Tri-nitro-glycerin As Applied in the Hoosac Tunnel

Electricity for Blasting Operations.

Although half a century has passed since blasting by electricity was effected by Col. Pasley, in his submarine explosions for removing the wreck of the Royal George, at Spithead, the apparatus for exciting the electricity necessary to explode many charges simultaneously, is still (May, 1872), very unsatisfactory. Mr. H. Julius Smith, of Boston, taking the Austrian friction battery, recommended by Baron Abner, in his report at Vienna, for his basis, has ameliorated the arrangements by enclosing the working parts in a better vulcanite casing, and securing the discharge by reversing the motion of the handle, but the objections remain that an ebonite plate is scratched by the rubbers, that specks of the sulphuret of tin, used as an amalgam, cause a partial discharge all over the surface of the plate, rendering it a short-lived machine whose power is limited, unless the priming of the exploders is made very sensitive, and liable to explode by atmospheric electricity. Several fatal accidents have occurred to miners, from premature explosions of the charge whilst loading the holes, and these fatalities having been traced to the “over-sensitive priming” used, it behooves the mining engineer to look well to the exploders offered him, and in every case he will find where cotton immersed in a varnish is sufficient insulation to protect the wire from losing its electricity, the priming used for charging such exploders is too dangerous for miners’ use, and involves a grave responsibility.

Mr. Abel’s Electro-magnetic Exploder limits the discharge to a series of five mines, or blasts in each series, being the Verdu or Savare system, and involves several leading wires for numerous explosions, and although yielding electricity in quantity it lacks intensity.

The Holtz machine is altogether too vicarious in its operation for blasting purposes. A machine or apparatus that will discharge 100 blasts, if needed, durable, and not liable to derangement or wear, is a necessity, and it should evolve enough electricity and of sufficient tension to jump between the wires 1-20th of an inch apart, necessary to fire priming, so as to secure simultaneous firing. The heated wire, or a quantity of electricity heating wire by the resistance a small wire offers to the current, since it occupies time, brief though it be, involves, as I think, the objection that the discharges cannot be simultaneous in, say twenty blasts. Of this class are the machines now in course of construction by Mr. Moses Farmer, of Boston, where the exciting power is manual labor, being a dynamo-electric machine. Breguet’s electro-magnetic exploder, giving a spark by breaking contact, is altogether too weak, at least for the American contractor.

The ordinary Ruhmkorff coil is accompanied with the objection, that in a numerous series of blasts, the spark, when it has passed some five or six holes, seems to vanish in a glow, and to lose the heat necessary to effect decomposition of the priming, besides the incumbrance of acids and battery; in brief, it is not sufficiently portable for the use of contractors.

During the past four years I have given this subject much attention, and, having experimented pretty extensively, I have secured the first point, viz.: a safe priming which is not affected by the induced electricity caused by machinery running, friction of handling, or atmospheric electricity. My present aim—the evolution of electricity of sufficient intensity to leap fifty to one hundred solutions of continuity, i. e., effect fifty blasts simultaneously, I hope I have secured, but this subtile force, electricity, is so readily affected by so many interfering elements in blasting operations, that it would be premature in this patent-demanding age, to communicate the progress I have obtained, until the several apparatus I am now constructing (three forms of machine), are complete, and have been subjected to actual work in severely critical hands. An inventor is no judge of the success of his own bantlings.

Aware of the short life of the frictional electric machine, as at present constructed; knowing how the ordinary induction coil diminishes its intensity of spark, in proportion to the number of blasts to be fired; seeing that the Electro-magnetic machine is limited to a series of five blasts, which can only be exploded consecutively; that the Electro-dynamic machines are open to this last objection, besides destruction of their conducting parts by overheating, whilst in the matter of adopting “over-sensitive priming” to compensate for the deficiency of electricity or cheap conducting wire, there looms up the danger to the miner of handling exploders, which “go off by looking at” them, it seemed that, unless some amelioration was effected in these details, the great economy of simultaneous blasting by means of electricity would have to be abandoned. Add to these difficulties the fact that any casualty occurring from any of the above causes would reach the public as caused by Nitro-Glycerin, and my reader will comprehend the interest I have felt, during the past four years, in solving the following problem:

To construct an apparatus that will, under every condition of atmosphere, whether damp, dense or rarefied, evolve, at the will of the operator, abundance of electricity; such electricity to possess the property of developing intense heat, so as not to need a very sensitive priming, and to possess sufficient tension to overleap numerous solutions of continuity, say fifty, at a flash. Next, to discover a priming composition, to insert between the solutions of continuity, that would not be affected by moisture, that would bear handling without danger of exploding, be unchangeable for years, unaffected by the induced electricity of the atmosphere, whether caused by thunder storms, lightning on the rail, machinery belting in motion, or steam blowing off from a safety valve, ozone, etc., and yet not too exhaustive of the electric force of the spark required to fire it.

The above seemed to me the conditions necessary for the apparatus and the exploder in firing with electricity.

In addition to these, for conducting such electricity to the points required, the best conductor, and the best insulation attainable.

Further, that as Nitro-Glycerin was an expensive explosive to waste, to supplement the above details with some material that would absolutely develope its extreme force instantaneously, and not as is easily the case, burn a part, explode a part, and throw the remainder into the atmosphere, to poison the miners, or by missing fire, endanger life, and waste time. How these objects, so desirable, have been obtained, I now proceed to relate.

By modifying the ordinary induction coil, so as to make it yield a highly heating spark, and remedying its property of losing tension rapidly after leaping four or five solutions of continuity, the Messrs. Ritchie & Sons, of Boston, have constructed for me a coil that fires 18 intervals when charged with rifle powder simply; and they are now constructing another coil capable of firing fifty mines, when charged with priming that is perfectly safe to handle, and fulfilling the conditions enumerated above. One spark alone is required to effect these results, which may be summed up as “eliminating the heating properties of induced electricity.”

I have previously referred to the necessity of using a heavy charge of fulminate of mercury, in order to secure perfect and instantaneous explosion of a charge of Nitro-Glycerin, without confining the latter; the manipulating this explosive salt (fulminate of mercury) without hazard to the operators (generally girls), was accomplished by precipitating gum mastich from its alcoholic solution, by the addition of water, and mixing in the moist fulminate, and then filling the pasty compound into a stout copper capsule, which is subsequently enclosed in a wooden case, saturated with paraffine. The resistance of the stout copper capsule, immensely adds to the effective force of the exploder, and ensures the most effective explosion of the Nitro-Glycerin, which cannot be obtained by a wooden capsule alone. These details as to the requirements for effectively exploding the nitro-compounds, have been very fully examined and proved, by Abel, Article, Pyroxylin, Watts’ Chem. Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 776, et seq., and daily use confirms them. My observation of the fatalities that have occurred with over-sensitive priming composition, introduced with a view to compensate for deficient electric force, and thus to permit the use of a weak battery and cheap cotton covered wire varnished over (instead of gutta-percha insulation), in order to substitute a weak current that would be sufficient to fire these over-sensitive exploders for the stronger current required to fire a safe priming, satisfy me that electric blasting had better be discontinued, and tape fuse resumed, unless the work will bear the expense of absolutely safe materials. Better to face the difficulty, construct efficient electric apparatus, convey the electricity along wires of perfect insulation to a safe priming, and by complete and violent explosion of the Nitro-Glycerin, or powder, make such effective blasting as not to throw away the labor of drilling, candles, power, and blasting materials. I believe this the true economy. These details may seem wearisome, but the casualties of blasting can best be diminished by avoiding missed holes, a result only attainable by using materials absolutely reliable; and the reader, if he has ever attempted to harness up as a team those subtile, evasive, terrific forces—electricity and explosives, for the service of his fellowman, will excuse the writer’s earnestness and agree with him that in such a task the rule should be “Aut nunquam tenta aut perfice.”

---

Nitro-Glycerin Patents and Litigation.

It is seldom that any valuable invention has been brought into public use without costly litigation being entailed on the inventor; and especially is this the case in chemical discoveries, either by pretenders who would interfere with the inventor who has turned his discovery to practical account, on the plea of having previously conceived the same idea, or by unscrupulous individuals who would appropriate to their own use, without payment, the fruits of the labors of other men’s brains; hence the writer did not altogether escape, as will be seen by the following remarks on the subject.

I will commence by stating briefly that a patent was granted and four re-issues of the same made to Alfred Nobel and his assignees, for the use of Nitro-Glycerin for blasting purposes, when “confined,“ and for a process of manufacturing the same, by running the glycerin and mixed acids together rapidly, in suitable proportions, into a tank of water. Now, it has never been denied that Sobrero was the discoverer of Nitro-Glycerin, and that it was competent for any one to manufacture that article. The only point, therefore, on which a patent could be obtained was for some improved method of making it. Accordingly, in the course of experiments, I discovered that by passing a current of cold, compressed air through the mixing glycerin and acids, a very valuable improvement was effected, economizing time and material, and rendering the process of manufacturing safer; and for this I obtained a patent on April 7, 1868.

