Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-20
OF the case. The substitute prevailed D.
a vote OF 8 to 2.
WHAT THE FIREMAN SAYS.

Mr. Baker n fireman. was then caneu
10 the stand. lie said that the ihspec,o'
had not rome Into the boiler 10 EXAMINE
q, several Years ago the inspector went
into Roller No. 4 and had to be pulled out
THO boiIer was leaking before the inspec-
,,nn waa made and had never been re-
naI,od no far az he knew. The boiier
vas moi leaking now. and was beihg useu
with seyenty-hve pounds oil steam
In reply TO a question put py VT. h,ns,
Mr. peasants stated that the poiierS hi'
been insured in the company ne i.p,e
scented since April 1896. when the hrst III
specton was made. ,.o,.ora,
Mr. Hartley asked the witness severai
Questions which developed the fact that
The inspection OF 1896 was very thorough
one. - IT, .otd
that n leak in boiler amounted to ht'ie
or nothing. He recounted the circum-
stances under which the boiler hau Deeh
strained through Mr. Walsh's negligence.
He said he had caulked the boiler up anu
had examined Boiler No. thoroughN
before IL was put In use again. iheie
was no leak in the boiler to-day.
Mr.. Calder. the engineer said ne was
present during Iert OF the Inspection Oh
1896 The inspector reported That the
boiler was I'm first-class condition ana
he placed implicit faith in his ability.
THE INSPECTORS VERSION.
Mr.. Saville. the inspector, was next
examined. He said he had been unable
TO enter the boiler. and had asked MI
Berry to go In. The examination 'was
n most thorough one, and WAS con-
Quoted under his personal and close
supervision. lie personally went under-
meath and into the back chambers.
There was nothing extraordinary IN an
Inspector sending another man inside
boiler. for he could see perfectly well
from the man-hole. He had been in
specting boilers for twenty-six years,
and had been in the employ Of the
United States for some years
The original reports made by the in
spector were submitted by the company,
showing the details Of the inspection.
Mr.. Delaney. who has charge of the
pump-house boilers. was next called. lie
expressed the greatest confidence in Mr..
Saville's ability.
Mr.. Hartley. OF Philadelphia, chief Of
the boiler department of the Guarantors'
Liability Indemnity Company, said his
company was prepared 10 send any eX-
pert engineer TO conduct these inspec-
tons. 1t would work his company ire
parable injury If any reflection were cast
upon the ability of the company's in
spectors, and he urged the committee
not TO take any action unless ii was
based on the most positive facts.
An anonymous communication which
had been sent TO the committee was
submitted. At some length 1T criticised
the business methods of the company
as conducted in Pennsylvania. Ohio.
and New York. In refutation of these
charges. Mr.. Hartley read the reports
Of the commissioners of Pennsylvania
and New York. which spoke in the
highest terms of the company and OF the
great volume of business transacted by
it.
Mr.. Crenshaw. of Crenshaw & Plea
sons, in reply to a question put
by the Chair, said his firm had thoroughly
investigated the solvency and re-
liability of the Guarantors' Com
pany Even were they insovent"
said Mr.. Crenshaw, "our clients would
be fully secured by the deposit we are
required to make under the State law
ALL ARE SATISFIED.
Mr.. Rountree moved that the COM
pany be completely exonerated from
blame. The company had acquitted
themselves very creditably. As an adj
denda 10 the motion. he moved that
Mr.. Berry be completely exoneratgi. he
had made his statements for h@public
good and they had all been borne out.
Mr.. Gunst. the chairman. said he de-
sired to make a PERSONAL statement.
His opinions had undergone a complete
change since the last meeting and he
was entirely satisfied that the company
had done its work reliably and well.
The motion was then put and carried
unanimously, and the committee adj
journed.