The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-24
TO BLAME
tcontinued from First Page.)

(Continued from First Page.)
 testify to any such fact, On the con trary, the testimony of the railroad au- thorities is that this was practically new set of ties, which have been down there only couple of months, If you believe that to be true 1t seems to me this question of rotten ties may be eliminated from the case,
 Tn regard to this bridge there is a specimen tie from the bridge you can look at. Evidence seems to disclose the fact that this train, the major part of 1t went across that bridge after the train was derailed. If his was so 1t does not seem as If this bridge and the condition of the ties on the bridge cut any figure in this accident as the cause of accident; the cause must have oc- cured previous to arriving at the bridge, 1t seems to if you believe the rest of the evidence. And in regard to the ties if it Is true that some one of the motors and two or three of these INtN 'tls Ntnl dalbss illiSt lltS MlNllr out breaking them and were not brok- en to pieces until the fourth car went across that does not look exactly like rotten ties.
 Ties Not Material.
 But be this as 1t may, if you do not find from the evidence that this bridge was the cause of the accident, the bridge ties were not very ma terial question. anyway, I am very sorry that we haven't been able to get hold of some direct and positive tes- timony as to the first cause of this spreading of the rails. What the cause was seems to be mainly a mat ter of theory now. You will have to do the best you can with the evidence you have. We can't produce any more. Whether 1t was the pressure, extraordinary pressure, of these mo- tors. or whether 1t was some brake beam or some foreign substance that dropped, the evidence does not dis close Of course, 1t is not part of your duty to find criticism and fault for the sake of finding fault unless you can suggest what the remedy Is.
 If this railroad company left un- done something they ought to have done for the safety of the public, or did something that they ought not to have done, 1t would be proper for you to specify in what particular and to designate what changes you think should be made, if any. don't know as 1t will be necessary for me to say anything further. You can retire to the jury room and consider the case and l will prepare form for you to All out, and when you have begun your deliberations if I can be of any assist ance to you, if you will let me know I will be prepared to assist you In any way can
 T have no doubt that you will rem der such u finding and verdict as Is just and fair to the public and just and fair to the railroad company. You may retire to the jury room"
 Testimony of the Day.
 When the inquest was resumed this morning. the first witness was Edward Gagel, chief engineer of this division He testified as to tie-plat- Ing at the curve, just west of where the accident occurred, and said that on all curves the ties were plated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the public utilities commis- sion of New York, and previously by the New York railroad commission. ers. He could not account for the accident on any other theory thar the spreading of the rails. He die not think the weight of the motoi cars had anything to do with the ac cident, He said the flanges of tht wheels of the motor cars were nc heavier than the nanges of the loco motive wheels. Juryman Philip w Finegan asked if the .ies on tn, curve were properly plated, and tht witness replied that they were.
 The next witness was T.. L. Hig gins, the superintendent of bridge of this division. He said the bridg, was so constructed that two moto cars or locomotives could go over t coupled together. He maintained that everything about the bridge ha, been kept up to the standard of con struction and maintenance.
 General Supt Hopson followet Mir. Higgins, and he said that he wa unable to attribute the accident {, any particular cause. He said 1 might have been caused by tn spreading of the rails or some for | al l,ut uf1,j.ah hoJ p, the track, but he could not be sur, of either of these being the cause He said that investigations of simila accidents in the past have not dis closed the cause with any degree o certainty.
 The Boyish Electrician.
 The next witness was Arthur Starr the Westinghouse electrician, who wa on the derailed motor car Hes Is boyish looking fellow, and could easi pass for a youth of twenty years II said he had two years experience a the work, and that the engineer i charge of the motor was William , Kendall. He could not say whether tn first motor car left the track on tn bridge or after if had passed it. II said the train was going at the rat of forty-fve or fifty miles an hour, an that he had noticed no unusual swayin as the Greewich station was passed
 When MT. Starr was excused, NJ Higgins said that, in view of the yer young appearance of the witness, h thought 1t would be well to explain the jury that nearly all the electrician employed by the Westinghouse con pany In this work are young men, an that Starr had nothing to do with Il running of the train, his duties beln