Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1890-12-01
ABSOLUTELY PURE

that the bridge did not fall under
the engine, or from the weight Of
the tnain. One law Of motion, .
law as inexorable rs the law of grav-
itation, Is, that If n support give way
under load, the load will fall with
the support. 1t will never fall away
from 1t. In the case uf the I.abish
wreck, If the wreck occurred as you
and the railruad commission claim
that 1t did, the bridge would have
fallen forward, In the direction of the
motion of the moving Train. This
would have been absolutely neces-
sary unless one side of the trestle
had given way frat, when the bridge
would have fallen diagonaliy to that
side, and the engine necessarily
have followed it. /, could not have
gone any other way. But this law,
inexorsble rs it is, bellies your the
ory, and corroborxtes Mr. koehler's
theory; for the trestle fell west and
the engine went east. One otter
fact is, that the engine, when 1t left
the trestle. was still on the erect
trestle, and ran Of the bridge with
An eastward motion. Now I offer
the following question which defy
the JOURNAL and the railroad cunl-
mission to harmonic with your
theory: Whence came the east ward
momentum of the engine when it
left the BRIDGE The momentum
of the moving engine alone wAs
about S,75O,OO foot pounds; and
when it left the track, its eastward
momentum was about 625, 900 foot
pounds. But when il left the west
nail it jumped about seven inches to
the east before II struck the uext tie.
This force was more than enough to
wreck the trestle to the west. There
can be but one explanation to these
facts, and that is that the engine
met with some obstruction which
threw it to the east. If that were
not so there is no law known to man
thst would have prevented the en-
sine from falling to the west with
the bridge. No amount of testi
mony can balance these unchanga
ble laws of God himself.
But further, sir; you rely upor
the rotlenness of the bridge for 9
foundation for your theory to res
upon. And rotten foundation 1t |,
to. Tell me then, why did not at
least one rotten timber give way
where it was decayed? WheI
tin,bers give way under too great 4
strain because Of rottenness, they
break in the rotten places. But no
a single timber IN the Labist
trestle gave way where it was rotten
Candihly, / cannot see singl,
diffsrentiating or pivotal fact abOu
that wreck that will corroborat,
your theory. Every principle seem'
to me to be against it.
Mr.. Colvig says that he saw NJ
marks of violence ON the rail il
question; that the holes in the end
Of the rail showed none. / agre,
with him. But did he not know
that in the end of one rail wher,
three bolts were broken, the raj
itself showed no more violence thar
the rail in question, 30 far as thu
holes in the ends were concerned
The breaking of soft iron bolts il
the ends of hard steel rails makes d,
impression upon the rail. Does no
Mr.. Colvig know that?
Now, Mr.. Editor, / make thes'
statements because Of the maliciOu
thrusts, and charges of almos
criminal dishonesty, which yo'
make against MIR. KOehler, and con
tinue to repeat almost daily. Their
are plenty Of men, just as intelligen
and just as honest ss the JOURNAL
force, or any of the uien who agre'
with them, who are positive tina
the I.abish wreck was caused by al
Obst ruction on the track; and VIII,
know positively that no other theor.
will explain all the facts. and VIII
further know that the obstruction
theory will.
| Hoping that these base and ma
licious charges will no longer ma
your usually clean columns.
I am yours truly,
s. A. STARR.
SALEM, Or, Nov. 2s, 1890.