Perth Amboy evening news., 1918-12-16

building In which there was no expio-
sive. and in regard to which there
could be no negligence, then h fact
that the building burned woul not
OF itself indicate any negligence con-
nectcd with thai bailding. Therefore,
as TO other units than that in which
the FIRE started, il seems to me that
the question for YOU to consider Is
whether they would ave been burned
irrespective OF any negligence in the
handling OF the explosives therein, and
IL not. then the gross negligence would
seem 10 be reduced TO the unit in
which IL first exploded.
so you will sec that the communi-
cation OF the fire from one 70 another
OF these units Is n question OF fact de-
pending on whether the explosion In
the other units would not have hap
pened except for any gross nesli-
scnCe in them. II YOU are not able to
md from the evidence that the fire
originated from any gross negligence
in that particular unit. then II would
seem TO me that 20 ought to inquire
whether. assuming the origin not to
have been the result OF negligence.
there was such a negligent condition
existing in the other units, without
which they would not have exploded.
II suggest that YOU ascertain wheth-
err this dangerous material was
brought there by the Gillespie Com
pany or by the government OF the
United States in the prosecution OF the
war. IL so, II can hardly be said that
the company Was responsible for the
accumulation OF the explosives, and
could not be guilty OF negligence in
that particular.
Next. whether the company had
adopted proper rules for the conduct
of the filling OF the shells, and wheth-
er those rules were made known TO
the person performing the work, ana
whether there was a non-performance
Of such rules. brought to the knowi-
edge OF the company, or that they had
existed so long as TO charge them with
notice. and hat they took no steps to
enforce q compliance with their rules.
Next. whether any Noncompliance
BY any serNan with the rules was the
cause of the explosion. for you U
remember that to indict any one for
involuntary mans'aughter. the neglt-
Eence Of the person charged must MOI
only be gross. but it must be c~hargabie
TO the party to be indicted.
II am informed that a m
of citizens of the locality or some other
committee have made an investigation
bat whether they rave reached a re-
suit am not informed, but II might
he thai you may obtain from them
The names OF necessary witnesses.
II am also Informed that the con-
gress OF The United States has made.
or is making an investigation but L
assume that the latter relates mainly
TO the conduct OF the government Of
ficials, and you can not use the EVIL
dence taken. either by the committee,
or the government, in making your IN
v~estigation for you must rely upon
- III &C., =. hE
witnesses called by you
THE witnesses called either by the
committee OF congress-. or the citizens
| committee may all be called in the fur
thcrance OF your investigation to as
certain whether the operations were
conducted with reasonable care and
! prudence according to the best knowl-
edge obtsinable for h safe handing
Of these explosives. some of which /
am informed are of very recent dis
covery.
In conclusion. although not per-
hsps necessary to say 10 this grand
jury. you should conduct he inyestl-
CATION with open minds. without pref
udice or favor for the purpose of as
certaining whether this unfortunate
explosion was the result OF gross neg
ligence in the omission TO perform Il
plain duty. and if you do so find from
the evidence before you, an Indictment
should be presented.
I'm the words OF the oath you have
taken: you shall present no n for
envy. hatred or malice; neither shall
YOU leave anyone unrepresented for
fear. favor. affection, reward, gain or
hope thereof: hut you shall present all
things truly. as they come to your
knowledge. according to the best OF
your understanding"
This defines your duty. and If the
evidence satisfies you that according