The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-04-06

accident. lie heard q crack and was
knocked down when the crash came.
He had placed 35-pound weights on
the governors of the engine to in
crease its speed, AZ had been the
custom. He had been told that after
the new shaft was put in, only one
key was required. The witness had
nearly a years experience as an engi-
neer.
John Jones, g. roller, said he heard a
cracking sound, like the breaking of a
belt, before the wheel broke. He had
not considered the wheel unsafe
William Baker offered similar evil
dence.
Joshua Poperwell, machinist, de-
scribed the custom of weighting the
governor of that particular engine
Weights were used to render the gov
ernor useless and permit an uninter-
rupted flow of steam. Two keys on
the fly wheel would, in his opinion, be
better than one. One key would be
liable to become loosened and "chaw-
ed OFF, as the witness aptly described
it. He knew nothing about the wheel
in question since 1t had been fitted to
new shaft
George Bailey, a permanent fireman
of the General Phinney company, was
one of the firemen who responded to
the fire alarm. The building was near
ly a total wreCn He was employed
at the works up to Oct. l, 1897. The
foundation then was bad; the wheel,
he thought, was all right. He never
saw the wheel make over 200 revolu-
tions.
HEARD A CRACKING NOISE.
Jesse Teet, a catcher" at the rolls,
testified he heard a slight cracking
like a fire cracker" While he was
running away he heard a grinding
and then the final crash.
Asked if he had ever considered the
wheel unsafe, he said he used to stand
near it for the purpose of getting
cooled off"
The engineer at the works, William
Steinback was sworn. A part of his
duty was to inspect the machinery.
He examined the wheel every day.
The key which held it to the shaft
was in place. If he had considered
one key insufficient he would not have
worked there. He could not tell what
caused the accident, but he gave a
realistic description of the scenes in
the mill Immediately following the
breaking of the big wheel.
Engineer Steinback did not know
what the primary cause of the break
was, but in answer to the coroners
question, he ventured the opinion that
the counter shaft had broken and fall
en- into the fly wheel
The witness had since the accident
directed the removal of what remained
Of the wheel from the shafe. 1t was
so firmly in place that it required
the assistance of six men working
half a day to get it loose.
Mr.. Gerecke, the Dickson works as
sstant manager. was recalled. He
said the age OF the breaks in the dow
ell" or other parts of the wheel could
not have been determined a few days
after the accident without the use OF
magnifying glass. The breaks. to
him, appeared to have been made by
coming in contact with some hard sub.
stance. The original drawings of the
wheel indicated it was built 20 years
ago It's life should be 80 or 40 years
The age would, of course, depend on
the relative use to which the wheel
had been put.
From the testimony of Mr.. Gerecke
Engineer Steinback and other wit
nesses, it was learned that the shaft
had but one key groove, while two
were contained in the wheel. This
accounted for the fact that but one
key was used.