New-York tribune., 1872-01-30
rnor. rHunsros's nELrEp Apoo. THE ROLLER.

PROP rHuRsros's BELIEP ABoU. THE ROLLER
Ihns iaf we nave proved everything ~ been done
with the utmost skill and Tho beet kind of boiler
built; that boiler thoroughly repaired tao engine safely
bandled plenty Of water in tho boiler and the steam
just blowing from the safetyvaye and preventing
any accumulation And the plaintiff contra
dict any OF these facts proved by us, his Honor waa
fendants And here had supposed the law to be that
Ss TN, could not St TINS stage Of the case otter ey
only contradict our proof that W. had done everything
ignorant OF the and my learned adversary was per
itted to 10 you the defect which he thinks caused
the stand.
Prot. ThIrson Is eminently qualified to give an optn
and that in his boyhood no would fOrsake his play to
eestns the welIseitlcd principle Of biology and psy
ehoosy that children nher, the peculiar physical and
a s Sspf @ SSs D RsS
and not machinlst. although perhaps his imagination
ms mot have been sae. than now G surely as
I'LL this day the Professor has devoted his life to me
In M @ % a on eee Of tGs ne
and ana ne now Is teacher Of tteameneinery In that
ioboken where practical science under the guidance Of
my Trend Prof Norton Ia rapidly advancing, 70 the
great advantage Of the whole country. probably would
n0unces lrof Tynda In error on question OF the laws
Mr. TaarsSn naPS 70 is entirely TO
nounee sound opinion on the subject now before yOu
pursuing and hopS he may advance lin in Il so Tar that
some day his authority In the world Of science may be
equal tohat OF the great rishman who just stands
foremost as an expounder OF the laws of heat.
Prof. Thurston however, has said to you that the
boiler was cracked 1t may be Other witnesses deny
~; but do not propose so argue it. take IL as IL II
were proven beyond doubt. Ipropose " rec what Is
tne consequence IN law.
THE BOILER BURST BEcAusB OF cRACKi
The first question IL whether the boiler burst because
OF that crack Prof Turston does not say He was
not asked that question 1t was delicate ground on
which the plaintiff trod just then. Is witness Farron,
had sworn on a former trial, he told you-and he
vet believes ithat the boiler burst from low water. II
Ii did, then the crack was OF no consequence; DC
canso all explosion from low water VIII ae-
strOY the sOundest boiler, and VIII gave
way through the strongest through the weakest parts
This trouble my learned friend and one OF the Jurors
saw it too and asked witness the question whether
the dos,ruciive power in this could from
pressure higher than 2 pounds MY learned Iriena
Instantly objected the question and his Honor ruled
il ont with the remark that the jury would have 70 nd
that out for themselves How you are TO ind u ont win
and when you Jo should De glad TO know how you did
it, but that is the law OF the laud ana you must 40
the best YOU can to acquire the needed information.
Prof 1hursOn did not say that explosion occurred Do
OF the weakness in the sheet. Another witness
saws he thinks II low water because ne eould not
account for the effects by any theory OF weak sheet
All agree that to this day human science has not ascer
tanned all the causes that lead to boiler cxplo7IOns and
that they do occur notwithstanding tho utmost care ana
cannot be accounted for by the utmost knowledge.
Whether this such case or not 1t IL quite certain
the Testimony yet Informed you, and no witness
has said that this boiler broke hy reason OF thht
crack The l. thnt wIcn the boiler dld preuk
and s interior exposed u view, there was crack
but whether it the cause Of the explosion no man
hut my learned hiend with characteristic pruencc nd
propose to show that Assume tn9n ,n' the nontr &c
broke BECAUSE cf this crack n It, and you hayf soI 10
IT, because 1t has not been proved YET unle1 out
OF your own wisdom You draw the inference tud sub
uif that is not lawful then the que Iton is conld me
Company have forcseen and prevented this accident ny
| shall trespass little further your patience, Tor
must read 10 you thus Testimony, and not state IT,
that will mako rhit further remark that Mr. Thurston
on TINT stand tod y9n at my & %ls sSlS , TSes yo hAS
I'm. vendors stands il il crcditabe IN the highest
degree the iberality and pupIc prli OF Mr. sicVehS
who dong it, and cIedblo 90 PROT IhuIstOh' Hho
why arr they tryn those expcrimen!ei why! DO we
know all about boiler explosions WoHr Air; Stevens
be- squaudcrihg his lnoDe -"OhI my Iiend n lllTuo1
spend h- time that bleak shore o sandy iiOok burst
surely not Mr. Tlrirston. luxe every other man OF sci
.nce goes into sdch an MOI h9PnB ~ baa 'S Snt
%iSr,t before - '"' "'''' '''''
COULD 4 CRACK u,vE DrrN KsowH BEFORE THE TX
TLOsloN.
