The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1878-07-31
MINNEAPOLIS EXPLOSION


The Question NO,c Is. H0.c Much of 1T Wns
Destroyed IN Fire and Ho,c Much b.,
+ EnptOstOH:--1n1 the Insurance Men
Seem to Think that Upon the Decision
Of IT Depends the Settlen. emit WhiIe Nr.
Vaslsb,tsM Holds that 1T Makes No Zjf-
4 ference, the Face of the Policies Must
DC P0id--A,i6 He absolutely and Post
tirety Declines to Contpronise.
[Chicago Times, July %.
The readers of the Times will remember
that it was predicted at the time of the great
explosions among the Touring mills at Min
neapolis that it would be delicate question
to determine as TO the liability of the in
surance companies for the damage done, in
asmuch as it was admitted that most of the
destruction was caused by the second ex-
plosion, which began in "Washburn mill A, y
and was followed in quick succession in that
and other mills in the immediate vicinity.
The coroner's inquest, which has been re-
ported in full, threw very little additional
light on the question which harassed the
minds of the owners and adjusters, and
most of them have been diligently wrestling
ever since with the question of where the
damage by explosion ceased, and when and
where that by fire began, as we'll as the extent
of both. It was claimed that by taking the
whole damage and deducting therefrom that
which was caused by the explosions, the re-
suit would be what the companies were liable
for. The owners, however, from the begin
ming figured from different basis for OBJ
vlous reasons. They insist that the explo-
sions were caused by fire, and hence the
companies are liable for the whole damage
done to the extent of the amount of their
policies. Many conferences and much cor
respondence have been had, and still the re-
suit is
FAR FROM SATISFACTORY TO EITHER PARTY.
The majority of the companies insist upon
recognition of the fact that some damage was
done by explosion, and that by the terms of
the contract they are not to be held for such
damage. The insurance on "Washburn
mill A. was scattered among large number
of companies, many of them located East
and South, and not authorized by law to
write insurance in Minnesota, but as was
shown soon after the disaster, a large
amount of the insurance was placed in these
companies through broker in this city at
less rates than those who maintained agen-
cles IN that State were willing to accept.
The result was that the owners found that
they probably would have to do considerable
"hunting round'' before they would find
some of the companies, as among the number
were some that no one in Minnesota had
ever heard of before.
Meanwhile the companies were mastering
their arguments to make determined re-
sistance to the claims which the owners
were making for total losses. Recently a
committee, consisting of S. H. Southwick.
of this city; Mr.. Covington, of Cincinnati,
and Mr.. st. John, went to Minneapolis,
as the representatives of large number of
the companies, to confer with the owners of
"Washburn AZ Upon their return they re-
ported that
A COMPROMISE BAD BEEN EFFECTED,
but the following circular letter from Gov
Washburn, senior member of the firm, would
appear to dispel any hope of compromise
and abatement Of the amount of the in
surance.
The circular letter referred to will. how
ever, speak for itself. It is verbose and
goes into details, but as an indication of the
amount of labor and talk which both parties
to this controversy are bestowing upon the
question at issue, it is success.
- THE LETTER
hA1NNEAfOLlS, July -. 1o|o.-S. h. SOUTH
WICK, ESQ.,, Chicago-Dear Sir: received this
P. NJ. a letter from R. B. Carson, adjuster Of
the Royal Canadian, from which I extract the
following, viz: ':By the report of a committee
appointed by the companies represented on
your mill loss, I find that YOU estimate the
value Of the mill at the time Of fire at $685.
028.77. You also admit loss by explosion at
$lO4, 654.9O; loss by fire, $147, 373.S7." in
fer from this letter that Mr.. Carson gathered
rom your report that had made the admis-
sion that my loss by explosion before the fire
was the amount stated by him. I made no
such admission at any time, and I now propose
to recapitulate, so far as 1 can, what took place
at the different interviews I had with you, Mr..
Covington and Mr.. St. John, comprising the
committee visiting here the latter part of June,
as l am satisfied that there had been some mis-
representation by some one, which ought to
correct.
You met me by appointment at the house of
w. d. Washburn, in the afternoon of June a.
MIR. Covington stated that you had come here
as committee representing companies whose
policies held, amounting to $4,000, to see if
compromise could be effected with me. He
said that the companies represented were those
which had no agencies in the State, and few
others whose names were not given me. He
said that you were authorized to offer me 60
per cent. Of their policies. The proposition
was not entertained by me for an instant. It
We"' oe'Au ny w OIL oAoI uAlC
that they were #ss.
ONLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES DONE BY FIRE
after the explosion. That position denied
and said to you that you knew perfectly we'll
that my mill was on fire several minutes before
any explosion, and that the mill would have
unquestlonably burned up had there been no
explosion whatever. said to you that the ex-
plosion was the result of fire and the rapid
combustion of -four. DUST which every mill
contains in a greater or less degree That it's
inflammable character was we'll known to in
surance men and was one of the principal rea-
sons why insurance Touring mills was so
high. But, said I, conceding that your con-
struction of the question of your liability was
the correct one (Which always denied), assure
you that can demonstrate before anv court
and jury, if there had been no fire after the
explosion, the machinery would have been
worth more than it was insured for and /
showed why such would be the fact. The forty
run Of stones, the finest ever set up on this
continent, 1 had shown in my proofs to be
worth 81 600 per run, but which in nv sched-
ule were only set down at the cost, as it was
not necessary to put them at their actual value.
as my loss was SO much in excess of nv
insurance. .g.+
The reason why they were of such great
value stated to you. and also my belief that
they would not have been injured by the ex-
plosion. By the fire they were totally de-
stroyed. Could they have been saved from the
fire, they would have been worth $50, OOO The
other machinery, if it had been simply thrown