-
Ferept stations. From The copy produced by
Mr.. johnson the committee make the folio wing
extracts:-
stores and materials offered by contractors with this
bureau, and on open purchase that every article be
the very best qualify OF their kind and are such as
f @ hat .nS s Fc Isa @ Re
weighed, counted or measured. as the kind requires
at yards You VIII that SsreSss eSch e
De Gosely n,neesed and meme received that are i'm
every respect OF the best quality, and such the
The allusion to files is the only reference to
tools in the circular letter of instruction. 1t is,
however, significant enough to show that the
author Of thai circular appreciated the import
anCe Of furnishing the workmen employed by
the Government with frst-class tools.
MIR. Johnson swears that 1t was his duty, as
inspector of materials, TO inspect the tools pro-
cured for the engineers department from John
Roach d Son. As no condensed synopsis of the
testimony OF this gentleman could convey any
idea of his want of consistency, the committee
will permit him to speak for himself at consider
able length.
Mr.. Johnson testified that he inspected the
tools when brought to the yard, and found that
there were some small parts broken, and some
portions were mole than he thought they
should be. He saw MIR. Roach about it, and that
gentleman said he would make good all the
defects. The counter shaftings of the lathe are
an essential portion, but are not generally fur
nished with the tools; many OF these were not
to have counter shafts.
The committee deem it proper in connection
with the last suggestion OF the inspecting engi-
neer, to remark that an express stipulation of
the contract OF purchase was that the tools were
to have all counter shaiting and pulleys COM
plete. Mr.. johnson read from manuscript the
following complaints made by master machinist
Rowbotham:-
The first on the list was that the double. head
lathe wants one bracket for holdIug in the
feed screw, one bracket for holding in the
reversing shatt-the bracket sent for these
purposes does not ft, and cannot be used on
account of the tie pieces that hold the lathe
together. 1t wants also two fve-eight stud
bolts on the forty sixth inch end of the lathe.
1t wants the bolts that run across the shears
taken out and laid two inches lower, as they
interfere with the travel OF the tool rest. The
36inch planer wants a pulley in place of a
broken one; it wants four new small gear
wheels in place of those on the machines,
which are TOO much worn; one hanger of the
gearcutter has the lug broken which carries the
belt shatting apparatus. The boring machine
wants eight bolts one inch square and four feet
long. The five foot six'inch planer wants 16
bolts, also four new cogs to the pulleys and
gear wheels; L. wants two hangers and counter
shaft and one pulley for the over head shaft of
the planer. The 2S inch planer wants counter
shatting; the % inch planer wants counter
shatting. This memorandum is not dated, but
the letter in reply was dated, | think, in
December, some time before Christmas. This
IS a note made by my orders by the draug ghtsmaa,
who made note of all the things complained
of by Mr.. Rowbotham. Mr.. Roach then came
on here with man, and he said he would make
every thing as good as new.
Q. You think that communication was dated
in December; was that before or after these
articles had been paid for? A. 1t must have
been before, because did not pass them when
/ found these things wanting.
II may not be inappropriate for the committee
to remark, at this point, that the bill for these
tools was approved by Mr.. Johnson and by Chief
Engineer Zeller ON the 3lst of October; SO that
II the conversation referred to occurred in
December, it was month after Mr.. Roach had
been paid for the tools.
Mr. johnson testified at considerable length
as to his manner of inspecting tools, and his
evidence seems to indicate that he was not as
particular as he should have been to see that
all the requirements OF the contract were carried
out
1t may be we'll for the committee to state tha /
in all acquisitions for tools made upon esta-
blshed manufacturers of those articles, the fol.
lowing st'nulations are embodied
Ali of the above machines to be of the best aterIa
lions drawn up by the chief engineer OF the Yard TO
be subject to hs inspection at any time during their
manuiscture; and nos 70 be received unless found
pniieys hangers wrencSes handles e1c compis.e
These salutary stipuatlons were in part omit
| ted from the requistion for the tools OF John
| Roach Son. In lieu of them the following
| were mserted:-
The oola TO be OF the most approved deIign and In
perfec working order, OF which the chief engineer OF
The ard must have satisfactory evidence before they
to be delivered with all sfpg, paIeyr, etc,
complete. at the Philadelphia Navy Yard free OF any
sttlste WoTkHg 0rdei Of Which snS chieP s
| or the yard is TO be The Judge.
The difference is very marked, and with re-
| ference to the secondhand tools the construc-
| tion OF which could not be superintended, may
| be accounted for; but why this salutary clause
| should have been withdrawn from contracts for
new tools, which, it is alleged, are to be heavier
than any manufactured elsewhere, and the pro
duction OF which requires number Of months,
it is difficult 10 perceive. Nor, as will be per
| ceived, could Mr.. Zeler, who made the requisl-
ton, assign any plausible reason for it, nor
indeed, any other than that he was
| in the habit OF devOlVing the duty oi
| preparing such papers on his draughtsman
(Emll Goldstelnl who had seen ut to change the
phraseOlogy. In ans wer 10 the question, "Why
the language OF the requistion on Mr.. Roach
differed nom all the Others produced to the
committee - Mr.. Zeller said, 81 cannot tell; the
person who brought the second one wrote the
first. Mr.. Roop and Mr. Goldstein went tC
Bement Dougherty and Sellers Co., aud die