The Anaconda standard., 1895-12-22
Butte Department.

ing, passed through the foot Of the bed
and cut a hole in the carpet
w. G. Schatzlein was on the scene of
the explosion after the first and before
the second explosion and saw num-
ber of rabble heads lying within what
has been designated the fatal trian-
gle' which was formed by some large
iron pipes.
NJ b. Tracey was standing on the fiat
north OF the warehouse when the first
explosion occurred and was struck on
the stomach with a piece OF iron which
left an imprint on his body the exact
size of a rabble head.
Charles Little, court stenographer,
who took the testimony at the coroner's
inquest, was called by the defense to
testify to certain statements made by
Mrs. Leetham before the coroner.
That closed the testimony in the case
and the court limited the arguments to
two hours on each side.
j. A. Shelton opened the arguments
for the plaintiff and told the jury that
the only question to be decided was
whether or not the first explosion oc-
CURED in the Kenyon Connell building.
Not a word of testimony was intro
duced by the defense to deny the testi-
mony of w. E. Hall that there were
TWO anu II NAH tOnS VI DoWQCi Al ZIG
defendants warehouse at the time OF
the explosion. They confined their tes-
timony to showing that certain mate
rial-coils OF wire, wheel barrows. SHOW
els and pipe-was kept only by the
Butte Hardware company and was
thrown out by the first explosion,
drawing the inference that the first ex-
plosion came from the Butte Hardware
building. Mr.. Shelton then reviewed
the testimony OF the defense and point
ed out the improbabilities and incon-
sistencies of that theory.
Mr.. Shelton consumed an hour of the
time allowed the plaintiff for argu-
ment.
]. L. Wines made the first address in
behalf of the defense and said 1t was
almost impossible to tell from the tes-
timony of eye witnesses whether the
fire originated I'm one warehouse or the
other, owing to the excitement and con-
fusion at the time. but there were some
circumstances which are silent and un-
disputed facts, and the plaintiff dared
not deny them. that go to prove that
the first explosion occurred In the
Butte Hardware building. This Is
borne out by the plaintiffs own wit
nesses. The first witness put on the
stand, Mr.. Baker, testified that he
went on the ground the next morning
after the explosion and found coils of
wire, of which the Kenyon-Connell
company did not carry a pound in
stock, and on top of them were heavy
bars of iron such as the Kenyon-Con-
nell company did carry and the Butte
Hardware did not, showing that the
coils of wire were thrown out by the
first explosion and the bars of iron
were thrown out on top of the wire by
the second explosion. Mr.. Riley, one
of the plaintiffs witnesses. who was so
60. 10 20. ofnft fHA nf q
| leg by the explosion, testified that he
was struck by one of the large bars of
iron after the second explosion. There
was not a word of evidence In the
| whole case to prove that the Butte
Hardware company did not also carry
rabble heads, and there is therefore
| nothing in the evidence that rabble
heads were thrown out that is at all
inconsistent with the theory of the de-
| fense. The fact that rabble heads were
| thrown out on the second explosion is
entirely immaterial. There are certain
silent and incontrovertible facts that
| go to prove the theory of the defense
that the first explosion, which caused
| the death of Albert E. Goddard, the
deceased in this case. came from the
Butte Hardware Company warehouse
The evidence that certain pipe, coils OF
wire and other material came from the
| first explosion and that the Butte
| Hardware company alone carried that
class of material has gone entirely un-
| disputed.
John F. Forbis made the last argu-
ment for the defense and said the wit
nesses could be divided into two
classes-one class that saw both explo-
sions and one class that saw but one
| explosion. He did not question the
honesty of any witness. but their reli-
| ability should be taken into consider
Il
| who testified that the first explosion
came out of the Kenyon Connell ware.
house. believed what he testified to
The reasonable theory is that all these
witnesses were looking at the fire In
the Kenyon-Connell building, not ex.
pecting an explosion and paying nc
| attention to the other building, and
ly thought IL came from the building
where the fire was and which they
were watching, but when the facts
| were presented II became evident thai
these witnesses saw IL wrong and were
mistaken. Fire is not the only thinf
that sets off fire and IL is not contendec
that fire was visible in the Butte Hard
ware building. Fire will not neces
sarily explode powder. but II may, bu
concussion will explode IL. The hottest
fire known to science will not so easily
explode powder as the conclusion from
hammer In a mans hand. The Butt,
Hardware company was the company
that killed these men on the night o.
the fifteenth of January. but how tn,
explosion occurred IL Is not for the de
fense to say; that II did occur is sum
cient. A concussion took place and al
explosion followed and carried deati
and devastation before II and wrecked
not only the Butte Hardware com
pany's building but the warehouse o
the Kenyon Connell company.
Mr.. Forbis said II had been shown a
clearly as testimony could show II tha
the iron pipes and the coils of wir
came from the Butte Hardware ware
house and that they We're found on tn
ground after the first explosion. 1t
an admitted fact that the second ex
plosion came out of the Kenyon-Con