Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-01
The Defence.

The opening of the case for the defence
was by Frank L. Dutton, who said in
part: v
1T has been related to you by the
county attorney and the various wit
nesses for the State that on Oct. ? last
there was a railroad accident at Benton
in this courty. Unfortunately in that ac-
cident several. persons were injured and
Frank f. Belenger was killed. Much in
terest in the matter was taken by the
public at the tine. You and l, gentlemen.
and the public in general are always in
teresteG when human life is sacrificed
The public always manifests an unusual
interest when person Is killed in rail-
road accident. They want to tnor' I'D
have right to know, by whose fault,
if any body's. the accident Was ca.,-u
This Is so important that our Legislature
has enacted a statute authorizing the in
vestigatioH of such accidents. They have
clothed the railroad commissioners with
fun authority to do this. 1t is the in
tcntion of the statute that the investiga-
ton shall be full and searching inquiry
as to all the facts pertaining to the
cause OF the accident and to place the
blame if possible. No man, however nigh
in authority. should be shielded and no
cmploye of the road or other person
should be unJustly blamed.
Cur position is that had there been be-
fore the railroad commissioners on Oct
Is a full and complete investigation OF all
the facts these two respondents would
not have been before you for trial today,
charged with manslaughter, one of the
most serious crimes known to our laws
Such an inquiry as we claim ought to
have been made would have not only
fully indicated these gentlemen here on
trial before you, but would have placed
the blame where 1t belonged, on William
H. Porter. who was then and there act
ing as train dispatcher, clothed with oil
the powers of the company itself, so far
as this train and the traffic east Of Wa
terville was concerned This man Porter
Is beyond the jurisdiction of this court,
ns you have been told by Mr.. Priest, who
said he was either In Boston or New
York.
These respondents have never had any
thing to conceal in regard to the acct
dent. They were witnesses at the hear
ing before the railroad commissioners.
and Notwithstanding the fact that they
Ntit "dIJeQ ana klle" tlistl lHey WIRE
not Obliged to give evidence. which might
be used against them, they unbosorned
| themselves and in answer to questions
| by the attorney for the Maine Central
Railroad disclosed in detail everything
they knew about the accident.
Now from the evidence adduced there,
| with the apparent purpose of shielding
their train dispatcher and blaming the
conductor and engineer. these men have
been indicted and brought before you
/ for trial. 1t is our purpose here to shed
light rather than to conceal it.
The charge here, gentlemen, is that of
manslaughter which is the unlawful kill
ing of a human being in the heat of pas
sion on sudden provocation without ex
pressed or implied malice aforelhought.
or the committing Of manslaughter as
defined by the comomn law.
No excitement, passion or provocation
is alleged in this indictment. convic-
ton based upon it must rest wholly upon
the proof of gross, culpable and criminal
negligence in the performa nee of a duty
which these respondents had that day in
reference to this train and the train
which they We're running against No
mere omission of duty by reason of in.
attention or forgetfuiness would be snf-
ficient.
But our position is that these respond