Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1877-03-23

First. No person can rightfully be held
responsible for not having done that
which was beyond his power at the time to
do.
Second. No person can rightfully be
held responsible for not using means in the
performance of an unexpected duty, Of
which means he had at the time no knowl-
edge. provided this lack of knowledge is
not in consequence of negligence on the
part of such person.
now offer the proof as promised:
II is a fact, and was in evidence before
the jury in the testimony OF George Culley,
captain of hose in the Ashtabuia hre de-
partment. that the distance from the
wreck to the two fire department cisterns
in the vicinity of the accident, is to the
nearest cistern, 1900 feet; to the other
eistern 1,575 feet. This evidence Is not
contradicted.
1t is fact. and was in evidence before
| the jury, that there was not, at the time OF
| the accident. any more than 500 feet of
hose with ''Lake Erie" engine. There is
disagreement in the evidence as to the
number of feet. Knapp testiies that ''last
| fall. the last time he noticed, there was
500 feet;" while Tinley testified that at the
time of the accident there was only 200
\ feet. In that part of the finding in which
| the iury charge responsibility for q failure
to use "IIake Erie" engine, the material
( facts in reference to distance and number
of feet of hose are suppressed and dlsre-
| garded. Before finding those men who hrst
| arrived responsible for failure to use this
means to put out the fire, l submit, they
| should have first found at least zoo feet
more hose at their command.
There was no evidence before the jury
! that this engine could have been used, pro
vided there had been hose enough: except
at one of the cisterns above referred TO. 1t
may be presumed by some persons that it
| could have been taken down that steep,
| high embankment and used at the creek,
| but there was no evidence to show why this
was not done, nor whether it could have
been done, while the following evidence of
Knapp raises a contrary presumption. He
| testifes that he ordered Protection" en-
gine taken down on the flats. He says at
the time of giving this order there were
| one hundred or more citizens present. But
Protection" engine was not taken down
OH the flats. 1t is fact, and quite gener-
alIy known by the citizens of Ashtabula,
| and also known to at least five of the six
jurors, that Protection" engine is a'much
smaller and lighter engine than Lake
Erie" It was in evidence that Lake Erie"
is large and heavy. The verdict of the jury
attaches no blame or responsibility upon
any member of the fire department, except
| Chief Engineer Knapp, and upon none Of
the citizens except "those first arriving. "
Query: If these hundred men, citizens and
| firemen 10y the eyidenee) escape blame at
the hands OF the jury for not taking a
small, light engine down on the flats, up
on the order of the chief Of the fire depart
ment. how can blame be rightfully placed
upon those first to arrive, say twenty men,
for not taking, without orders, large,
heavy engine down the same place!
Although this is outside the direct evil
depce in reference to using Lake Erie"
engine, and anticipating what may not
have been presumed or intended by the
iury at the time of rendering their verdict,
still. since it has been suggested. after the
use of the engine at the eisterDs was found
TO have been impossible, that 1t could have
been taken down on the flats, and this sug-
gestion traced to juror, have made this
depression in order to leave nothing on this
point unanswered.
/ will now proceed in the IulhLment OF
my promise to show further that the ind
ing under consideration is from premises
not proven but falsely assumed. The first
falsely assumed premise is that some one
was responsible for not putting out the
fire when it first made its appearance IN
the wreck. This proposition may or may
not be true. 1t is not true if it was beyond
the power of those first arriving to do so,
or if they were doing all in their power to
save life in other ways, or If there were nc
adequate means to accomplish 1t, or even
if there were means, provided these persons
had no knowledge OF them. This PROPOSE
ton is not only not proven, but IS contra
dieted by the facts and evidence, as will
appear directly. The other premise moi
nroyen but falsely assumed is embraced IL
the following proposition: Ihose persons
first arriving at the scene of the disaster
had knowledge that the hose IN LAKE
Erie" engine house could be attached tt
the steam pump in the pumping house
This proposition is not proven by the evil
dence. 1t is not only not proven, but pos
itively denied in evidence before the Jurl
by every witness called from among thos'
first arriving. There is not one word O.
evidence. either direct, circumstanuaI O.
presumptive, that any Of the persons hrs
arriving except one, had any knowledg
whatever of the existence in the pumping
house of d fire plug, and that this one hat
knowledge that the hose with Lake Erie
engine could be attached to 1t, Is not prov
en-. but denied by him, and his denial
supported by other circumstances. HoN
then could these men be expected to know
that hose could be attached to plug, o
! which plug they had no knowledge, and !
: they had no knowledge of it, how does re
sponsibility attach to them for not uslnl
it?
There was no evidence before the jur
, that this lack of knowledge on the part 0
r those first arriving, of the fire plug IN tn
= pumping house, or that the hose OF LAX
,, Erie" engine could be attached to it, Is du
to any negligence on their part. On tn
, contrary, the general and particular fact
{ bearing on this matter, as brought to tn
! notice of the Jury in the evidence, all sho'
that it was never expected that fire equip
ments would be needed at that iron bridge
I According to the evidence this t1re plug, Q
valve, as some of the witnesses call II, wa
: put in for basin or fountain, and was un
, der the floor of the pumping house. FroI
: the fact that it was put in for this purpos'
e designed for no other purpose, and place
under the floor. | maintain, in absence
V evidence TO the contrary, that members G
o Lake Erie fire company, much less othe
J, citizens, could not be expected, as a matte
n of duty, to know Of it.
S Having thus briefly brought to view sue
+ of the material facts contained IN the eV
V denee as relate to that part OF the jury
: finding under consideration, ask that j
s ry, as men of reason. with these facts D
n fore them, with oaths binding them, {
what principle of reasoning, and by wht
n principle entering into moral responslolll
$ ty, were you gu ided when you found tn'
e those men, who, as you affirm, had lost a
Z presence of mind, were responsible Tor Il
,e loss of human life, by their failure to u
h means for its preservation, one OF VINO
d means was inadequate, and the other nj
r known to them?
But again, if these men had lost all pre-
st enee of mind, and this not from any fau
1t of their own, then to find them responslb
a for not using certain means, is shocking
-e absurd.
If These men, however, did not lose q
their presence of mind. An examinstlC
lie of the evidence shows this element OF Il
re finding false like the rest. Take this ge
~ eral fact-more than One-haf OF those WI
h went down with that train into the vall'
er are living to-day. Although several
~ them were but littleinjured, and they mel
as ed other passengers to escape, Whlle hlal
ne of the injured helped themselves, 81
ne twice as many as signed this verdict we
r. taken from the wreck by those hrst 10 q
f. rive. and the manner in which some
an them were rescued from their perilous P
1g Sition was in evidence before this jur