The record-union., 1895-08-21

s
as to any matter whatever of q restraining
character; there could not have been, in
deed, any compunction of conscience as
to duty undone. In fact, the commonest,
simplest impulse of anyone who is clean
miuded and honest, on hearing of the
disappearance of school girl we'll known
to him or her on day certain. would be.
if it were fact, to exclaim to all the world,
"Why, on that day, after school dis
missal, I saw that girl enter a certain
building opposite to my dwelling" 1t
would have been the most natural thing
in the world to have done.
More than that, after the finding of the
body of murdered and mutilated Minnie
Williams in the lower part Of that church
directly opposite to Mrs. Leaks window.
it should have been the most natural and
impulsive thing in the world for her to
have said then, and before the arrest of
Durrant was thought OF, "Why, l
saw Blanche Lamont enter the church
ten days ago, and she is still missing"
We say now that Mrs. Leaks testimony.
if not broken down, is quite sufficient.
when related to other testimony, to hang
an accused person situated as is Durrant;
but we say also that Mrs. Leaks silence
for long time prior to any thought of
Durrant as defendant is explicable, un-
natural, unreasonable and not to be ac-
counted fer upon any rational lines. 1t
is very strange case, and the more in
wolves a monstrous crime that has shocked
the people of the entire State.
We do not find it possible, by employ
ment OF all cunning Of ingenuity. to find
for Mrs. Leak any sober, rational and
natural explanation of her absolute
silence at time when five words by her
| would have resulted IN finding the body
of Blanche Lamont week before it was
discovered.
THE destruction of the Gumry Hotel
at Denver the other day was due to
8 terrible explosion; the hot water boilers
were suddenly fed with cold water and
| blew out, destroying the walls Of the
| building at the rear; a fire followed and
| the consequent loss of life was great,
while still more people were cruelty
wounded. 1t is stated that the engineer
who is responsible for the fearful tragedy
is boy of II who was drunk when he
went on duty; the night clerk says that
this fellow was very frequently intoxi-
Gated and often neglected his work, and
on the night IN question. was stupidity
drunk The police are searching for the
boy. But if be is taken, what then?
That he is guilty of manslaughter goes
without saying. But who is guilty of
murder in this case? The question an
swers itself, the proprietors of the hotel
who employed boy of IL as engineer, a
boy known to be a drunkard, and who
commonly neglected his duty. Not
legally are these men guilty Of murder,
but morally and in the eyes of all people
who are sensible and can trace from ef-
fect to cause. It is lamentable that in all
such cases the people have no other than
civil remedy against the really guilty
| those of the greater guilt. But if there is
no means of reaching these offenders
criminally 1t is the fault Of the people
who can place laws upon the statute
| books to meet such cases. Probably the
boy worked cheaply because he was a
boy; probably he was cheap also to the
employers. because he was q drunkard,
fact they must have known. If the
proprietors of the hotel can be held for
criminal negligence, and hence guilty of
manslanghter they should be taken into
custody. The landlord who places the
lives of his guests at such risk as was
done in the Denver case, himself takes
criminal chances. That they are not
| broad enough to make him guilty Of
murder is a reproach to civilization.
While it is true that murder must be
based on malice, intent or passion, still
| in cases where those having human lives
in charge. employ incompetent and
| drunken men to serve them in capacities
that involve the life and limb of another,
ought to be held as responsible as the fell
| lows who kill for gain, hatred or in the
! heat OF passion.
I-r said that when aVarYthinQ ia