That my readers may see how far I was correct in my estimate of the patentable value of my invention, I give below the opinion of eminent counsel:

This discovery was not allowed to pass unchallenged, for Mr. Tal. P. Shaffner, having learnt that I had obtained a patent, came forward with a claim that he had conceived the idea (!) in 1865; and in January, 1869, nearly a year after the application for the patent which was granted to me, he applied for a patent for the same thing. This brought our respective rights before the Patent Office in a matter of interference. However, the following remarks by Mr. John W. Thacher, Examiner of Interferences, in giving his decision on the case, will show pretty clearly to whom the right to a patent justly belongs. He says:

“The principle is well established that he who first reduces an invention to practical form is entitled to a patent therefor. Applying this test in this case, the right to a patent seems to rest entirely in Mowbray, and the invention is accordingly awarded to the patentee.”

And again Mr. Samuel S. Fisher, the Commissioner of Patents, in giving his decision, remarks:

“The story of Shaffner is not that of a man who had invented anything. He had a theory, talked about it, doubted its value; did not experiment to satisfy himself; until Mowbray was manufacturing on a large scale; and evidently did not intend to apply for a patent at all. I can find none of the ear-marks of a perfected invention, carried beyond the region of experiment; still less of any trace of diligence. Priority is awarded to Mowbray.”

As previously noted, the Nobel patent with its re-issues, in four divisions, and twenty-four columns of specifications, containing eight claims drawn up expressly to intercept infringers, specifically, emphatically, and unmistakably insisted:

1st. That Nobel discovered it was necessary to confine Nitro-Glycerin in order to explode it, and that it was practically impossible to explode it unconfined.

2d. That heat and pressure were the agents necessary for a successful explosion of Nitro-Glycerin.

The writer, however, discovered that the heat, pressure and confinement, claimed by the Nobel patent and re-issues, were unnecessary, by charging an open glass tube with Nitro-Glycerin, the glass tube being immersed in water, and the Nitro-Glycerin exploded by the concussion of a cap containing fulminate of mercury, and so succeeded in extricating himself from the domain of the Nobel patents and their particular claims.

But he could not extricate himself from litigation; the insolvent assignee, the United States Blasting Oil Company, clearly perceiving that the monopoly, as they had termed it, was gone, now resorted to the “pis aller” of litigation, misrepresentation, and threatening every one who used Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin, with the trouble of making affidavits, engaging counsel, and collecting evidence, a by no means to be despised aggressive warfare to contractors, who need all their time, all their capital, and all their ingenuity, to carry out their contracts to a profitable result. Guaranteeing the payment of enforced damages, I met this flank movement by engaging the best counsel, and resolutely set about terminating the pretensions of these patents.

A Suit in Equity was commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States, Western District of Pennsylvania, during the May Term, 1870, by the

United States Blasting Oil Company of New York, by its President, Tal. P. Shaffner,

vs.

Geo. M. Mowbray, J. H. King, Chas. Lobb, W. L. Holbrook, James Dickey and A. D. Hatfield.

As the sworn affidavits in the above case, now pending, are of great importance in substantiating, both practically and legally, the claims urged in previous observations, on behalf of the “Mowbray system” of manufacturing and using Nitro-Glycerin, I give below the substance of the testimony.

Evidence of George F. Barker, Professor of Physiological Chemistry and Toxicology in the Medical Department of Yale College.

“I have carefully examined the several re-issued patents, Nos. 3,377, 3,378, 3,379, 3,380, 3,381 and 3,382, the four former being divisions A, B, C and D, of the re-issued patent, granted upon the surrender of the original patent No. 50,617, dated October 24th, 1865, and the two latter divisions 1 and 2 of the original patent, also granted to the assignees of Alfred Nobel, on surrender of the original patent No. 57,175, dated August 14th, 1866, granted to said Alfred Nobel. I would further state that in the specifications of the before-mentioned re-issues it is asserted that Sobrero discovered that Glycerin was capable of giving, when, mixed with sulphuric and nitric acids, a substance analogous to gun cotton, which is true; and that the specifications of the said patents further state that “Sobrero abandoned further research with the declared opinion that its combustion or explosion could not be managed”; which statement, having read all which Sobrero is believed to have published upon the subject, viz.: his papers published in the Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des Sciences, Volume XXIV., page 247, printed in Paris A. D. 1847, and in the Repertoire de Chimie Applique, Volume II., page 400, printed in Paris in 1860, I have entirely failed to find recorded by him as his opinion.”

J. E. de Vrij also, in a communication to the British Association, which was read in July, 1851, and is published in the report of the association for the year 1851, page 52 (Notices and Abstracts), states in regard to Nitro-Glycerin, that it “explodes at a moderate heat, as was shown by experiment, detonating when the drops of Nitro-Glycerin on paper were struck a smart blow with a hammer.”

The before-mentioned re-issued patents further assert that “in order to explode the whole, or even a large proportion of the mass of Nitro-Glycerin, it is necessary to subject it to confinement or restraint”; which assertion is untrue, for Nitro-Glycerin, when freely exposed to the air in an open vessel or plate, may be and is capable of being readily exploded, without confinement, restraint, or pressure, as I have proved by experiment made at North Adams, on the 17th day of May, 1870, in exploding upon two occasions a quantity of Nitro-Glycerin in an open saucer with great violence, on which occasion the Nitro-Glycerin was exploded by simple concussion in open vessels, the fulminate cap used as the exploder being suspended above the surface of the Nitro-Glycerin in the saucer, and distant nearly two inches from it; so that the application of heat and pressure, or of either of these agencies, is unnecessary.

The said re-issued patents further assert, that “the degree of confinement must be sufficient to allow a pressure upon the Nitro-Glycerin to an extent that 360°F will be realized, so that decomposition will take place before the liquid can escape the force or heat of the evolved gases of a percussion cap, etc.”; whereas I found on the above occasion that when water was interposed between the Nitro-Glycerin and the percussion cap, so that no measurable increase of temperature (much less 360°F) could possibly occur in the former, the Nitro-Glycerin could be exploded.

In the first experiment three tubes, closed at bottom and containing half an ounce of Nitro-Glycerin each, were placed in water in a tumbler, being supported an inch from the bottom. Into the water in the tumblers, and outside of the tubes, distant from them nearly an inch, the fulminate cap was put. This was then fired, and caused the explosion of the Nitro-Glycerin through the intervening water. In the second experiment, using a tub of water in which eleven tubes containing Nitro-Glycerin were placed, the explosion of six fulminate caps failed to fire the Nitro-Glycerin, the distance from the tubes at which they were placed, nearly or quite ten inches, being too great. In the third experiment five such tubes of Nitro-Glycerin were suspended in a tub of water distant four or five inches from each other; the fulminate cap being inserted in the middle tube. On firing this cap the Nitro-Glycerin in all the tubes was exploded, as judged from the violent effects produced.

The said re-issued patents further assert that “Gun-cotton will explode in proportion to the degree of confinement, igniting at 266°F.” The celebrated chemist of the English War Department, F. A. Abel, who has made the most extended researches upon gun cotton on record, asserts in his paper published in the Philosophical transactions for 1869 (an abstract of which appears in the Journal of the Chemical Society of London for 1869, Volume XXIII., page 11,) “that rows of detached masses of gun cotton, placed on the ground, and extended 4 or 5 feet, have been exploded with most destructive results by firing a small detonating tube in contact with the piece of compressed gun cotton which formed one extremity of the row or train, the explosion of the entire quantity being apparently instantaneous and equally violent throughout.” And further that these and similar experiments “appear to indicate decisively that such explosion is not a result of the heat developed by the explosion of the detonating materials.”

