Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-09-30
Mr.. DAVIS ARGUES.
He Says the Disaster Trial Will
Be a Long One.
THE INDICTMENT ATTACKED,
The Defense Claims 1t is Not Spe.
cific or Well Drawn.
LONG ARGUMENTS PROMISED

The argument before Judge McComas on
the demurrer filed by the defendants in the
Ford's Theater disaster indictments was
continued this morning. Resuming his argu-
ment, Mr.. Davis explained that yesterday
he had endeavored to show that not only
had the four defendants been misjoined,
but also that neither of the two indict-
ments set out the required performance of
an official or legal duty by any one of the
defendants. He then stated that the case
at bar was one in which the alleged GRIM
inai act was not in itself unlawful, but was
supposed to be made SO by its peculiar cir
cumstances and relations, a case in which
an actually guilty intent was wholly want
ing. the supposed intent being supplied by
law. Therefore. the nature. character and
extent of the alleged negligence supposed
to connect the defendants with the death
of Lotus must be fully and plainly. SUBJ
Stantially and formally described in the in
dictments. If that was not done the law,
through the court, could not supply the in
tent necessary to constitute the offense
And further, said Mr.. Davis, without such
description the accused could not traverse
the charge, or prove or diSprove any fact
or facts essential to be proved or disproved
to snow either the non-eXistence of an
offense. or their or any Of their innocence
of 1t.
Again examining the paragraphs of the
Indictment, Mr.. Davis stated that the first
one merely alleged that Col. Ainsworth had
charge and control of the building which
fell, but 1t utterly failed to charge any duty
OF his in connection with il. And more than
that, not even the character of his charge
ana control was stated. Hence, 1t could
only be inferred that Col. Ainsworth had
charge and control of the building as a
working place for his office and for no other
purpose. The next paragraph, stated Mr.
DAVIS, merely described the building and
its construction.
Referring to the allegation that the de-
PENDANTS became responsible because they
removed the earth from beneath the pier
without first relieving the pressure upon il
by snoring or In some other feasible way
Mr. Davis contended that IL snoring or
some other thing was necessary that fact
should have been set out, for in charging
man with murder, 1t would be fatal to the
indictment to allege that he killed the de-
ceased with knife, or revolver, in some
other way. Yet remarked Mr.. Davis such
an imagined allegation was not a bit Differ
ent from those In the case at bar So the
indictments, after ALL rested on the allie
cation that snoring was duty which the
defendants omitted to do. But said MIR.
DAVIS, the allegation that doing the work
without snoring was improper was arrived
at purely by implication, and it could be
transferred to the main charge only by In
tendment-an intendment upon an implica-
uon-a process more vicious than the IA
mlilar inference upon an inference
The allegation" exclaimed Mr. Davis.
that given thing is duty, unaccompan-
cumstances enabling the court to see that
IT is duty, is an allegation Of a mere con-
clusion OF law. So. granting to the pleader
everytmng that can be assumed the in
charge alleges an improper omission, but
does not allege felonious or willful omis-
sion. And that omission to allege a felo-
NOUS and willfuI intent killed the indict-
ment If nothing else did"
Long Trial.
In concluding his discussion of the second
point OF the demurrer Mr.. Davis explained
that he had required much more time than
he had first intended in discussing the first
two points. but he had no apology to make
ior DONG SO. for, he added significantly
II this case ever comes to a trial 1t will be
long one, and one very expensive to both
Sides Then, after contrasting the BUD
densieck Indictment people agt. Budden-
sleek, luz, NY, 4SO with the ones in the
present case. as illustrating how an indict-
ment In similar case should be drawn
Mr. Davis proceeded to discuss the third
point of the demurrer viz: That the said
Indictment upon its face charges upon the
defendants an illegal measure of care and
diligence in the premises
Inc law, said Mr.. Davis. did not require
any one to do an unreasonable thing for
the inquiry: Was 1t reasonab ?" was the
one great tombstone OF all human law
Yet. the defendants were sought to be
charged with the most unreasonable OF
things. TO do and cause to be done and to
require to be done everything in their power
and to use and exercise every care and pre-
caution in their power. necessary to make
the performance OF the work safe and
secure and free from danger to the lives of
the persons in the said building"
Such charge urged Mr.. Davis was no,
one OF gross negligence, nor even of want
or reasonable care, but a charge OF slipbr
negligence. and that did not amount 20 the
onense alleged against the defendants.
Without concluding his argument Mr.
Davis gave way for a recess from 1 O'Clock
AZ ~-~>N~