Now Twin read to you the testimony OF my friend,
Prof Thurston. because 1t Ia the turning point IN
this case He the stand and proved th't this
boiler was cracked almost through in some places. That
is nll lee proved in regard TO that question He has been
disn,cd nv another scientific man, who also like him,
nnd,r the ur,ieIs Of the Government examined this
builr who >ays IL not Cracked Ibrrr II dispute
hstw,cu him and Sir Lnbcck ol that Question, aud on
that conId claim vcrd,t in this case. because you
cannot hnd against rs there Is ra-onlDl. nonD.' nu'
that IL Of no consequences as the rrsut de lrhd Oh
question ~ law. which shall come 10 IN moment
When Professor Thurston was called by my learned
friend supposed he going to prove thdt tIi DOcI
was cracked, and that the crack c1uld nave been ana
ought 10 have been known by the company ana one oI
the gentlemen "I The jury no u1uiJ Hhu ulo eahu
Thought hi- mind, lor he asked the same Question
which should have asked him. By = Juror; oUna ,
thusa defects haVo been round on IN tNihiaIiVn pre-
yous 10 the boiler bursting upI WUt shOud nave pceI
the answer 10 at' Ihe{ could & or .a . e eog nc V com
ing over him. lie aid - presume tHey mSW .N ntNe
,'c" ''"i', snie for Inn, with that answer
net Tplancd have no DOUBT some OF yoa might nave
gone L, The irroOm with the iipres.on that he sai
maj defect could have b0cn found Ihon nav Learned
fr,nd pressed him. ad he Lcw milo stronger OF uc
subject and said: " I have NO couDt thdt thty tould
hnr tncn found" Thou my learned brother MornS
said. "What test would haNs dsc'IIed ana I nH@
Professor SAYS: " I'm case of mat Aiin or, '1 og
49, so r MS an aware of, is tAc hammer itsi-he tap
ofa light hanmcr-hS which tue SOUND 'nlse, a. @ uu
approach a weakened spot. TbeTc thcy %n1ue % mn mn
cse a it were true, matter u tact, thal ms Do,i
had dccc in which cunli hnNG Derm aonnI W. ~ o1 ni
nrss-ant by single isolated person. noI even u}
Prof Thliston, but hy ,kiIliu nch--'ch tho "eien'
ants are DaJr.
Ppop rfIrsroS uJdsrrr COIrD not HAVE DisCONLREp
TIE MIsrAAE.
This was tho direct examination, anh II II were uu'
the plaintiff made his case ana VIC should nave peeu
silenced But shc cr0sscVamlnltion yet Dad 10 come
and that reversed the picture. Lc. ns read tt la7hod
this o1cston: "Whcn YOU look into the boiler are not
the place, where you say these defects existed ehirey
covered by tho iues from vison' "They are covered
rom sgnC; yes, Sir" " Il thoIo any h'i1o.ion y9u
Enow of sufficient to discover these cracks by nl
nInV In sido Of hat boiler - do not know ~ any NAV
vii - Wns there any eNtcraI inspection of IL
thai would discover thcmP am hVt Posttlno
abou. it," He had no doubt aDoht IL poio.9; d
am not pOsgo about II none 10 my khoWieus..;i
Well ole would mink that tlat should DE pretty sa4
factory. But lid not stop here Icl ne say o p'x 90
ta e IN athods of inspection " then III cNlsehto HSIe
NOT ,aicient." Now, there may have been sOmelnnni
disco, cred silce. trust there VIII De Al 1t i W @
that trnst that those experiments NJ SANDY Iooh W.,
lead t. .omo dis uvery BY which men can discover nus
defects; all OF Interested IN II tho oWn, L. ~
steamboats, are Interested In II bur aj yet NO sa ,N'o
mot mods are not efficient. Bat they wouiu haNc us
Judged and punished because tho mcthoas Oi lhspeGO
are not eGcict ~ IL they wcrJ thon ashtu tLV.
On IN tnt elnlOn ~ w