I have witnessed the manufacture of Nitro-Glycerin as practised by the defendant Mowbray, at his works situated near the West Shaft of the Hoosac Tunnel, in Massachusetts, and after a full examination of the mode said to have been the invention of Alfred Nobel, and described in the before-mentioned re-issued patents, find that the process actually in daily use, at said Mowbray’s works, is that described in said Mowbray’s patent No. 76,499, dated April 7th, 1868, which process is substantially different from that described in the complainant’s re-issues hereinbefore set forth. According to said re-issues, Nobel’s process consists in running two separate streams, the one of Glycerin, the other of mixed nitric and sulphuric acids simultaneously into a conical vessel which is perforated at the lower portion thereof, through which perforations the mixture of acids and Glycerin passes into a vessel placed beneath, containing water. In the Mowbray process, a single fine stream of Glycerin is allowed to run into a previously cooled mixture of sulphuric and nitric acids, through and into which cooled mixture of acids is continuously forced, while the Glycerin is entering, a current of atmospheric air, previously artificially dried, compressed and cooled. The action of this current of air is an essentially important and useful one, both upon the process itself and upon the resulting product. First, as to mechanical effects: it thoroughly incorporates the ingredients; it removes in part the nitrous fumes which would otherwise be retained by and contaminate the product, and it cools the mixture by absorbing the heat produced by the chemical reaction of the ingredients. Second, as to the chemical effects: by the action of the oxygen which this air contains it oxidizes the nitrous acid, which may be present in the acids or may be produced in the reaction, to nitric acid, and thus economizes the materials, increases the quantity of the product, and produces a chemically pure article, as is shown by the fact that the Nitro-Glycerin thus produced is perfectly colorless, congeals uniformly at the same degree of temperature and produces, when exploded, no offensive vapors deleterious to the health of the miners using it. Moreover, as, in my opinion, these nitrous fumes tend to induce decomposition in the Nitro-Glycerin and thus to render it unstable, dangerous, and liable to spontaneous explosion, as is demonstrated to be the case in the analogous substance gun cotton, the introduction, in the method of Mowbray, of cold, dry, compressed air into the mixture, in order to get rid of these nitrous fumes, must be regarded as a substantially new invention.

In my opinion, the character of the Nitro-Glycerin is determined by the strength of the acids used in its preparation; the stronger the acids, the purer the product and the more efficient. I verily believe this: first, because it is true of the precisely analogous compound gun cotton, which is prepared in the same way; Hadow having proved, as stated in his paper published in the Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society of London in 1854, Volume VII., page 201, that at least three products are obtained by acting upon cotton by a mixture of sulphuric and nitric acids, the most explosive being always produced by the strongest acids; and 2nd, because of similar differences observed in Nitro-Glycerin made by different experimenters, and believed by them to be due to like differences in composition; Railton obtained by analysis, as stated in his paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society of London for 1854, Volume VII., page 222, the composition now universally adopted as that of Tri-Nitro-Glycerin. De Vrij believes the product he obtained, Journal de Pharmacie, series III., Volume XXVIII., page 38, 1855, to be Tri-Nitro-Glycerin, and Liecke in Dingler’s Polytechnisches Journal, Volume CLXXIX., page 157, 1866, gives methods by which Mono-Nitro-Glycerin, Di-Nitro-Glycerin and Tri-Nitro-Glycerin may be produced, the essential difference in these methods being only the strength of the acids employed. Gladstone’s Report of the British Association for 1856, page 52 (Notices and Abstracts), has shown that different samples of Nitro-Glycerin differed in properties according to the amount of water contained in the Glycerin; this water, by diluting the acids, making them weaker. Moreover the physiological properties of Nitro-Glycerin have been found by different experiments to differ widely. Sobrero, its discoverer, says a very small quantity taken upon the tongue produces a severe headache for several hours, whence he concludes that it is poisonous. De Vrij in 1851, says that it is not poisonous, and in 1855 that it produces headache, though ten drops caused no symptoms of poisoning in a rabbit. Dr. Herring, in 1849, reported in the American Journal of Science and Arts, series II., Volume VIII., page 257, observed the violent headache produced by 1/250 of a grain of Nitro-Glycerin or Glonoin, as he proposed to call it, and killed a cat with three drops. Field, in 1858, Pharmaceutical Journal, Volume XVII., page 544, confirmed these results; but Harley and Fuller, reported in the same place, were unable to obtain them by using other specimens of Nitro-Glycerin, though they largely increased the dose. Field consequently says, place given, page 627, “I am daily more convinced of two important facts connected with it, viz.: the great variation in the strength of different specimens, and the very marked difference in the susceptibility to its influence.” In further support of the opinion that several allied but distinct Nitro-Glycerins have been made, the wide difference in density and in congealing point may also be mentioned.

In my opinion the best effect cannot be obtained with commercial acids, owing to their insufficient strength. I have witnessed at the defendant Mowbray’s works, at the West shaft of the Hoosac Tunnel, the preparation of the acids used for making the Nitro-Glycerin, commercial acids being found deficient in strength, and in my opinion it is to the use of these stronger acids, combined with the method described in defendant’s patent, as above mentioned, that the stability, efficiency, and, above all, the freedom from noxious gases and vapors of the products of combustion of defendant’s Nitro-Glycerin is due, when contrasted with that made by complainant, which I have been informed and verily believe is made with acids of commercial strength, and produces, when exploded in a mine, gases and vapors highly deleterious to health.

I have further examined the patent No. 93,113, dated July 27th, 1869, granted to Mowbray, for exploding Nitro-Glycerin, and have experimented with the same, the explosions hereinbefore enumerated having been effected by the method therein described. And this deponent finds that by said Mowbray’s process of exploding Nitro-Glycerin, as claimed in his patent, confinement, restraint, or pressure is wholly unnecessary.

In my opinion the same is true in exploding Nitro-Glycerin on a large scale, as I have been informed, and verily believe that upwards of one thousand explosions of Nitro-Glycerin are made weekly in the Hoosac Tunnel by the mode so described in said patent.

I believe, moreover, that the method claimed by Mowbray, in said patent, differs materially from any of the various modes of exploding Nitro-Glycerin described in the before-mentioned re-issues granted to the assignees of A. Nobel, since these various methods specifically require the Nitro-Glycerin to be under confinement, or subjected to heat or pressure when confined, in order to explode it; while Mowbray claims exposing the Nitro-Glycerin to the concussion, agitation, or percussion of a heavy charge, not less than ten or twelve grains of pure fulminate of mercury, which fulminate is fired by passing the electric spark through a priming composition.”

George F. Barker.

June 8, 1870.

Evidence of George M. Mowbray,
Operative Chemist.

