Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1890-12-01
PRO And Con.
Who is Right. Ksehler or the
Cemmissin {?
lLETTER FROM PROF. s. 4 STARR
Letter From one Of the Men
Who Counted the Rails In
the Labish Wreck.

ED. CAPITAL JOURNAL. Your
attacks upon Mr.. koehler and the
Oregouian, sometimes containing
base insinuations, are becoming
some " hat offensive to some Of YOUR
readers. Some Intelligent persons,
who know as much about the wreck
nj Lake Labish N the JOURNAL
force do, believe that Mr.. kOehler il
right in this controversy. In the
JOURNAL o: Nov. IS, you say, THE
Orrgonian and Supt. koehler will
lind ii rather uphill work in the
long run to main tain that q rail WAS
removed from the L.abish trestle'
basing their claim, a. they do, upon
the finding of rail alongside the
track, and the assumption thai the
engineer saw something on the
track was wrong
This statement is both unfair and
untrue. Mr.. Koehler never made
any such argument as we shall see
further along. In the same Issue
you say, 1.-THE positive testimony of
Mr.. Commissioner Colvig il that he
snd two other men measured and
counted the distance and the nils
involved in the wrecked part Of the
trestle and they found all there, and
they found no room tor the extra
rail lying by the side of the road"
Yoa then further add, "How can
Ar. koehier and the Oregonian get
over these two facts, which are not
denied by any OF the witnesses and
will not be successfully disputed by
anyone?r
Now Sir, say that the import of
the above statements have been de-
MED, and were denied before the
railroad Commission. There are a
number of men as intelligent as Mr..
Colvig, men who made as thorough
examination of the facts as did Mr..
Culvig VINO have denied the state
ment. Mr.. Colvig made the mis-
take OF measuring aud counting al
the rails from one end of the wreck
ed trestle to the other. One might
as we'll measure and count all the
rails from Portland to Eugene to de
termine the case. ] measured al
the rails in the immediate vicinity
of the gap where the rail was claim
ed TO be missing, and a number Ol
Others did the same, and we know
that q rail was missing from that
place, and that there was no otheI
rail within over sixty feet of the
place, that could answer for the mis-
sing rail, unless the one claimed by
Mr.. Koehler be the one. Ii Mr
Colvig had made his investigation
at the place where the rail was miss
ing, he too would have made the
discovery. Now / make the state
meut that neither did Mr.. Colvig
nor any other person find all the
rails required for the track, from q
point under the front trucks of the
fourth coach to a point fifty feet
South of there, unless they counted
one rail not in that part of the
wreck. Furthermore, | could mol
find q loose rail anywhere in the
wreck, except the rail in question
70 claim that the finding ot a suffic.
lent number OF rails in the entire gar
OF six hundred feet is any evidence
in the care is simply absurd. Nc
man will say that Il rail was not
missing from the East side of the
track, Immediately in front of the
fourth coach. Where was il? i,
was not within fifty feet of there
There are plenty OF men who would
testify that IL Wac gone.
Some Of the Facts upon which Mr..
koehler relies for his theory are the
following, and they are incontrover-
tible, viz: The wheels Of the engine
ran on the ties exactly where the
east rail should haze been for dis.
tance of twelve feet, while the west
wheels ran on the west rail opposite
it. This fact Ii positively substanti.
ated, and the proof Is still, In exis.
tence, and no amount OF testimony
would cOntrovert it. None will be
offered. This fact prove, beyond a
possibility Of doubt that the rail was
not n lis place when the engine
passed this point. Dare you deny
it? Iceuld ~ easily disprOve the fact
of the wrec itself as you could dis
prove he fact that tie rail was not
In its place when the engine passed
that point.
A fu. ther important fact II, that