“About October, 1867, I concluded an agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to erect Nitro-Glycerin works near the West Shaft of the Hoosac Tunnel; these erected, I commenced manufacturing Nitro-Glycerin about the 26th day of December, 1867, and with but few intermissions have continued to manufacture it for blasting purposes for the tunnel work ever since. About June 13, 1868, I had a long interview with Mr. Taliaferro P. Shaffner, the complainant in this suit, when the said Shaffner proposed to me a consolidation of interests, and told me, if I would influence J. H. King and Henry Hinckley to advance the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, that Robert Rennie of the Lodi Chemical Works, of Lodi, New Jersey, would credit him with acids to manufacture Nitro-Glycerin, to the amount of eighty-five thousand dollars, and he would then purchase land about twenty miles up the Hudson river, and manufacture Nitro-Glycerin. The proposal I forwarded to J. H. King and Henry Hinckley, who deemed the same too chimerical to enter upon, more especially since said Shaffner informed me that one-fifth of the consolidated association would have to be paid to one Frederick Smith, one-fifth to said Robert Rennie, and one-fifth to said Shaffner, on behalf of said U. S. Blasting Oil Company’s engagements, said Company being deeply indebted to the Lodi Chemical Works, according to the assertion of Joseph Butterworth, the superintendent at Lodi. Mr. Shaffner further informed me that the United States Blasting Oil Company had transferred and assigned all the patent rights conferred by the Nobel patents to him, and he intended to obtain a re-issue of the said patents, and with the individual patents obtained by him, and the patent that had been granted to me in April, 1868, a Company could be formed that would control the supply of Nitro-Glycerin throughout the United States. I soon after consulted with J. H. King and Henry Hinckley, both capitalists, with means, as to the proposals of Tal. P. Shaffner, and the conclusion that we arrived at, was, that, as all the cash capital, and the only practicable method of manufacturing a safe, stable and pure Nitro-Glycerin, was already secured by patent to me, to place seventy-five thousand dollars at the disposal of the parties named by Mr. Shaffner would not be a sensible or prudent course, in view of the condition to which the management of the said Shaffner had reduced the United States Blasting Oil Company’s affairs financially, and the failure to supply the demand for Nitro-Glycerin, although the United States Blasting Oil Company had no competitor in New York; so I informed said Shaffner that said Hinckley and King would not advance the money, to wit: seventy-five thousand dollars, under such arrangements, and the proposition fell through. And I would further state, that at each of the various interviews—one of them prolonged for four hours without interruption—the said Tal. P. Shaffner fully admitted to me that any one could or might make Nitro-Glycerin, either by the method described by Sobrero, the inventor, in 1846, or by my patent, granted in 1868, April 7th, without in any way infringing on the patents issued to A. Nobel, and assigned to said Shaffner, as President of the United States Blasting Oil Company. And further, on the 8th December, 1869, I was at Oil City, at the request of the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Works, and assisted in the explosion of one blast in three drill holes of Nitro-Glycerin, using a frictional electric machine, insulated wires, the priming fuse and fulminating charge, as described in Letters Patent, granted to me, July 27th, 1869, and being No. 93,113, and entitled “An Improved Method of Exploding Nitro-Glycerin.” I am well informed of the four re-issued patents, Nos. 3,377, 3,378, 3,379 and 3,380, and the methods therein described differ very materially from the method that was practised on the 8th December, 1869, at the Oil City Tunnel, by me, and particularly in this very material respect; whereas, by the method practised at the Tunnel, an operator can blast simultaneously at will one hundred drill holes; by the methods described in the re-issues above mentioned, it is absolutely impossible to explode two drill holes simultaneously. And this difference between the simultaneous blasting of a number of holes and firing the same number of holes one after the other has been found in actual results to effect an economy of thirty per cent. in the cost of blasting out rock in the Hoosac Tunnel. In a book (Exhibit B), entitled “Liebig and Kopp’s annual report of Chemistry for 1847 and 1848”, pages 376 and 377, volume 2, published in London in 1850, there is a notice of the comparative power of nitro-cotton and gunpowder, and reference is there made to the nitro-compounds, made from dextrin, glycerin and sugar, as being “similarly explosive preparations,” to gun-cotton and nitro-mannite, which latter is described as a cheap substitute for fulminating mercury in the manufacture of percussion caps, and certain comparative experiments with the former (gun-cotton), as to the relative value of the same, compared with gunpowder, are mentioned as having been made by the celebrated powder manufacturers, “Messrs. Hall & Son, of Dartford, in the county of Kent, England.” After such publication, the claim made by the said Nobel, or his assignees, in the re-issues before-mentioned, that Nobel discovered that Nitro-Glycerin could be exploded under confinement is invalid, for the fact that Nitro-Glycerin had been described as a similarly explosive preparation to nitro-mannite and nitro-cotton, or gun-cotton, by its discoverer, Sobrero, necessarily involved, and indeed published the circumstance of its only being necessary to subject it to the like conditions of other explosives to effect its explosion. I further state that in four affidavits filed in this Court, on the 25th of February, by Taliaferro P. Shaffner, and T. P. Shaffner and E. A. L. Roberts, jointly, and E. A. L. Roberts singly, and W. M. Shaffner, these parties have sworn that the mode of exploding at the Oil City Tunnel, December 8th, 1869, was identical and precisely similar to the mode described in a patent granted to said T. P. Shaffner, December 18th, 1868, and re-issued April 13th, 1869, No. 3,375, whilst the very same parties describing the same blasting at said Oil City Tunnel, at the same time, in the same words, and almost word for word throughout, as positively have sworn that it was identical, precisely similar to the mode of blasting described in the re-issues Nos. 3,377, 3,378, 3,379 and 3,380. Neither of these parties were at any time on the ground during the operations therein and thereat (to wit, Oil City Tunnel) performed, except W. M. Shaffner, who was at no time within twenty feet of the parties operating, and who has erroneously stated that water was poured on to the Nitro-Glycerin at the bottom of the hole, which to my certain knowledge was not done. And I ask the attention of this Court, to the affidavits filed in this cause for the plaintiff, and also in a cause of Taliaferro P. Shaffner against the same defendants, filed February 25th, 1870, as completely disproving each other.

Geo. M. Mowbray.

February 26, 1870.

Evidence of Phillip Mackey and Timothy Lynch,
foremen of miners at the Hoosac Tunnel.

“We were employed during the month of September, 1868, at the West Shaft of the Hoosac Tunnel, at the time when Colonel Shaffner, the complainant, was making experiments with Nitro-Glycerin in the said tunnel, and assisted him by drilling holes in the rock to receive the cartridges containing Nitro-Glycerin, and tamping said holes. After the explosion of the said Nitro-Glycerin, we witnessed its effects on the miners. These effects were usually to produce a dryness about the throat, and feeling of thirst, which led the miners to take a drink of water; immediately thereafter the miners would vomit, and such vomiting would be followed by severe headache, rendering it necessary for the miner so affected to be removed to the air, and out of the tunnel, and the effects of such headache would last for from twelve to eighteen hours; in fact, the vapors caused by the Nitro-Glycerin exploded by said Shaffner were of such a noxious character as to disable the miners generally from continuing their work.

“During the past three years we have often examined the Nitro-Glycerin manufactured by G. M. Mowbray, and been regularly employed as foremen of the miners who drilled the holes for receiving the cartridges of Nitro-Glycerin exploded by said Mowbray and by his assistants, and we declare that Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin differs greatly in appearance from that used by said Shaffner; that Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin is colorless almost as water, whereas Shaffner’s was orange-colored; that the explosive effects of said Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin were much greater, so far as we could observe, and that particularly we have noticed the miners do not suffer from any noxious vapors after the firing of blasts of said Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin, and that during the three years the Nitro-Glycerin made by Mowbray has been used in said Tunnel, there has not been a single case where a miner has been compelled to leave his work by reason of the gases given off by the explosion of Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin. And we consider that the Nitro-Glycerin made by said Mowbray, and used in the Tunnel; very much safer to handle, and does not give off noxious gases as compared with the Nitro-Glycerin made by the United States Blasting Oil Company of New York, and used by said Shaffner in the Hoosac Tunnel. And we verily believe that if said Nitro-Glycerin were attempted to be used in the Tunnel, now that so general a use is made of Nitro-Glycerin, it would compel the miners to leave their work and seriously retard the progress of the work by reason thereof, for those who could endure it for a time would have to carry out those who are unable to move after inhaling the gases of the Shaffner Nitro-Glycerin, and thus lose time which would otherwise be employed in doing work.

“We consider it utterly useless to confine the Nitro-Glycerin when fired by Mowbray’s system.”

Philip Mackey,
Timothy Lynch.

Feb. 16, 1870.

Evidence of John Van Velsor,
Superintendent of Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin works
at the Hoosac Tunnel:

“In October, 1868, I was employed to fit up a Nitro-Glycerin factory at Fairport, Ohio, and instruct the hands in the process of manufacturing under Mowbray’s patent of April 7th, 1868. I endorse the evidence of Messrs. Mackey and Lynch, as to the difference in appearance and smell between Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin and that manufactured under Nobel’s patent by the United States Nitro-Glycerin Company.

“I have made under Mowbray’s patent upwards of twenty thousand pounds of Nitro-Glycerin, a great portion of which has been exploded in the Hoosac Tunnel, by a method patented by Mr. Mowbray, dated July 27th, 1869, No. 93,113. I have exploded on numerous occasions the Nitro-Glycerin made at said Mowbray’s factory, without subjecting the same to confinement, by firing a charge of fulminating mercury, say ten or twelve grains, contained in a wooden or copper cap, by means of the electric spark. I have witnessed the use of Nitro-Glycerin at the West Shaft of the Hoosac Tunnel, both in the bench work and in the heading, where the blasters left the Nitro-Glycerin in the drill holes entirely unconfined, such being the general practice at the Hoosac Tunnel, so that in case of the wires not conducting the electricity, or in case of the priming being defective and not firing the fulminating charge, the exploder might be removed from the Nitro-Glycerin without danger to the operator. During the eighteen months I have been in the employ of Mr. Mowbray, manufacturing Nitro-Glycerin, he has only made Nitro-Glycerin by his patented method, and by none other.

John van Velsor.

February 18, 1870.

Evidence of A. D. Hatfield.

“I have been employed in blasting in the railroad tunnel at Oil City, using Nitro-Glycerin furnished by the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Company, manufactured under Mowbray’s patent. In firing and exploding the Nitro-Glycerin I have acted under a license from George M. Mowbray, said Nitro-Glycerin having been exploded without being confined.”

A. D. Hatfield.

February 19, 1870.

Evidence of Charles Lobb,
Railroad Contractor.

“I have been engaged in tunnelling through the hill at Oil City, Pa., for the Jamestown and Franklin Railroad, and have used for that purpose Nitro-Glycerin manufactured by the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Company, under Mowbray’s patent of April 7, 1868. I have tried to purchase Nitro-Glycerin from Tal. P. Shaffner, President of the United States Blasting Oil Company, and have been unable to procure the same. Said Shaffner referred me to E. A. L. Roberts for the purchase of Nitro-Glycerin, and on application to said Roberts was unable to obtain any.

Charles Lobb.

February 19, 1870.

Evidence of David Crossley.

“I have been engaged in operating oil wells in Pennsylvania, for ten years. On December 6, 1869, I obtained a torpedo containing six pounds of Nitro-Glycerin from the agent of Robert’s Torpedo Company, which he said was from New York, and of the best quality. I had it put into an oil well where it was exploded by said agent.

“The explosion of said torpedo, in said well, had the effect of reducing the production of oil in said well from two barrels of oil to one and a half barrels of oil in a day of twenty-four hours.

“On the sixteenth day of December, 1869, I put in another torpedo in the same well, which I obtained from the same agent of the same company. It contained the same quantity of Nitro-Glycerin, which was represented to me to be the same as before-mentioned. This torpedo was exploded by the agent in said well on the day last mentioned. Before the explosion of the torpedo in said well, it produced one and a half barrels of oil in a day of twenty-four hours, and the explosion of said torpedo caused no difference in the production of oil from the same well. About the first day of October, 1868, I employed G. M. Mowbray to explode a Nitro-Glycerin torpedo in another well of mine. He exploded said torpedo in said well in my presence. He used in the torpedo six and a quarter pounds of Nitro-Glycerin. The effect of the explosion was to increase the production of said well from five barrels to one hundred barrels in a day of twenty-four hours. After this, Mr. Mowbray put in and exploded other Nitro-Glycerin torpedoes in wells for me, and always with the effect of increasing their production.

“Judging from my knowledge as an expert in operating oil wells and the explosion of torpedoes of all the various kinds therein, I consider that G. M. Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin is far more effective than that of any other party, or that his method of exploding is more effective.”

David Crossley.

February 19, 1870.

Evidence of Jesse Smith,
Oil Well Operator.

“In November 1869, I had a torpedo from the Roberts Torpedo Company exploded in my well in Crawford Co., Pa., by their agent. The explosion was an utter failure, one-half the contents of the torpedo still remaining in it; this the agent said was Nitro-Glycerin.”

Jesse Smith.

February 19, 1870.

Evidence of George West.

“I am employed in exploding the Nitro-Glycerin in the holes drilled by the miners in the Oil Creek Tunnel, Pa. I used Nitro-Glycerin from the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Works, which is very different to that of the United States Blasting Oil Company, of New York, and requires a different mode of explosion. I do not use any of the methods described in Nobel’s patent of October 24, and re-issued April 13, 1869, for exploding, for the methods therein described would only explode it, if at all, which I doubt, by hazard, and not with certainty, owing to the peculiar properties of the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin as compared with what I have seen and used as the Shaffner, or Nobel’s Nitro-Glycerin. I endorse all the previous evidence as to the difference between the Nobel or Shaffner Nitro-Glycerin, and that made under Mowbray’s patent. The method I have used to explode this Nitro-Glycerin, at the Oil City Tunnel, consists in what is known as the Austrian battery and electric fuse and fulminating shell; that is, an electric machine, whose exciting plate is made of ebonite or hard rubber, with insulated and conducting wire terminals, which are from ¹/₁₆ to ¹/₃₂ of an inch apart, and between those terminal points a priming composition is inserted, through which the electric spark being passed, such priming ignites, giving a flame (insufficient to explode the Nitro-Glycerin, but) sufficient to inflame a fulminating compound, of which there is a heavy charge, and this fulminating compound being exploded by the priming composition, explodes the Nitro-Glycerin. I have never used the method of exploding with gunpowder as described in the Nobel patent, No. 50,617, in the tunnel aforesaid, nor elsewhere, but I have witnessed attempts to explode the Nitro-Glycerin used under Mowbray’s Patent by means of fuse and gunpowder, as described by Nobel, where that method failed.”

George West.

February 19, 1870.

Evidence of H. Julius Smith.

“I am engaged in the business of manufacturing electric fuses and introducing explosive compounds to contractors, miners and torpedo men. I have carefully examined the patents in question re-issued to Tal. P. Shaffner, and, I find, by the modes therein described, it is impossible to fire with certainty, and simultaneously, more than two mines charged with Nitro-Glycerin by any of the methods described in said four re-issued patents; and to effect any explosion of Nitro-Glycerin by any of the methods therein described, and materials delivered to the public by the assignees of the inventor Nobel, it is absolutely essential that the Nitro-Glycerin should be confined as described in the re-issues in question. I have also carefully examined the patent issued to George M. Mowbray, dated July 27th, 1869, and find that the process therein described of exploding Nitro-Glycerin, does away with the necessity for confining Nitro-Glycerin in order to explode it. I endorse previous evidence from my own experience in regard to exploding Nitro-Glycerin when unconfined under Mowbray’s system. I have also manufactured and delivered upward of twenty thousand fuses to the contractors of the Hoosac Tunnel, capable of exploding Nitro-Glycerin when unconfined, at said Hoosac Tunnel. I have been present when the modes described in the re-issues of the Nobel patent have been carefully practised, and entirely failed to fire Nitro-Glycerin, and in one instance immediately after the failure of the Nobel system, I inserted a fuse of the exact description, and with the electric appliances as described in Geo. M. Mowbray’s patent, No. 93,113, dated July 27th, 1869, and the result was a successful explosion. The modes described in the Nobel re-issues, Nos. 3,377, 3,378, 3,379 and 3,380, have been abandoned by all parties with whom I am acquainted, who have important works to carry through, requiring Nitro-Glycerin to be exploded, and particularly by the said Tal. P. Shaffner himself, as I have manufactured, sold and delivered to said Shaffner and others, the apparatus and the exploding electrical fuses for firing Nitro-Glycerin made by said Shaffner, and Nitro-Glycerin made by the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Company, which said fuses or electrical exploders, involve a principle of firing Nitro-Glycerin of great practical importance and very recent development, viz., the principle of concussion, so as to effect the explosion of the entire mass of Nitro-Glycerin instantaneously, without requiring the explosion to be transmitted from particle to particle, in this respect differing very materially from the methods described in the Nobel re-issues above referred to, which require, first, confinement, and then heat and pressure, to be developed in the presence of the Nitro-Glycerin.”

H. Julius Smith.

February 24, 1870.

Evidence of James H. King.

“I am one of the proprietors of the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Works, situated near Painesville, Ohio. I am personally acquainted with Taliaferro P. Shaffner, and endorse all the evidence of G. M. Mowbray as to Shaffner’s proposal to consolidate the Nobel and Mowbray patents, and his admission that the parties he represented did not claim the exclusive right to manufacture Nitro-Glycerin. I would state that one W. B. Roberts, of the firm of Roberts & Co., of Titusville, Pennsylvania, informed me that he is one of the Trustees of the United States Blasting Oil Company, and that since the commencement of this suit I have delivered to Roberts & Co., at request of W. B. Roberts, twelve hundred pounds, or thereabouts, of Nitro-Glycerin manufactured by the company of which I am a member.

“I manufacture (as a party interested in the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Works of Painesville) under a license from George M. Mowbray, under a patent to said Mowbray, bearing date April 7th, 1868.”

J. H. King.

February 25, 1870.

Evidence of James Dickey.

“I am acquainted with Nobel’s system of blasting. I assisted in making ten explosions in Oil City Tunnel, for Charles Lobb, the contractor. We did not use any of the methods of exploding specified in Nobel’s or Shaffner’s patents. We used the improved electrical machine of H. Julius Smith, patented August 10, 1869, and used the method of firing and fuse described in G. M. Mowbray’s patent of July 27, 1869, and which several methods are entirely different from those mentioned in the several patents claimed by complainant in this case. I used in the blasts made by me, the Nitro-Glycerin manufactured by the Lake Shore Nitro-Glycerin Company, under Geo. M. Mowbray’s patent, No. 76,499, dated April 7, 1868. I endorse the statements of the miners Mackey and Lynch as to the noxious effects and danger arising from the use of Shaffner’s Nitro-Glycerin, and the freedom from the same in that manufactured by Mowbray’s system.”

James Dickey.

February 25, 1870.

Evidence of W. S. Holbrook.

“I was engaged along with James Dickey to perform some blasting in Oil Creek Tunnel. I endorse his statement as to the kind of Nitro-Glycerin and the method of exploding used in said tunnel, and further state that we never used any other process or material.”

W. S. Holbrook.

February 25, 1870.

Evidence of Henry H. Pratt.

“I was foreman at the West Shaft at the Hoosac Tunnel, up to October 15, 1869. In December, 1869, I went to Oil City, Pa., to show Charles Lobb, the contractor for the Jamestown and Franklin Railroad, how to use Nitro-Glycerin for blasting rock. The weather being very cold, warm water was first poured into the holes to prevent the frozen sides of the drilled hole chilling the Nitro-Glycerin. A charge of Nitro-Glycerin was then poured through the water, and a small cartridge of tin being introduced, the charge was fired by means of a frictional electric machine, connected with a priming fuse and a charge of fulminating mercury, being the mode set forth and shewn in the Letters Patent, granted to George M. Mowbray, No. 93,113, and dated July 27th, 1869. I am familiar with the re-issued patents in question, and the mode by which I exploded said Nitro-Glycerin in said tunnel, as above described, is very different from the mode described in the patents re-issued to said U. S. Blasting Oil Company; it would have been utterly impossible to have fired the said three holes in said tunnel by the mode stated in the above referred to re-issues at one and the same moment, as was done by me. I find on examination, that in all the patents granted to Taliaferro P. Shaffner, Nos. 51,671, 51,674, dated December 19th, 1865, the mode of firing a consecutive series of fuses is condemned by said Shaffner, and in patent No. 51,674, that the specification accompanying said Letters Patent contains the following words: “Figures 6 and 7 represent the heretofore known mode of exploding two or more charges by the same electric current, and the former is shewn as applied to a consecutive series of blasts in line, and the latter to the heading of a tunnel,” such mode being identically and exactly what I practised at the Oil City tunnel, and none other. I confirm all the previous evidence as to the feasibility of exploding pure Nitro-Glycerin when unconfined, and also as to the good qualities of the Mowbray Nitro-Glycerin when compared with that made under the Nobel re-issues.”

H. H Pratt.

February 26, 1870.

Evidence of Otto Burstenbinder,
of New York.

“I have been familiar with the use of Nitro-Glycerin since May, 1865, and introduced that article from Hamburgh, Germany, in July, 1865. I witnessed the application of Nitro-Glycerin to blasting purposes about 20 miles from Hamburgh, when many distinguished citizens were present, a full account of the results effected being published afterwards in the principal German newspapers. The mode used to explode Nitro-Glycerin on that occasion was by fuse and cap, the Nitro-Glycerin being confined, in one experiment, in a gas-pipe, plugged at each end, and the fuse led through the plug, and at the end of the fuse there was a percussion cap attached; in another experiment a wooden plug was hollowed out conically inside and the cone was filled with gunpowder; to this plug a fuse was attached and lighted in the usual manner. I myself fired Nitro-Glycerin in the City of New York, on or about the fifteenth day of July, A. D. 1865; this was the first time I used Nitro-Glycerin in the United States, for blasting purposes; the mode of operation was to pour the Nitro-Glycerin into the naked drill hole, and lower a wooden plug charged with gunpowder, on to the Nitro-Glycerin, poured some dry sand on to the plug, and fire a fuse which was situated on the plug in the usual way.

“I am quite familiar with the Nitro-Glycerin manufactured by the United States Blasting Oil Company, under Nobel’s patent, and that manufactured by G. M. Mowbray under his own, and confirm all the previous evidence as to the superiority of Mowbray’s Nitro-Glycerin, in explosive power, in absence of color, absence of smell, absence of nitrous gases, in greater safety through the greater difficulty of exploding it, and in purity. As an expert of considerable experience in the use of Nitro-Glycerin, I assert that it is entirely unnecessary to confine Nitro-Glycerin in order to explode the same, the explosion being as thorough, and its effects nearly as powerful for blasting purposes, owing to the extreme instantaneous conversion into gas when unconfined, provided a proper charge of fulminate be used.

“I have made the explosion of Nitro-Glycerin, and its application to blasting purposes, my occupation since 1865, and am thoroughly familiar with its properties, use, and the literature referring to it, and I have never heard or read that the Nitro-Glycerin made by Sobrero was incapable of being crystallized, but I verily believe, and have always found, that Nitro-Glycerin congeals when exposed to a moderately low temperature.”

Otto Burstenbinder.

June 7, 1870.

Parties using Nitro-Glycerin are requested to note, that on the 19th of March, 1872, the insolvent U. S. Blasting Oil Company (by the aid of funds drawn, under litigation also, from the Oil producers of Pennsylvania, by the notorious torpedo patents), finding their twenty-four columns of specification and eight claims wholly inapplicable to the mode of using Nitro-Glycerin as now practised, surrendered their re-issues, and, as I am of opinion, by the injudicious oversight of the Examiner, an intimate friend of Mr. Shaffner, obtained four more re-issues, containing twenty columns of specification and seventeen claims, thereby, as eminent counsel advise me, practically abandoning their case up to March 19, 1872.

Counsel further advise me, after full consideration of these last re-issues, that the litigation has entered upon a new phase, and that the original patent, the first re-issues, and the second re-issues, contain in themselves the proof of their utter worthlessness, needing no other evidence to render them void. But a graver and more serious charge rests upon the means by which these anomalies have been put on record in the Patent Office, which will be reviewed by experienced counsel, before a competent tribunal.

For myself, with resources which I hope and intend to keep unimpaired, to conduct this business to its final issue, with a pecuniary interest I am bound to take care of, besides a further amused interest, aroused during the past four years, by the shifts and pretences of this impecunious company to avoid trial of a suit instituted by itself, there will be a courteous desire to accommodate my opponents with the earliest possible verdict, counsel, judges and jury can arrive at, consistent with a complete, full and fair investigation of plaintiff’s pretences and patents.

---

Hoosac Tunnel—Drilling by Machine—Blasting with Powder—Nitro-Glycerin.

The Hoosac Mountain, whose summit is 2,700 feet above the sea level, is composed, according to the geologist, of mica slate, so compressed that near the West End the stratification is contorted, upheaved, and intermingled with quartz and pyrites; consequently the classification of the rock as “mica slate” conveys a very imperfect idea of its hard impracticable nature to the miner. To any one who will be at the pains of examining the masses lying near the powder magazine, built of massive stone, at the West Shaft, the hardness of this rock is at once apparent. Parts of this mountain have been found so hard and tough, and so difficult to drill, that thirty-four drills have been worn in drilling a blast hole thirty-six inches deep. This was an exceptional case, but similar hard layers are met from time to time. Had it not been for the Burleigh drill and Nitro-Glycerin, the sturdy indomitable perseverance of Massachusetts would have been severely strained, if not exhausted, in running this Tunnel.

The following extract from the Adams Transcript, for April 11, 1872, gives a summary of the progress made during the month of March, and the lengths remaining to be opened to complete the work:

“East End, 120 feet; Central Shaft, eastward, 100 feet; West End, 140 feet, total, 360 feet. Total lengths opened to April 1, 1862: East End, 10,166 feet; Central Shaft, east, 617 feet, west, 325 feet, total, 942 feet; West End, 7,494 feet. Lengths remaining to be opened: between East End and Central Shaft, 2,054 feet—586 feet less than half a mile. Between West End and Central Shaft, 4,375 feet—855 feet more than two-thirds of a mile.”

A reference to the wood cut opposite page 80, shows the profile of the mountain and progress of the Tunnel to January 1, 1872.

The distance made during the month of March, in the East heading, was 120 feet of heading, 24 feet wide and 9 feet in height, exclusive of first enlargement or roof, and second enlargement of roof to full size or stopeing, which is usually carried on simultaneously to about 250 feet per month. This heading is being attacked by twelve of the Burleigh drilling machines, mounted on two carriages manned by eight miners and a foreman, who work for eight hours, with brief intermission whilst the charges are being fired. The drills are impelled by compressed air, making 300 strokes per minute, and calculated to strike with a force of 200 lbs. at each blow, perforating from one inch to five inches per minute, of a hole two inches in diameter when powder is used, and 1½ inch diameter for Nitro-Glycerin blasting. At the East heading, partly owing to the rock being softer than either at the West End or in the Central Shaft, partly to the miners being accustomed to powder, partly to the heavy battery of drills enabling twelve drilling machines to work at once, and thus make progress satisfactory to the contractors, who, wisely, let well enough alone, the holes when drilled to a depth of from two feet six inches to three feet, are each charged with from one to two and one-half pounds of blasting powder, then tamped; the carriages are drawn back, and the sixteen to twenty-six holes are fired simultaneously by means of a frictional electric machine. This takes place every four hours, exploding from 100 to 150 cartridges every twenty-four hours. The reader must not infer from this that every blast makes from two feet six inches to three feet of advance; because, first, the holes are never drilled for powder in a horizontal plane, but at an angle, sometimes upwards, sometimes downwards, to the right or left, the aim being, that a straight line drawn from the bottom of the hole to the face of the rock shall be shorter than the extreme length of the drilled hole, so that the charge or blast which exerts its force in the line of least resistance, may displace the rock between the bottom of the hole and the surface of the rock, and not collar the hole, that is, merely remove the rock surrounding the outlet of the drilled hole. It is usually found also, that the power exerted by powder is not sufficient, in working a heading, to blast out the rock from the bottom of the hole, but, most frequently, from the point where the cartridge begins, and the tamping terminates. Thus, if a hole be drilled at an acute angle from the face to a depth of thirty inches, with a line of least resistance of twenty-four inches from the bottom of the hole, and a fifteen inch cartridge of blasting powder be inserted, and tamping to the extent of fifteen inches be rammed in above the cartridge, the rock removed, will, under ordinary circumstances, be removed from about where the cartridge commences, that is about 12 inches, or it may be 14 inches, in a direct line from the face. And herein lies the very important distinction between powder and Nitro-Glycerin; the latter, bottoms, i. e., removes the rock from the bottom of (in roofing and quarry work beyond) the hole; with powder this is rarely the case. Moreover, as the depth of the holes is increased, so must the diameter be increased in proportion to the depth when powder is the blasting agent, but when the drilled hole is to be blasted out with Nitro-Glycerin, a diameter of 1¾ inches is sufficient for a hole having a depth of ten feet, and a line of least resistance of eight feet, a depth wholly inadmissible for powder, because the rock at that depth would act like the breech of a cannon, and the explosion would issue direct from the hole, only fracturing the edge, i. e., collaring the hole. With Nitro-Glycerin the holes need not be drilled at so acute an angle to the face of the rock, and need no tamping, that is, the drilled hole is left entirely open, and no time is occupied therefore in ramming materials over the explosive, and no risk is incurred in cutting the fuse or electric wire, as with powder, dualin or dynamite, all of which must be tamped. The explosion of Nitro-Glycerin differs from that of every other explosive in this, that the explosion is instantaneous, consequently the rock yields before any flash can reach the mouth of the drilled hole, and the work is done before the gases can travel six feet. Hence the necessity of deep holes; to charge holes only 30 inches deep (except they are from ⅝ to ⅞ inch diameter) is a waste of the material. The same charge will clear the rock to the bottom, with a hole drilled six feet deep, and in fact bottom the six foot hole, whilst a similar charge inserted in a 30 inch hole may leave three or six inches of the hole visible with its surrounding rock, after the blast. And here I cannot refrain from narrating what a narrow escape Nitro-Glycerin had at one time from being rejected at the Tunnel. In the dark days of this enterprise, when every cent expended was narrowly watched, and when it was favor enough for a miner to condescend to allow Nitro-Glycerin to be used in his shift, requests and entreaties for deep holes, and remonstrances that the holes were not drilled deep enough to give this explosive a fair chance, were found fruitless; until, finally, a consultation was held in the time-keeper’s office at the West End, the purport of which was, to notify the writer that no more Nitro-Glycerin was needed, as it did not answer expectations. The superintendent, at the West Shaft, was asked what reason I gave that greater progress was not made with the new explosive. His reply was: “Mowbray says the holes are not drilled deep enough, and, I think (he added) it is but fair his demand for deep holes should be complied with, before you throw up the use of Nitro-Glycerin. He has outlaid some $5,000 for the experiment, and you ought at least to see the effect of deep holes, before you decide.” Agreed; the superintendent then went to the foreman of the shift, and requested deeper holes, ordering six feet holes. “It’s no use,” was the reply; “it’s all nonsense; why, I tell ye, it won’t bottom a hole 30 inches deep; then how is it going to fare with a six foot hole; besides, we can’t drill six feet holes by hand in one shift.” “Then take two shifts to do it, and take three if it is necessary; this Nitro-Glycerin man says he must have deep holes, and he shall for this once, if I drill them myself, and it takes a week to do it.”

The deep (only six feet) holes were drilled, and charged; cartridges of same size as those inserted in 30 inch holes, were used, and fired, every hole bottomed, every miner was astonished, and from that day the use of Nitro-Glycerin was a necessity for the heading in the West End. But it was a narrow escape from what would have been deemed a failure. On another occasion, during a drought, the supply of water at the West End, where the Nitro-Glycerin was manufactured, gave out, and, being a necessity in the manufacture, we had to haul it by team. This was troublesome work, and cost money. There had been a change of engineers, and the gentleman now in charge, on the difficulty reaching him, determined first to ascertain whether Nitro-Glycerin was a necessity, before complying with the contract the Commissioners had made, and which involved a supply of compressed air and water, if they used Nitro-Glycerin. And to make no mistake, the holes of what is termed the “cut” in the heading, that is, two series of four holes each, in a parallel line from the roof, about nine feet high, were drilled about five feet apart at the face of the heading, and six feet deep, tending towards each other so that at the bottom of the holes they terminated about three feet apart. After charging and firing, the above gentleman and his assistant inspected the result. A mass of rock eight feet in height, five feet wide in front, and about five feet deep, with the rear end three feet wide, had been blown from its seat, some ten feet from the heading, and there stood, a monument (until block-holed) of the use of Nitro-Glycerin, when properly applied. “You shall have all the water you want, sir, if I bring it myself in pails,” was the energetic assurance of this gentleman, who felt satisfied that Nitro-Glycerin was a necessity for the Hoosac Tunnel.

In drilling holes for blasting with Nitro-Glycerin, a depth of not less than five feet should be reached; six feet are better, but ten and twelve feet are the right depth for a heading, whilst fifteen feet for bench work, and eight feet apart, or, for quarry work ten feet apart, and ten feet from the face, provided the rock is hard enough (in clay, owing to the sudden shock Nitro-Glycerin is ineffective); exploded in holes of such a depth it will throw out everything before it—and make progress. How difficult to get miners to drill such holes, how many frivolous objections, how the wires and their connections will be tampered with to interfere with the intended blast, and how criminal, contrary, and pig-headed, they deem the contractor and Nitro-Glycerin man who insists on such depth of holes, I have often experienced, and it needs the firmness and vim of desperation to enter a quarry, descend a shaft, or go into a rock cutting, and oppose the life-long habits of men who believe honestly they know everything that concerns mining, and what they do not know is not worth knowing. But if once a blast is shewn, and they have to hoist out the rock, their obstinacy succumbs, and in three months, men, who knew it was poison, and so dangerous it was wicked to ask them to drill holes to receive it, have positively refused to descend a shaft if powder was attempted to be used merely in a comparative experiment, alleging, that the powder was unhealthy and not fit to be used at the bottom of a shaft, where the air was confined. And here let me truly add, I have never sent Nitro-Glycerin to be experimented with in any rock work, rock cutting, or rock tunnel, that was not followed by a large order, repeated until the end of the work, during my past experience of four years’ manufacture. Indeed, there have been only two cases where it was found inapplicable, and these were in hard clay, where it seems actually to mould for itself a chamber, compressing the walls of the drill hole, as if an enormous hydraulic ram had been inserted; but the tenacious mass is not displaced, it only suffers compression. When, therefore, holes can be made with a crow-bar, and not drilled, do not use Nitro-Glycerin, but if you have rock, be it as hard as emery, or as the magnetic iron ore of the Lake Superior or Ottawa Iron mines, the harder the better for the economy of drilling, which is very great, so few holes being required, the introduction of Nitro-Glycerin, with a good steam or air drill, causes the progress of the work to advance to that degree that it is only limited by the ability to remove the debris of blasted material. To return from this digression to my subject.

To effect this progress of 120 feet, probably about 3,000 holes have been drilled in an area not exceeding 24 feet by ten feet, requiring twelve drilling machines, and 60 horse steam power to compress the air requisite to drive the drills; add to this the powder, over a ton and a half, the electric exploders, the candles and oil for miners, and the fact that a mass of rock 120 feet long, ten feet high and twenty-four feet wide, has to be carried out and dumped two miles from where it was excavated, and some slight idea of the labor at this one point may be formed. Now take double this length of rock, viz.: 250 feet, increase its height to 15 feet, keeping its breadth of 24 feet—I say, take this mass which is torn from the roof, whilst the heading is being pushed, and bring it and dump it 1¾ miles from where it lay solid, and you have again another point on which you can begin to estimate the East End work. About 350 men, a locomotive, forty cars, 200 horse water power, machinists, blacksmiths a legion, for sharpening drills is hand work, so is picking up rock, loading cars, making track, and all this is done in the smoky, wet, grimy, confined tunnel, or round about its entrance, and you have a mixed, confused suspicion that this tunnel driving is a work needing high powers of organization; and, with the license of the miner, his pay day, his weddings and his wakes and funerals, which are all powerful reasons for quitting work, you have a still clearer idea of the anxiety such work involves.

The Plate, opposite page 74, conveys an idea of the sinking of the Central Shaft at 891 feet depth; at the time of writing, May, 1872, however, this shaft had not only reached grade, but to a sump beneath grade at a depth of 1,040 feet; headings and enlargements have been also driven at grade, east and west, to meet the works from the East End, and from the Western Shaft. Owing to the stratification of the rock, which dips towards the west, great progress was anticipated in this direction; but man proposes and God disposes; on reaching about 300 feet westward, seams of water were struck, of so threatening a nature that a powerful Cornish pump was erected, at a cost reaching, in all its details, $80,000, and now, May, after enlarging the diameter of the former plunger pump, prudence suggests the temporary delay of any further disturbance of this water inlet (immediately under the divide of the mountain), until the present pumping force has sufficiently drained the sources of water supply to permit a further advance of this (the western) heading of the Central Shaft to be driven without involving a flooding out of the men working at the eastern heading. Meanwhile, from the sump, the excavations are enlarged to full tunnel size, the capacity of the Cornish and plunger pumps are being tested, and all energy summoned to meet any difficulties to be overcome when this western heading of the Central Shaft shall resume work. All the rock here has to be moved from the heading by hand power, and lifted (by steam power) 1,000 feet to the surface, yet, notwithstanding these adverse circumstances, during March, 100 feet was driven to the eastward alone. I append a memorandum furnished by Mr. E. A. Bond, of actual drilling and blasting, taken at this point during the dates given, being about the average performance.

On August 19th, 1871, on the north side of the east heading, machine No. 1, starting at 10 a. m., had at 2.08 p. m. drilled three holes, averaging about five feet four inches; the time actually occupied in drilling being 74 minutes, or an average of about 25 minutes to each hole. The remaining 2 hours and 54 minutes are accounted for by changes of drills, breaking of carriage, and an interval of 40 minutes for dinner. On the south side, machine No. 2, starting at 9.35 a. m., had at 2.09 p. m. drilled three holes, averaging about six feet four inches; the time actually occupied in drilling being 81 minutes, or an average of 27 minutes to each hole. The remaining 3 hours and 13 minutes are accounted for in a similar manner to the time of machine No. 1, except that there was no accident to the carriage. The average time of the two machines was about 26 minutes for the average depth of about five feet ten inches, being two inches and seven-tenths per minute. It will be seen by these facts that the actual drilling is but a comparatively small part of the work; bringing forward the machines, connecting to the air main, inserting the drills into the jaws of the machine piston, changing these drills as they wear down, oiling, releasing drill when stuck, removing back the machine carriage out of reach of the blasted rock, waiting for blaster to charge the holes, connect his wires, and apply the electric current to fire the exploders, removing the debris to clear the track for the approach of the drills—all these operations, so varied and yet so necessary, each consume a considerable quota of the eight hours allotted to each shift.

On August 30, 1871, a blast was made in the east heading at 5.30 p. m., as follows: fourteen 7 foot holes were fired with 25 lbs. of Nitro-Glycerin, throwing out about 30 tons of loose rock; and one solid rock, diameter 9 × 4½ × 4 feet, and weighing about 24,000 lbs., a distance of 30 feet, a weighty testimonial to the explosive power of Nitro-Glycerin.

The expense incurred and difficulties met with, in working at the Central Shaft, will serve as a hint to contractors to make all due allowance in their estimates for striking a seam of water; work may go on smoothly for a long time; the general geological formation of hill or mountain may be well understood, and yet the contractor cannot tell but that he may strike a vein of quartz that may throw him back days and weeks in his drilling calculations, or a seam of water which will cost him thousands of dollars in machinery and labor to keep it under.

On December 7, 1870, the hoisting machinery broke at the Central Shaft, and then the following measurements of water were made. On December 3, the depth was 3 feet; December 13, 7 feet; December 15, 8½ feet; December 20, 21 1/6 feet; and December 24, 48½ feet. At midnight they commenced bailing with two buckets, one having a capacity of 341 gallons or 54.65 cubic feet, and the other 189½ gallons or 31.36 cubic feet. The large bucket was hoisted 1,075 times, bailing 58,745.3 cubic feet of water, and the small bucket 966 times, with 29,327.8 cubic feet of water, the whole amount being 549,179.0 gallons in 27 days, or 21,080.0 gallons per day.

The following anecdote is worth relating, as showing the wonderful escapes men sometimes have, when the chances are one hundred thousand to one against their lives:

In February, 1872, Thomas Hawkins felt tired and sleepy, and concluded to lie down in the east heading of the Central Shaft, about 30 feet distant from where the blaster was charging sixteen holes with Nitro-Glycerin, intending to retire when the holes were charged. But he failed, as we many of us do, to carry out his intention. When the blaster had charged his holes, he left the heading, connected his wires, and having halloed the usual warning “Fire,” and every thing being quiet, discharged his blast. Thomas Hawkins was awakened by the report of the blast, scattering 30 or 40 tons of rock, and annoyed to find his foot bruised, he limped out to meet the miners returning to their work, who now, when a blast is about to take place, unceasingly ask him where he proposes to take up his position, that they may choose an equally safe place.

An escape, as wonderful, at the West Shaft, is worthy of being recorded. On August 3, 1868, as Richard Dunn was advancing to the heading, with a can about a quarter filled with Nitro-Glycerin, his foot slipped, and, in trying to avoid falling, he swung the can over his head, striking the drilling machine frame, and fell prostrate, still holding the can; a rush of air was heard, and the can was found as shown in the photograph, page 66, the Nitro-Glycerin not having exploded. The man got up a great deal more unconcerned than those at work near him, and quietly went forward and filled his cartridges as if nothing had happened. As I told him afterwards, he will never be so near eternity again without actually reaching it. The can had been filled at a temperature of 45°F, and the temperature of the room where it had been stored for 36 hours, was about 65°, thus causing an expansion both of the Nitro-Glycerin and the air contained in the can.

The West End of the Tunnel comprises the brick arch and portal, well No. 4, the supplementary shaft, and what is known as the West Shaft. The brick arch has been driven through what is aptly termed, “demoralized rock,” for immediately after the spring thaw it becomes a quicksand, and spews into the tunnel from every direction. By driving small adits on each side, and a central adit some distance ahead of the main tunnel, Mr. B. H. Farren overcame this dangerous and difficult work, which at one time threatened his contract, and thus enabled the arch work to be carried on. Subsequently, the central adit was carried through to the West Shaft, and thus the costly and difficult task of lifting 420 gallons of water per minute, to a height of 320 feet, was avoided, and it now escapes by natural flow through the west portal. Drilling is practised here as described for the East End and Central Shaft; in the East End the heading is driven on grade, and the overhanging enlargement is “stoped” out by hand drilling worked from an arched stage, (see plate opposite page 85) thus avoiding the necessity of handling twice; mules draw the laden trucks, from the heading and beyond where this stopeing out of the roof is going on, to the locomotive, which hauls a train of cars laden with stone to the dump.

At the West End, however, the roof of the heading is driven in line with the roof of the tunnel, which is hereby left complete as the heading progresses; this involves trucking by hand, and dumping the rock from the heading over the bench to the lower level, see plate opposite page 90, and is not found so economical as the East End method. These differing methods of working, however, were not started simply as experiments, but for good engineering reasons; at the East End, the dump was ample below the grade of the outlet, whereas, at the West End there was no opportunity to get out at the portal, on the line of the intended railroad; all the rock here had to be lifted (until the portal and arched work were completed) up and out of the West Shaft, and dumped on to the mountain side, and, to avoid being impeded by water, the heading was driven on a level higher than the grade of the Tunnel, thus ensuring good drainage for the most important part of the work, as it was then deemed, viz.: monthly linear advance. For the Commissioners were servants of the public, and the advance, rather than the enlargement of the Tunnel, was the measure of their success so far as public opinion was concerned.

Only by a personal visit to this enormous work can a correct idea be obtained of the expense, ingenuity, engineering skill, and indomitable energy of the several foremen and superintendents at the four divisions, viz.: East End, under Mr. Blue; at the Central Shaft, under Mr. Roskrow; at the West Shaft, Mr. Williams, with underground superintendent, Mr. White; and at the West Portal or arch work, the sub-contractors, Messrs. Hocking and Holbrook; all of whom are daily devising more expeditious methods of detail, in compassing the great end sought by each brigade, the completion of the Hoosac Tunnel contract at the time specified.

And whilst this energy, this organization, and all this development of the highest grade of modern engineering, are being devoted to carrying out the expressed wish of the majority of the people of Massachusetts, the malcontent minority is sleepless in offering every possible obstruction to the work; in Governor’s council, in consulting engineering supervision, in committee of assembly, in the newspaper press, covert expression of the opposition has found vent, and been doubtless useful in its way. But is it not time this opposition should cease? Must our citizens be for ever confined to one route from their Capitol to the West? Surely there will be traffic enough and ample, to remunerate both lines, when the Hoosac Tunnel route is open. If so, the time is approaching for a generous welcome from the opponents of the Hoosac Tunnel, and the conditions “at owner’s risk and at corporation’s convenience” may cease to appear on our freight notes.

---